FP4 and FP4+

[cliveh]

Was there a difference between FP4 and FP4+ and HP5 and HP5+? Or was this a marketing invention to try and convince people that they have produced something new and better?

 

[Ian Grant]

The films were improved, the knock on effect of advances in the control of emulsion making, however the change wasn't as significant as say FP3 to FP4.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

The films were improved, the knock on effect of advances in the control of emulsion making, however the change wasn't as significant as say FP3 to FP4.

Ian

Improved in what way for the photographer?

 

[Oren Grad]

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/HP5+_Photopro_Winter1989-90.pdf

 

[Ian Grant]

llford reflect changes in the name something Kodak never did with Plus X, & Tri-X in 74/5 years.

Films improve, it's what we want & need.

Ian

 

[steven_e007]

Was there a difference between FP4 and FP4+ and HP5 and HP5+? Or was this a marketing invention to try and convince people that they have produced something new and better?

I wonder if the marketing ploy was actually to under sell these a little? They maybe should have called them FP5 and HP6, but perhaps used the 'plus' as a way of suggesting an upgrade rather than a new emulsion, so as not to steal the thunder of the launch of the Delta series a short time afterwards? Just me speculatin'

 

[cliveh]

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/HP5+_Photopro_Winter1989-90.pdf

Thanks for this, but if you never push or pull, I can't find anywhere in that text what the difference is to exposure/development by the photographer, or reference to FP4 and FP4+. Sorry to be pedantic but I never noticed any difference.

 

[Ian Grant]

Well if you never noticed a difference it's too late to ask over 20 years later

There's more important issues these days.

Ian

 

[cliveh]

Well if you never noticed a difference it's too late to ask over 20 years later

There's more important issues these days.

Ian

Sorry I asked.

 

[grobbit]

I am shooting both FP4 and FP4+ regularly and I can't tell the difference to be honest.

 

[StoneNYC]

llford reflect changes in the name something Kodak never did with Plus X, & Tri-X in 74/5 years.

Films improve, it's what we want & need.

Ian

I hope they come out with PanF2 soon, that latent image failure issue bugs me, but PanF+ is my favorite film.


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I hope they come out with PanF2 soon, that latent image failure issue bugs me, but PanF+ is my favorite film.


~Stone

I was told by an Ilford rep that the main difference between the Plus and pre-Plus films is greater latent image stability. I hope that helps Clive with his question.

 

[StoneNYC]

I was told by an Ilford rep that the main difference between the Plus and pre-Plus films is greater latent image stability. I hope that helps Clive with his question.

I know that's true with PanF+ but not with the others. I'm not saying you're wrong at all, I just specifically remember the conversation about a guy with PanF+ that was left on his desk for a year before processing. Simon recommended not waiting longer than 3 months. Even with PanFPLUS


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ian Grant]

Well the PDF that's been linked to earlier in the thread has this comment about HP5+:

The benefits of the new film, according to the maker, are a greater degree of compatibility with Ilfotec or HC-110, finer grain, higher sharpness and better tonal range.

From what I remember it was much the same for FP4+.

Ian

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

HP5 Plus is my firm favourite B&W film in all formats. I sometimes use FP4 Plus in 35mm, but I only use HP5 Plus in 120 rolls.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

A bit late to this but anyway....

The PLUS + emulsions were the vanguard of the new emulsions made in what was then the new fully automated emulsion making plant built here at Mobberley called EP2.

Real benefits and improvements were made to the actual emulsions and their performance. In addition, and to this day, the quality of emulsion manufacture and batch to batch consistency remains industry leading.

We don't 'DO' marketing 'TRICKS' our brand is trusted and respected for a reason, the addition of the PLUS was to designate improvements to the existing FP4 / HP5 and PAN F emulsions at the time, and to ensure our customers knew the films had changed, it was NOT a new 'design' emulsion therefore it could not be designated as FP5 or HP6.

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Toffle]

Thank you, Simon. Very clear and concise.

 

[Dan Henderson]

I suppose if those upgrades had been made in the last few years the would have been called FP4.1 and HP5.1.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have some HP3 from 1963. What's the difference from this to HP5+?

(I'm kidding)

 

[Roger Thoms]

I have some HP3 from 1963. What's the difference from this to HP5+?

(I'm kidding)

About 50 years.

Roger

 

[Simon R Galley]

Re FP4.1 and HP5.1......very good

and after all film is attractive to bugs......

Simon : ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Ian Grant]

I have some HP3 from 1963. What's the difference from this to HP5+?

(I'm kidding)

Rather a lot, I cut my teeth on ex Government surplus bulk rolls of FP3 and HP3. These were quite soft emulsions very easy to get reticulation, but equivalent Kodak films of that era were no different in this respect.

FP3 was OK, FP4 was much better, FP4+ is that slight step better.

HP3 was a bit grainy, HP4 was slightly better, however HP5 was very much better in terms of grain and tonality many thought ahead of Tri-X at the time. Modern HP5+ is a superb film.

Ian

 

[Toffle]

How about Ilfolith IH4? I've got almost a full box of 4x5. I recall getting something from this film a few years ago, but I've forgotten exposures and processing details. (Ya, I know it's not for grey scale...)

Cheers,
Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilfolith is very old, it'll be slow and was designed to be processed in a lith developer, for best sharpness but a high contrast developer can be used as well, someting like 5 EI. I did use some Ilfolith way back.

Ilford sold their Graphic Arts and Medical side to Agfa from memory sometime in the 1970's.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

They are definitely a little different. I still have some sheet of the original FP4 laying around. I liked the
base a little better because it was not so slick, and less prone to Newton Rings, though the current version is not a serious offender in that respect. The changes to both FP4 and HP5 were subtle, but
noticeable. Whether something is an impovement or not depends on what you are doing, what you are
used to, etc. The change didn't personally cause me any problems, or really any fuss with procedure.