FP4+ development conundrum

[blockend]

I recently acquired a bulk roll of outdated Ilford FP4+. It was cheap enough to take a risk, and thought it might be useful for testing various old cameras. FP4 is a 125 ASA film, so it seemed reasonable to begin with 100 ASA as a starting point. The first short test roll was very underdeveloped, exposed correctly in a Yashica FR with a meter I'm confident in, with virtually non-existent edge numbers.

I upped agitation and dev time (100 ASA, 17 mins, Rodinal 1:50, 2 inversions every 30 secs), which resulted in an over-developed negative, but still with faint edge numbers. Matching edge number development with exposure would require substantial under expose and considerable over-development.

I'm working on the assumption that Ilford's rebate information (edge numbers and film detail) has somehow faded with time, and am not using them as an index of correct exposure or development. Is this a reasonable assumption?

 

[craigclu]

I think that you're likely correct. I just went through an episode much like this with some 20 found rolls of PanF+. These were frozen and had been in the chest freezer for about 15 years and forgotten. I've been shuffling equipment a bit and testing RF accuracy and camera functions on a number of things and it seemed a good way to make use of the film. I can barely read the edge markings but the film actually behaved quite normally in my case and rendered expected tones, pictorially. PanF+ has its known latent image issues and seemed the easy explanation in my case but I don't recall FP4+ being known for the behavior....

 

[blockend]

I can barely read the edge markings but the film actually behaved quite normally in my case and rendered expected tones, pictorially. PanF+ has its known latent image issues and seemed the easy explanation in my case but I don't recall FP4+ being known for the behavior....

Interesting. I haven't used FP4+ for 25 years, but was a regular user at one time and recall it having strong rebate development that matched the image closely. Also used Pan F, a nice film that was prone to grain and contrast increase if over-developed. My suspicion is the FP4 hasn't been kept well. The film base has a strong greyish cast that looks a bit like exhausted fix (I'll check but think fix still good), or it could be Ilford's standard base tone. The faded edge numbers leads me to think heat fogging has contributed to the other issues.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

FP-4 is known to have bad latent-image retention. The older the film is, the more the exposure for the info on the rebate will have faded. Forget that and establish your developing time to give you good shadow detail and print well.

Best,

Doremus

 

[blockend]

FP-4 is known to have bad latent-image retention. The older the film is, the more the exposure for the info on the rebate will have faded. Forget that and establish your developing time to give you good shadow detail and print well.

Best,

Doremus

That makes sense, thanks. I'm going for 15 minutes at the next test. 17 mins is printable, but rather dense and grainy.

 

[abruzzi]

Even my fresh FP4+ (120) has very light edge markings compared to Tmax100 and Acros 100.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How it outdated is the film? Also, that's the first time I've heard about it having poor latent image keeping qualities. I've shot it in roll film and sheet, developing several months later with no noticable issues.

 

[blockend]

How it outdated is the film? Also, that's the first time I've heard about it having poor latent image keeping qualities. I've shot it in roll film and sheet, developing several months later with no noticable issues.

2008

 

[pentaxpete]

WoW !! 2008 is FRESH for me ! I have been using FP4 + 1997 -- now THAT was a 'Good year'

 

[blockend]

WoW !! 2008 is FRESH for me ! I have been using FP4 + 1997 -- now THAT was a 'Good year'

Yes Peter, but does your particular vintage have clear edge numbers?

Update! Perfect development - FP4+ rated at 80 ASA, 15 mins 15 secs, RO9 1:50, 20o C, one gentle inversion every 30 seconds. Edge numbers still ghostly!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

FP-4 is known to have bad latent-image retention...

I've never heard that before, nor experienced it. Pan F Plus, most definitely, but not FP4 Plus.

 

[pentaxpete]

yes -- I've had 'Ghostly ' edge numbers -- i go by the finished negative result NOT the edge numbers.

 

[pentaxuser]

FP-4 is known to have bad latent-image retention. The older the film is, the more the exposure for the info on the rebate will have faded. Forget that and establish your developing time to give you good shadow detail and print well.

Best,

Doremus

Can we take it that you are really referring to FP4 and not Pan F. If you are referring to FP4 then we now have two Ilford films which have allegedly poor latent image qualities as well as edge numbers that are allegedly faint when the film is fresh but get much fainter with age or is that OK as in distinct edge markings when the film is fresh but fade as the film gets older?

