FP4+ Mushy Grain

SodaAnt said:

I don’t think so. I developed the roll in HC-110 dilution B for 9 minutes at 20C per the Ilford datasheet, agitating per the instructions.

Click to expand...

Those times are guides, to be adjusted according to need. All everyday films can be developed to give high or low contrast, by giving more or less development. Some films are more contrasty than others (FP4+ is not one of them) but contrast is always within your control through development time.

GregY said:

It is IMO an matter of taste and choice.

Click to expand...

Of course, and taste differs .

GregY said:

There are those of us who prefer the character of classic lenses.

Click to expand...

I am not friend of the word "character" for parameters which are essentially lens flaws.
For example flare: In most cases it really degrades a photo. And the cases in which distortion makes a photo better are also very, very rare.
Less sharpness and contrast (which is a main characteristic of older f1.4 lenses at max. aperture, and often also 1 stopped down):
Well, if I really want that for a certain subject I can also get that, too, with a modern lens: Either by a slight de-focussing or / and by using a softening or haze filter. But with the modern lens I also have the optimal performance when needed - so I have perfect flexibility.
At least for me that is an advantage.

Where I completely agree are certain very special characteristics, like swirley-bokeh or soap-bubble bokeh. That has a very unique look, it's special. And for certain subjects, it really works very well.

GregY said:

It is not my goal to make big enlargements from 35mm film, so the new advancements are not something that interest me very much.

Click to expand...

O.k. here our needs differ: I like bigger enlargements. And when I can get my wanted quality level with 35mm instead of MF - and having all the 35mm format advantages - then it is a significant advantage for me. And in those applications I then use 35mm instead of 120.

Film-Niko said:

Of course, and taste differs .



I am not friend of the word "character" for parameters which are essentially lens flaws.
For example flare: In most cases it really degrades a photo. And the cases in which distortion makes a photo better are also very, very rare.
Less sharpness and contrast (which is a main characteristic of older f1.4 lenses at max. aperture, and often also 1 stopped down):
Well, if I really want that for a certain subject I can also get that, too, with a modern lens: Either by a slight de-focussing or / and by using a softening or haze filter. But with the modern lens I also have the optimal performance when needed - so I have perfect flexibility.
At least for me that is an advantage.

Where I completely agree are certain very special characteristics, like swirley-bokeh or soap-bubble bokeh. That has a very unique look, it's special. And for certain subjects, it really works very well.



O.k. here our needs differ: I like bigger enlargements. And when I can get my wanted quality level with 35mm instead of MF - and having all the 35mm format advantages - then it is a significant advantage for me. And in those applications I then use 35mm instead of 120.

Click to expand...

This really is a discussion aside from FP4+ grain.... let's leave it at that.

faberryman said:

Have you and your friends abandoned your medium format cameras in favor of 35mm cameras with contemporary lenses?

Click to expand...

One has indeed.
Others - including me - have reduced the usage of MF, and using more often 35mm with the modern improved lenses. In those situations and applications in which the advantages are significant and visible. Horses for courses.
Example:
The current Sigma Art and Zeiss Milvus f1.4 prime lenses offer excellent performance already at f1.4. And their sweet spot with perfect performance is in the f2.8-4 range.
There is a huge performance differences to the older Canon FD, Nikkor AI-S, Minolta MD and Pentax K primes, which need to be stopped down 1-2 stops for good performance, and their sweet spot is in the f5.6-8 range.
Most MF lenses have a max. aperture in the f2.8-3.5 range, and sweet spot at around f5.6-8.
So there are situations in which I can use an ISO 100 film in 35mm, where I need an ISO 400 in MF. Because with the modern 35mm lenses I can indeed fully use their speed advantage (which is not really possible with the old design 35mm lenses).

GregY said:

This really is a discussion aside from FP4+ grain.... let's leave it at that.

Click to expand...

I agree. I just wanted to answer the questions to me.

Film-Niko said:

Of course, and taste differs .



