FP4 @ 200 ASA

[CMoore]

I did a search and read about the first 10 pages.
That was SOME help, but mostly it was the responders telling the OP to simply shoot FP4 at box speed..

I go to San Francisco when i want to shoot "Street Photography".......and like with any big city, you can get Lots Of shadows, or a complete lack of direct sun. That is not too big of a deal with HP5/400...but FP4/125 can leave you wanting.
Ssssooooooo.......
1. Do any of you guys Regularly put your meter on 200 with FP4.?
2. If you do, what developer are you using and for how long.?
Thank You

 

[markbarendt]

There is no direct link between the meter setting you use for the camera and the print you make with any negative film.

200 has worked fine for me in many situations. Have done this with both RolloPyro and DD-X using the times and temps for "normal" right off the instructions.

There is a bit of difference in shadow detail on the negs but that detail difference has had no effect on the prints I wanted.

YMMV

 

[chris77]

whats wrong with shooting another film? you cant expect shadow detail when there is not enough exposure.
development wont change that in general. speed enhancing developers might help a bit.
but then again, black shadows in cityscapes are beautiful too.

 

[markbarendt]

Film/EI choices vary for lots of reasons Chris.

For example the old saying of "f/8 and be there" is shorthand for a specific type of shooting and that style in part dictates the film/EI choice. I, on the other hand, am an "f/2 and be there" guy so the EI/films I choose are typically slower than the "f/8 and be there" crowd chooses.

I may shoot at EI 25 where f/8ers are using 400 and we may both be using the same shutter speed.

 

[chris77]

Film/EI choices vary for lots of reasons Chris.

For example the old saying of "f/8 and be there" is shorthand for a specific type of shooting and that style in part dictates the film/EI choice. I, on the other hand, am an "f/2 and be there" guy so the EI/films I choose are typically slower than the "f/8 and be there" crowd chooses.

I may shoot at EI 25 where f/8ers are using 400 and we may both be using the same shutter speed.

sure, mark.
i was just wondering why the op wants to push fp4 instead of using a faster film.

 

[howardpan]

I have had good experience using SPUR's SLD and its Push Master Additive. You can buy it from Fotoimpex (www.fotoimpex.de). I typically use it with HP5 at an EI of 1000-1600. Most of the times, I am able to retain details in the shadow region. It's worth trying out.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I did a search and read about the first 10 pages.
That was SOME help, but mostly it was the responders telling the OP to simply shoot FP4 at box speed..

I go to San Francisco when i want to shoot "Street Photography".......and like with any big city, you can get Lots Of shadows, or a complete lack of direct sun. That is not too big of a deal with HP5/400...but FP4/125 can leave you wanting.
Ssssooooooo.......
1. Do any of you guys Regularly put your meter on 200 with FP4.?
2. If you do, what developer are you using and for how long.?
Thank You

If you need anISO200 film, get an ISO200 film.Tmax400 will work well for your specified application.

 

[BrianShaw]

If I were you I'd bring big FP4 and HP5 and use whichever seems best for the light... at... wait for it... box speed. Why try to split the difference?

 

[markbarendt]

If I were you I'd bring big FP4 and HP5 and use whichever seems best for the light... at... wait for it... box speed. Why try to split the difference?

So, if artistically you have decidided you want to use a specific aperture and shutter speed for specific effect (specific DOF and Blur, or lack thereof), then at that point having only two EI choices (125 & 400) becomes a really severe limit to that artistic version.

Looking at EI as a variable is artistically a very fun concept. I use FP4 where I plan to need a floating range of EI from 12-200, HP5 from 50-1600.

 

[CMoore]

sure, mark.
i was just wondering why the op wants to push fp4 instead of using a faster film.

I thought i had explained it in my OP, but........I shoot a lot in San Francisco. Because of the light, or lack of light, it makes the FP4 a challenge. I was simply trying to pick up a cluck on the meter and get a "decent" shutter speed or a higher f/stop number.
If you want advice about going off road with your 2x2 pock up, it is no help if people on the 4x4 forum say, why don't you just use a 4x4, that is what they are made for.......
I am not wondering about all the other variables. Just looking for info from guys that shoot FP4 at more than 125 and how they develop it.

 

[Dali]

Diafine.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Exposing FP4+ at an EI of 200 is within the latitude of the film. Just develop normally no pushing.

 

[CMoore]

Exposing FP4+ at an EI of 200 is within the latitude of the film. Just develop normally no pushing.