If FP4 has a latent image problem, is this not as bad or as bad as Pan F? If it is as bad as Pan F then someone needs to ask Ilford for a statement I'd have thought. From all my readings on Photrio over about 14 years this problem of latent image fading with FP4 is one that has escaped my attention

It is not a film I use but clearly what you have said is information that users need to know about

pentaxuser

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I have been using FP4 + 1997 -- now THAT was a 'Good year'

"It was a very good year, for FP4, and blue blooded girls of independent means..."

 

[Willyekerslike]

The OP is refering to FP4 Plus that is 11 years expired not fresh indate film. No point in contacting Harman Tech. Unless you would like to give them a good laugh.

 

[pentaxuser]

The OP is refering to FP4 Plus that is 11 years expired not fresh indate film. No point in contacting Harman Tech. Unless you would like to give them a good laugh.

The key part is Doremus's statement that FP4 as a film had a latent image problem in the same way that Pan F has even when it is fresh. The age of the film may or may not be irrelevant to any edge marking fading but does not pertain to the circumstances here as blockend does not have a film that had been exposed and then lay undeveloped for months or years.

I was simply saying that if there is a latent image problem with FP4, Ilford need to be asked about it. When Simon Galley, formerly of Ilford, told us on APUG that there was a latent image problem with Pan F it was important information that users of Pan F needed to know. If this is true of FP4 then users also need to know

We await clarification from Doremus that he was definitely referring to FP4 and had not assumed that it was PanF the thread was referring to

I don't think that asking the question of Ilford in relation to a latent image problem is likely to give them a good laugh and while you are right that a film maker cannot be held responsible for problems with outdated film, Doremus took the discussion to a different aspect of FP4 altogether, namely the latent image problem which is new information to me.

pentaxuser

 

[blockend]

I was simply saying that if there is a latent image problem with FP4, Ilford need to be asked about it.

Not sure 11 year old rebate detail retention could be classed as a problem. I raised the issue because edge numbers didn't seem to respond to any development curves I recognised. As Peter noted above, as long as consistent development of the old stock is established, frame numbers are a luxury. The 100ft rolls of Fomapan I normally use don't have any rebate information at all, which is probably why I noticed them on old FP4+.

The film in question had an expiry date of 2008, which means it was probably made in 2005 or 2006. For all I know it spent 14 years on top of a storage heater rather than a fridge. Expired film is always Caveat Emptor. Recalling a few camera shop, chemist and supermarket storage protocols, in date film should have a ? on it too!

 

[Agulliver]

I'm also not aware of any latent image issues with FP4+, only Pan-F +.

Last year I shot some FP4 (without the plus) of unknown age and it actually performed adequately....I contacted Harman about it and far from having a laugh they looked up the emulsion based on the data I found in the rebate area...it pre-dated the info that they have easily to hand but they were able to estimate that it was from the 1970s.

2008 for FP4+ is almost fresh. I am currently burning through a 100' roll of HP5+ which expired in 2010 and unless I push it beyond 1600 it's fine.

 

[pentaxuser]

I think that all that remains on which a conclusion is needed now is the new information provided by Doremus Scudder that FP4 also has a poor latent image problem like Pan F. This is a new element for me while not one pertinent to blockend's issue does need exploring. As I said it may simply be that Doremus simply misread FP4 for Pan F. Easily done - I have done it myself. On the other hand it may not have been a mistake and he may have a source of evidence

We can only wait and see his response

pentaxuser

 

[Harman Tech Service]

We're not aware of a latent image regression problem with FP4+. It's my favourite film!
It's possible that it could have fainter edge markings after 11 years but this isn't something we monitor on old film past expiry.
I've used FP4+ around its expiry date and not noticed this as an issue - all edge marking present and correct.
Regards,
David

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the definitive reply, David. The alleged FP4 latent image problem was certainly news to me.

pentaxuser

 

[Doremus Scudder]

My apologies for confusing the issue! Yes, it's Pan F that has the latent-image retention problems. FP-4 has none as far as I know. The 11-year-old film, though, may have some latency problems after that long, so, my original advice remains: base development time on the newer image, not the edge markings.

Sorry for the mix-up,

Doremus

 

[cliveh]

FP4 has no latent image problem. I have been using it for over 30 years with no problems. Check your exposure/development?