FP4+ in Perceptol/Microdol-X/Mic-X

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello,
I've used both, but never together...
My two main uses of film are common, ISO400 B&W film for f/8 in the street, so I do that at EI640 in D-76 1+1 (TX/HP5+/TMY2), and for tripod work I like TMX, but there are days I run out of TMX because it can't be bought in this country. So, I decided to set things (too) for a good use of FP4+ as that's the best medium speed film sold around here all the time. A wonderful film IMO (tone, detail), even if its grain is noticeable. I see it as a film with varying grain size depending on exposure and developer, something that affects all films, but FP4+ seems extreme, as it's able to look like an ISO400 film (when it's a little underexposed and pushed) and also able to look close to smaller modern grain films when it receives good light and an ultrafine grain developer. To me, FP4+ is best, in D-76, at 64-80, and I mean for soft overcast light. I imagine for metol only developers speed should be slightly slower...
I'll use it for tripod situations and also, equally important, for carrying a second street camera for f/2 use when I see there's time for focusing and benefits if I defocus background. I've worked with two cameras that way in the past and it works very well. Faster than ND filters.
I ask your opinions on FP4+ in Perceptol because there's little information about those together, and huge contradiction: some people say there's no speed loss at any dilution with FP4+ although there's film speed loss with HP5+ and other films... I understand most people who wanted to treat FP4+ this way, went to TMX, as I did...
Thanks for all kinds of comments, as this will be my first time...
I'll use Perceptol 1+1, and I wonder what's the speed of FP4+ in soft light (N, N+1) for incident metering.
Thanks.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The wisdom on M-X was:

• Full strength: loss of 1/3 stop in speed, finest grain
• Diluted 1:3: full speed, no longer finest grain

My experience is with using M-X 1:3 with TMX. The results are a TechPan lack of grain but not, unfornuately that TechPan large format creaminess. I don't notice any increase in grain from using it 1:3 Vs full strength.

M-X also produces rather lovely results with Tri-X. I would shoot at box speed and develop in FS M-X. The negatives were a bit thin but printed very well on grade 3 paper (this being in the days everyone used graded paper).

I wonder what M-X would do with 4x5 TMX? I once shot 4x5 TechPan and found the prints to be unsatisfying: the total lack of grain to trick your eye into a perception of sharpness just left the lens aberrations out there naked for all to see. (Context: I am in the habit of examining 20x24 prints with a 10x loupe.)

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I just found this, 14 years ago, photo.net:

Thomas,

If you are using a condenser enlarger, then FP4+ in Perceptol 1+3 usually works out to be about EI 50 or 64.

If you're using a diffusion head enlarger, your developing times will be longer and the EI goes up to about 100 or 125. You can of course print these negatives with a condenser enlarger, but you'll use the #0 and #1 filters a lot, and the prints will look grainier.

So if you've got a condenser enlarger, use EI 50 or 64.

125ml Perceptol is plenty of developer for one roll of 36ex 35mm or 120. I use 100ml myself and it is more than enough.

Rob

robert_grasing, Sep 8, 2007

As my tank requires precisely 375ml for one 35mm roll, I'm considering now 1+2... 125ml for small format and 200ml for medium format...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

125ml Perceptol is plenty of developer for one roll of 36ex 35mm or 120. I use 100ml myself and it is more than enough.

Possibly wrong, or below optimal, as Ilford's sheet talks about 4 rolls / litre of stock...
1+1 could be a better idea...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I just found this, 14 years ago, photo.net:

Thomas,

If you are using a condenser enlarger, then FP4+ in Perceptol 1+3 usually works out to be about EI 50 or 64.

If you're using a diffusion head enlarger, your developing times will be longer and the EI goes up to about 100 or 125. You can of course print these negatives with a condenser enlarger, but you'll use the #0 and #1 filters a lot, and the prints will look grainier.

So if you've got a condenser enlarger, use EI 50 or 64.

125ml Perceptol is plenty of developer for one roll of 36ex 35mm or 120. I use 100ml myself and it is more than enough.

Rob

robert_grasing, Sep 8, 2007

As my tank requires precisely 375ml for one 35mm roll, I'm considering now 1+2... 125ml for small format and 200ml for medium format...