10-4...Thanks

 

[Vaughn]

Ilford recommends some increase in development when rating at ASA 200...anything from 10% to 50% more depending on the developer and its dilution. I would judge that by the average scene brightness range for each roll. Perhaps no increase in development for rolls with images with both deep shadows and sun-lit areas, and increased development for rolls taken in areas without the sun-lit areas (to add a little contrast).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ilford recommends some increase in development when rating at ASA 200...anything from 10% to 50% more depending on the developer and its dilution. I would judge that by the average scene brightness range for each roll. Perhaps no increase in development for rolls with images with both deep shadows and sun-lit areas, and increased development for rolls taken in areas without the sun-lit areas (to add a little contrast).

Interesting. The conventional wisdom has always been that for exposures within the latitude of a film no adjustment in development is required or for that matter desired. Increasing development will result in increased contrast which may not be desired. Ilford seems not to agree however Kodak does for thieir films. I would suggest some testing.

 

[BrianShaw]

So, if artistically you have decidided you want to use a specific aperture and shutter speed for specific effect (specific DOF and Blur, or lack thereof), then at that point having only two EI choices (125 & 400) becomes a really severe limit to that artistic version.

Looking at EI as a variable is artistically a very fun concept. I use FP4 where I plan to need a floating range of EI from 12-200, HP5 from 50-1600.

This is worthy of further discussion; I'm interested in learning more, Mark. In this applicaton, street photography, i suspect a lot less application for such precise artistic control.

 

[Vaughn]

Interesting. The conventional wisdom has always been that for exposures within the latitude of a film no adjustment in development is required or for that matter desired. Increasing development will result in increased contrast which may not be desired. Ilford seems not to agree however Kodak does for thieir films. I would suggest some testing.

Not required, I can agree with that. Desire, I think, is best left to the individual photographer. I think the conventional wisdom is that one can get away with it; the negatives can still produce good prints. Perhaps not always optimal, but workable. Also varies with the film. TMax dev. times are the same for that one stop difference.

"Because of these films’ exposure latitude, you can underexpose by one stop and use normal processing times. Prints will show a slight loss in shadow detail." That is Kodak's take with Tri-X. So depending on one's desires for shadow detail and the range of light values in the scene, "normal" processing may or may not fit the bill. And definitely test -- tho I just tend to test by doing it. Keeping records helps me...so when something works, I can figure out what went right.

 

[markbarendt]

This is worthy of further discussion; I'm interested in learning more, Mark. In this applicaton, street photography, i suspect a lot less application for such precise artistic control.

So two thoughts:

1- For classic street work like HCB's, fairly deep DOF is a trade off against accurate focus for one. Before good fast autofocus that made great sense. It also makes sense when the background isn't distracting or is important. I'm not looking to copy cat HCB.

2- With negative film, we all typically work with a variable EI a bit from shot to shot. The proof of this is that when we are narrowing in on a final print for the wall, we adjust our enlargers base print exposure to perfect the tone placement of the main subject. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes a bit less. It's why we do test strips before printing.

The only reason we have to adjust print exposure is because we tried to shoot at say 125 but we were off by a third of a stop (or whatever) when the shutter dropped. The actual EI in the exposure formula changed and was actually 103 or 92 or 119. Our meters are typically only settable to 1/3 stop accuracy, nature doesn't care about our tool's accuracy limits.

The fix for variation in EI at the camera is a matching variation in enlarger exposure. When I shoot FP4 at 25 it takes a lot more enlarger exposure, then when its shot at 200.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I used to use FP4 exclusively as I obtained it rather cheaply in bulk form. I would shoot it from 80 ASA through to 160 ASA and developed it as though it was 125 ASA (or box speed).

This was quite good and I remember the only difference was shadow detail certainly not being as good as it could have been at 160 ASA.

Once on a camping holiday in the middle of nowhere, I came upon this photographer who went out in the morning to shoot, returning around late breakfast time and disappearing into the big box on the back of his truck to develop his film; which was FP4. I found out he was exposing it at 200 ASA and developing it accordingly. I was unaware at that time (1969) that you could successfully expose FP4 at 200 ASA and get good negatives.

I tried exposing at 200 ASA but for whatever reason things weren’t too flash. I then found out you needed to extend the development to get pretty good results; I did. My results were better, time marched on I became better, as did my negatives.