Kind of an exaggeration the whole stop of difference?
At least in my case (condenser) he seems right, 'cause I found 64-80 in D-76, so in Perceptol I would expect 40-50.

 

[pentaxuser]

I just found this, 14 years ago, photo.net:

Thomas,

If you are using a condenser enlarger, then FP4+ in Perceptol 1+3 usually works out to be about EI 50 or 64.

If you're using a diffusion head enlarger, your developing times will be longer and the EI goes up to about 100 or 125.

So if you've got a condenser enlarger, use EI 50 or 64.

125ml Perceptol is plenty of developer for one roll of 36ex 35mm or 120. I use 100ml myself and it is more than enough.

Rob

robert_grasing, Sep 8, 2007

As my tank requires precisely 375ml for one 35mm roll, I'm considering now 1+2... 125ml for small format and 200ml for medium format...

Interesting. Did the poster of this quote say why using a diffuser enlarger effectively doubles its speed compared with a condenser one?

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Interesting. Did the poster of this quote say why using a diffuser enlarger effectively doubles its speed compared with a condenser one?

pentaxuser

Hi pentaxuser,
A longer development time affects middle tones... Even if darkest shadow detail depends on exposure, higher midtones qualify sometimes as a valid, faster EI...
As I said, a whole stop seems too much...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

And possibly, as FP4+ has good shadow contrast, some people with diffusion enlargers find its tone fine at 125... At least for soft light... Direct sunlight is a different story: shadow detail matters in a different way...

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks I was just trying to get to the bottom of the difference in speed and the two types of enlargers. I would have expected to have heard more of such comments on Photrio. For instance a person might complain of his prints not revealing as much shadow detail as he would have expected. I can understand why respondents might ask if the complainant could see the shadow detail in the negative and if then asking what type his enalrger was and if it was a condenser suggesting that as condenser enlargers tend to print at say a grade harder that the complainant try reducing the grade at which the print was exposed

This may very well be what the OP from Photo.net meant but in referring to a speed it suggested that there were different film speeds for the same scene for FP4 depending on the type of enlarger being used and I could not quite reconcile this with what I have always understood about film speed

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks I was just trying to get to the bottom of the difference in speed and the two types of enlargers. I would have expected to have heard more of such comments on Photrio. For instance a person might complain of his prints not revealing as much shadow detail as he would have expected. I can understand why respondents might ask if the complainant could see the shadow detail in the negative and if then asking what type his enalrger was and if it was a condenser suggesting that as condenser enlargers tend to print at say a grade harder that the complainant try reducing the grade at which the print was exposed

This may very well be what the OP from Photo.net meant but in referring to a speed it suggested that there were different film speeds for the same scene for FP4 depending on the type of enlarger being used and I could not quite reconcile this with what I have always understood about film speed

pentaxuser

I`ve read both things before, but often about a third or a half stop: never a whole stop.
And some difference makes sense: you develop longer for diffusion enlargers, so middle grays reach slightly higher tones.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

aplumpton, photo.net 2008:

To clarify things, here are a few extracts from the D&Z article ("Photography Myths:
Condenser or Diffusion Enlarger"), which appeared in the 'Photo Techniques', January-
February 2007 issue, page 11:

"Manufacturers' time-temperature charts for film development invariably list values
intended to produce a Contrast index (CI) of about 0.58 - which is appropriate for
printing in a diffuse enlarger, not a condenser.....As a general rule, a CI on the order
of 0.42 is more appropriate for film to be printed through condenser optics."

They go on to mention:

"Film speed and CI are tightly linked: Decrease the development time to drop CI and
real film speed drops also. Specifics depend on the film and developer, but as a
general rule, film speed will decrease nearly a full stop as CI drops from 0.58 to 0.42.
Suppose some particular film, developed to CI 0.58 for diffuse printing, provides
good shadow detail when it is rated at ISO 200. That same film is then better rated at
only ISO 100 or 125 if it is to be developed to CI 0.42 for condenser printing."

 

[MattKing]

That, of course, relates more to an ISO type of film speed, than a Zone System type of film speed.
Because it relates more to contrast, then density.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Maybe it's related to real density, but I've never used a densitometer, so this is just what I imagine: if I take, say, your development time for a film, and your EI, both for diffusion. and I decrease development time -only- for my condenser enlarger, say 20% less time, I may get basically the same shadow detail (same exposure used), but as contrast is lower, both highlights and middle grays are affected. highlights more affected of course than middle grays... When I test my films, I include a gray card in the scene, and wet print my tests... I often do three different times for three strips of five frames in thirds of a stop: that way I see shadow detail, highlight detail, and, I check the look of the gray card wet printed... It can easily look too dark: I pick, on my contact prints, the frame that shows, apart from good shadows and good highlights, the gray card that doesn't look too dark or too clear...
What I imagine is, if on both negatives, yours for diffusion, and mine for condenser, you use a densitometer to meter a middle gray zone, you'd find there's difference in density. A real, mesurable density difference.
If I just decrease your development time, my middle grays become a little too dark.
The only option is giving film more light. and that means using a lower EI than the one you use...
From a different point of view, film manufacturers prefer to talk about their films as fast films, and that implies recommending times for soft contrast scenes (instead of direct sunlight) and for diffusion enlargers, instead of condenser enlargers...
FP4+ can be 125 under overcast light for diffusion enlarging, but it can be slower for condenser printing and/or direct sunlight... When he talked about it, Roger Hicks used to say "and I mean ISO, not EI"...

 

[MattKing]

Speaking more simply...
If your speed criteria are based on how straight prints look, your results will be more contrast dependent than shadow detail dependent.
If you are using a diffusion enlarger, you are going to need to develop longer to get that contrast.
When you develop longer, you will find that the negatives that print most easily straight - without dodging and burning, and with the best looking mid-tones - will have resulted from metering using an EI that is higher and closer to the ISO speed of the film.
If your speed criteria are based on shadow details (Zone System), then you are depending on burning and dodging to give you the prints you want. You will still develop for higher contrast in order to deal with the diffusion enlarger, but that may mean you need to burn to retain highlights. But you will also need to give more exposure - meter with a lower EI - because of many factors, including the built in 2/3 of a stop difference in the reference point compared to the ISO reference point.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Reducing development time, lowers middle values.
That means ISO lowering.
Shadows are not the only relevant tones.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Mike Scarpitti, photo.net 2003:

"The ISO development is to a specified contrast that is close to that used for diffusion enlargers: actually higher! That means that those who use condensers have to cut back development considerably from ISO speed development, and a slight speed adjustment is made to compensate. Also, placing the shadows up a little higher on the curve, as Greg is doing (and as I do) gives a bit more uniform contrast throughout the tonal scale, especially when you use condensers. Greg's procedures correspond to what I do. His problem is he wants a faster film. The ISO 400 films need to be rated lower if you use a condenser enlarger."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For FP4+ in Perceptol 1+1 Ilford recommend 13m for EI50, and I tend to end up finding times 10% shorter than Ilford times, so my base time for testing is 11.5 minutes: then, my three times will be 10, 11.5 and 13 minutes... The three strips will be 32-40-50-64-80 (incident metering, soft light)... Direct sunlight will be a second step: after picking one of five EIs from one of three wet printed strips from overcast (the one -from 15 frames- that prints best with filter 4), I`ll have decided my development time... Then this is what I do: under direct sunlight, at box speed I meter (incident) from an area in the shadows, and I open half a stop... Like placing (box speed) the shadows in zone 5.5... That's for very open shadows... I do a single strip of five frames of that scene under direct sunlight showing shadows too: in the center of the strip, the zone 5.5 exposure, with 2 frames before and 2 frames after it, opening and closing half a stop, using the development time found for soft light... Finally I pick -from those five- the best sunny frame printed with filter 2...
That works for my condenser enlarger. And yet I have filters 1.5 and 4.5 for emergencies.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

https://www.richardpickup.com/blog/2016/10/9/pebble-project-fp4
I like FP4+ in Perceptol more than in DD-X: very small but well defined, sharp tight grain...
I guess those are negative scans, so grain should be even smaller for wet printing.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

test1, photo.net 2004:

"Terry, I don't know what characteristics of water you have out there, but I'm very pleasant with results of FP4 rated at ISO 80 developed for 10.5 minutes in perceptol 1+1 if light is harsh. Ilford's standard time for FP4 in perceptol 1+1 is 15 minutees if I remember correct. Usually I develop for 13.5 minutes and rate at ISO 100 unless light is harsh. Hope this helps."