Eventually FP4 was replaced with FP4+, by then I was using a Jobo and rotary processing. I was certainly a far better technical photographer by that time and still used FP4+ for virtually all of my photography. I could and did shoot from 80 ASA through to 160 ASA on a single roll and develop normally; living with the under and over exposure by adjusting in the darkroom.

Around 1990-1991 I was at the Ilford Australia head office, which was quite large then. I got speaking to one of their technicians who normally helped with our graphic arts requirements. He informed me that while you could get and do get good and extremely usable images doing what I was doing, I would possibly be better off by exposing at 200 ASA and developing for 200 ASA. This was with the then new FP4+ film, which was why we were talking about it.

I did do that and found that I certainly got better results by exposing at 200 ASA and developing for 200 ASA. I found 1+1 gave me the best results in D76, or at least results I preferred. I used FP4+ at 200 ASA until I discovered Fuji Neopan 400, which I have used since as my standard 135 format film, I’m just starting to run out, maybe about a year of that left.

I never warmed to HP5+ although many have, so I stuck with FP4+. I did when required push it to 400 ASA and used Microphen; about the only time I have used Ilford developer. That combination is alright, but I never went gaga over it.

To be more specific for your requests. I looked up some of my processing of 135 FP4+ that I developed in 2000-2001. Where I exposed it between 80 ASA through to 160 ASA on single rolls. Jobo 1540 tank (4 rolls of film) using 500ml of developing solution, rotary developing, D76 1+1 for a diffused enlarger head, 16’15” at 20ºC.

This was my standard time for that film, tank and developer with rotary developing, which worked quite well for me.

I still use FP4+ extensively in 4x5” sheet format, it is my favourite film for that format. I have, on only a handful of times, upped that film from my standard 100 ASA to 160 ASA or 200 ASA. I see in this format, things one doesn’t see that easily in 135 format. When I have exposed FP4+ at 200 ASA and developed accordingly, or as best as I can for each single sheet of film. It is and can be really good, but the reality is, it just doesn’t cut the mustard shadow detail wise, as rating HP5+ at 200 ASA. But nonetheless, at that 200 ASA exposure, it is pretty good.

4x5” sheet film is the only place I shoot HP5+.

What you are wishing to do, should work well.

Mick.

 

[CMoore]

A lot of water going under That Bridge.
Thank You

 

[NJH]

The old Ilford FP4 datasheet gives guidance on low and high contrast processing, the high contrast regime goes as far as EI 320 in Microphen. They dropped all the normal and high contrast stuff in the latest datasheet but still give a normal range which includes EI 200.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've always found Ilford's box speed claims overly optimistic. In fact, I routinely shoot FP4 at ASA 50. Otherwise, there's quite a penalty to shadow values. When I want a fine-grain faster film, I shoot Kodak TMY400, which does work for me at box speed. But if you have a relatively low-contrast scene, shooting FP4 at 200 should be OK.

 

[Vaughn]

I use Ilford PQ Universal Developer for my FP4+ sheet film (and Ortho Plus). A nice way to boost contrast for alt photo processes requiring a bit more...all contact printing. Development dilutions and times are on their Ilford PQ Universal Developer tech sheet. I have also used Dektol (straight and 1:1) with FP4+ effectively for this. Stronger sulutions are suppose to give box speed, more dilute there is some loss. Not recommended for roll film and those wanting enlargements due to increased grain...unless one wants contrasty grainy negatives, I suppose.

 

[CMoore]

I've always found Ilford's box speed claims overly optimistic. In fact, I routinely shoot FP4 at ASA 50. Otherwise, there's quite a penalty to shadow values. When I want a fine-grain faster film, I shoot Kodak TMY400, which does work for me at box speed. But if you have a relatively low-contrast scene, shooting FP4 at 200 should be OK.

I have certainly heard similar....especial about FP4.
And.....for what i want to do with it, shooting street in San Francisco, "Contrasty" is definitely likely. Perhaps the one stop is not worth it.?....ONLY one way to find out.
Anyway, i appreciate the comment.
Just to be clear (Again).....i am not TRYING to do this. I have about 10 rolls of FP4 remaining, i like the way it looks (when i have shot it at 125) and am wanting to gain just a bit of shutter speed.
I have pretty much switched to HP5, but i am looking for a decent way to burn up the rest of my FP4. I am just a Hobbyist/Street Photographer...not a Landscape Artiste`
Thanks Again

 

[Martin Rickards]

It's strange, but when I first began developing my own film in the 60's, I always used and rated rated FP4 at 200 ASA and developed it in May & Baker's Promicrol. Some things were easier back then.