Ilford's times are 15m for EI125, and 13m for EI50 (Perceptol 1+1 20C). That post possibly refers to a diffusion enlarger, as those are high EIs for Perceptol.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Lex Jenkins, photo.net, 2003:

"I know you didn't ask this, Keven, but FWIW Ilford rep David Carper has said that Perceptol is a unique developer quite unlike Microdol-X and that Kodak has nothing like it in their inventory."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Alan Clark, FADU 2010:

"I wondered something like this myself. I was using 35mm HP5+ in ID11 1+3 rated at 400 and getting very nice results. Then I tried it in Perceptol 1+3 rated at 200 and got equally nice results with less grain.
I then wondered if I would be better off with FP4+ rated at 200 in XTOL (I had read that XTOL gave an increase in film speed.) So I tried it and immediately noticed that FP4 seemed to be no sharper than HP5!. Less grainy, but I was getting fine enough grain for my taste with HP5. So I decided to stick with HP5.
As I now had a batch of XTOL I decided to run further tests. I exposed several rolls of 35mm HP5 and FP4 on the same subject -bracketing exposures, and then did a series of clip tests using Xtol at various dilutions and Perceptol 1+3 and ID11 1+3.
I discovered lots of things, mainly - on an 8" by 12" print:

1. ID11 1+3 had the most grain. XTOL had the least. But very little real difference between all three.

2. Perceptol 1+3 and ID11 1+3 equally sharp. XTOL slightly less sharp.

3. XTOL negatives were much harder to print to get the tones I wanted. ID11 1+3 and Perceptol 1+3 negatives virtually print themselves."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

From The Darkroom Cookbook:

"Before adjacency effects were thoroughly researched and understood a number of film makers, chief among them Agfa, recommended agitation every 30 seconds.
Today, if a formula requires a more frequent agitation cycle than once per minute you should consider the reason. If the reason is to prevent staining or some other form of negative defect, I highly recommend not using the formula. There are too many excellent formulas to choose from without chancing damage to your negatives with a poorly formulated developer that might damage your film if you do not agitate in a proscribed manner.One agitation cycle per minute or minimal agitation will work with any correctly formulated developer to prevent artifacts of any kind from appearing on your negatives while creating a high degree of sharpness."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For a smile, unknown source:

"FP4P in D-76 has a robust, masculine spirit in the low midtones, but an
ephemeral, dare I say, introverted quality in the highlights. I use a
split development process, half in D-76 and half in Xtol, to attenuate
its innate aggressivity in Zones II and III, and encourage its
full-bodied, joyful participation in Zones VIII and IX."

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Some facts by Alan Clark, FADU, 2016:

A few years ago I put my OM1 on a tripod, aimed it at a typical subject for me -a shed- and in constant sunlight exposed several rolls of FP4. I then was able to cut short bits off these films and develop them in a variety of developers. These included Pyrocat HD in various dilutions, Rodinal in various dilutions, ID 11 at 1+1 and 1+3, and Perceptol at 1+3.
Then I made some prints.
The first thing that was obvious was that all the negatives developed in Rodinal produced prints that were much more grainy than prints from the other developers.
The second thing was that sharpness was difficult to judge in the rodinal prints, because of the grain, but all the other developers seemed to produce prints that were as sharp or sharper than the Rodinal prints.
The third thing I noticed was that the Rodinal prints seemed duller than all the others. This was because the mid-tones printed darker. They also had less shadow detail; i.e. there was a loss of film speed. I was surprised at this because Rodinal has the reputation of being a good compensating developer; i.e. it allows the shadows and mid-tones to build up whilst curtailing the highlight densities - when used in a certain way. Some of the Rodinal negatives were developed semi-stand to facilitate this, but prints from these negatives had less shadow detail and darker mid-tones than prints from Pyrocat, Perceptol and ID11 negatives.
In short, Rodinal came out quite poorly in comparison to the other developers. I am surprised that Ian says he can see no difference between Rodinal and Ptyrocat HD. There was a big difference in my test prints, but they were from 35mm negatives. Ian prints from 5x4.

Now to Brock's question as to whether Pyrocat makes a noticable difference compared to "normal" developers. In my test Pyrocat produced prints with lovely bright upper mid-tones This made the prints come alive. But prints from ID11 at 1+3, and Perceptol at 1+3 looked almost identical. So Pyrocat really gave nothing that you can't get from ID11 and Perceptol.
Another area where Ian and I will have to disagree is when he says Pyrocat negatives are easier to print. I used Pyrocat for at least five years, and never found Pyrocat negatives easy to print. The stain made something about them counter-intuitive. On the other hand negatives developed in dilute Perceptol or dilute ID11 print very easily (usually!) for me.
Finally, does the staining control the density of negative highlights? Yes, I am sure it does, but these are just as easily controlled with the right amount of development in ID11 or Perceptol at 1+3 or 1+2

After this test I stopped using Rodinal and Pyrocat, and have been quite happy sticking with with ID11 and Perceptol .

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I developed FP4+ in Perceptol today. First time in my life with these two together.
It was 1+2 at 24C, 9 minutes, @50 (condenser enlarger). 4 inversions in the beginning, 2 inversions every minute.
The idea was defining a new f/2 35mm soft light handheld system for low weight/travel portraiture with my Sonnar 50mm f/1.5 and the B+W 022 yellow filter.
What I found:
Grain is incredibly small for FP4+, and very tight. "No grain" would describe it too... I guess -I can't see it clearly with my 22x loupe- it's sharp, but I'll see that better when I enlarge, 'cause grain's a lot smaller than D-76 grain with HP5+, TX or TMY2: clearly. This confirms what someone said (Alan Clark?) about Perceptol 1+2 and 1+3 making FP4's grain sharper but not bigger... This could be very nice for 35mm portraiture. With other developers, and at box speed, FP4+ has much bigger grain all the time, closer to the size of ISO400 films... In Perceptol, it's almost like using TMX, but with a more classic tone.
I photographed a scene -at home- I've been using for a year now to compare HP5+, TX and TMY2 in D-76, FX-39 and Microphen, so I know the scene well. That scene has some very fine lined text included, and while Microphen disappears all fine detail and that text just can't be read, TX in D-76 1+1, for instance, even at 640 and even for a condenser enlarger (which requires a bit more speed because of the shorter development) resolves the text with amazing sharpness and definition... Today the text wasn't too sharp, but that's not because of FP4+ nor Perceptol, but because of f/2 against the constant f/8 used for my ISO400 films testing... Lenses at f/8 are no doubt much crisper.
When I use my Sonnar 50mm at f/2 with ISO400 film, grain hides that lack of crispness from a wide aperture lens designed nearly a century ago, in the 1930's, but FP4+ in Perceptol clearly shows lens sharpness has not been totally reached at f/2. I bet in 35mm an aspherical 'Lux or 'Cron would be a joy at f/2 for FP4+ in Perceptol, but my wallet feels anguish just to think about it. That will never happen: I'm a third world middle class guy.
Yet I have to define after further testing if I will prefer to use -very possibly- one of my more modern small lenses, and perhaps at f/2.8 instead of f/2, to fully exploit FP4+ in Perceptol in 35mm...
What I'm sure about is, this combo in MF will be a wonderful portraiture tool... Both my Zeiss Planar 80mm and Zeiss Sonnar 150mm are f/2.8, and apart from the format gain in sharpness and tonal gradation, those lenses are sharp wide open, as they're modern lenses for the Hasselblad 2000 series, and being MF, f/2.8 gives a huge amount of background defocusing when they're focused in the close range, and that will help emphasize -as it's natural for that format- the difference between what's focused and what's not. In a superior way than small format can do... And I even have the same B+W yellow filter for those two lenses.
Maybe the performance of MF with this combo, is equal or better than that of the best 35mm lenses, at least in this portrait case, considering skin tones... I have some 120 FP4+, so I'll enjoy Saturday and Sunday. At least for good soft natural light, I'll get 1/125, 1/250 and 1/500 at f/2.8. The Hasselblad without tripod is so relaxing.
Happy weekend to everyone.