I am not friend of the word "character" for parameters which are essentially lens flaws.
For example flare: In most cases it really degrades a photo. And the cases in which distortion makes a photo better are also very, very rare.
Less sharpness and contrast (which is a main characteristic of older f1.4 lenses at max. aperture, and often also 1 stopped down):
Well, if I really want that for a certain subject I can also get that, too, with a modern lens: Either by a slight de-focussing or / and by using a softening or haze filter. But with the modern lens I also have the optimal performance when needed - so I have perfect flexibility.
At least for me that is an advantage.

Where I completely agree are certain very special characteristics, like swirley-bokeh or soap-bubble bokeh. That has a very unique look, it's special. And for certain subjects, it really works very well.



O.k. here our needs differ: I like bigger enlargements. And when I can get my wanted quality level with 35mm instead of MF - and having all the 35mm format advantages - then it is a significant advantage for me. And in those applications I then use 35mm instead of 120.

Click to expand...

What has this got to do with FP4+ grain?

snusmumriken said:

Those times are guides, to be adjusted according to need. All everyday films can be developed to give high or low contrast, by giving more or less development. Some films are more contrasty than others (FP4+ is not one of them) but contrast is always within your control through development time.

Click to expand...

I agree with your first two sentences, and the first half of your third, and yes, contrast can be adjusted by altering development times.

So how should I interpret the development times listed in film manufacturer datasheets? I’m assuming the times listed for a particular ISO and temperature give average contrast, not low contrast or high contrast. Is there a flaw in my thinking?

SodaAnt said:

I agree with your first two sentences, and the first half of your third, and yes, contrast can be adjusted by altering development times.

So how should I interpret the development times listed in film manufacturer datasheets? I’m assuming the times listed for a particular ISO and temperature give average contrast, not low contrast or high contrast. Is there a flaw in my thinking?

Click to expand...

Ant, make some prints before summarily writing off FP4+. Otherwise you're just making assumptions based on what?
FP4+ is likely the most widely-used non-T-grain 100 ISO film.....there has to be a reason for its longevity (in production since 1968).

@Film-Niko You are making good points, but let me push back somewhat. First, regarding your comment on us not seeing better MF lenses in 20 years, I believe there's at least two exceptions. They are: the Fuji lenses for Hasselblad HC mount, and PhaseOne lenses. Simply because these mounts survived into the digital age. I have not used them personally, but seeing the sample images on 100MP sensors leaves little to be unhappy about.

And the second point I want to make, is that lenses like Sigma Art or Zeiss Milvus/Otus lines have achieved their exceptional performance wide open by tripling the weight & bulk of what a typical 35mm lens looks like. This performance requires a lot of additional glass. I have a few of these. They make sense on a 45-60MP sensor but mounting one of them onto a film camera to produce a tiny 35mm negative makes little sense, in my opinion. The 50mm f/1.4 Milvus is just ridiculous in terms of how huge & heavy it is. It is bigger and heavier than my Mamiya 645 lenses. Now... if I apply the same bulk & weight inflation to my Hasselblad lenses... I can't see how that would work.

I will agree with you on the need for better coatings. I've long stopped using hoods on my digital gear. I can have the midday sun in the frame when shooting my Fuji X-T3 mirrorless camera without any repercussions. But even my Hasselblad/Zeiss T* coated lenses from early 2000s frequently suffer from a lost of contrast and ugly flare.

SodaAnt said:

I agree with your first two sentences, and the first half of your third, and yes, contrast can be adjusted by altering development times.

So how should I interpret the development times listed in film manufacturer datasheets? I’m assuming the times listed for a particular ISO and temperature give average contrast, not low contrast or high contrast. Is there a flaw in my thinking?

Click to expand...

If your scene was of average brightness range, then the mfr’s recommendation should get you a printable negative. You may need to adjust that to suit the way you then turn that negative into a positive. Your scanner may work better with a thinner negative, for instance. If printing, you have to learn by trial and error what kind of negative works best with your enlarger, print developer and paper.

If your subject had a very big brightness range, you would need to reduce development from the recommended times to obtain a negative that is scannable or printable. And vice versa for low brightness range scenes.

Film-Niko. I'm one of those who has gone out of my way to have available certain single-coated lenses rather than all multicoated. It has darn little to do with sharpness, which can be superb in single-coated lenses, but is a nice option for slightly taming contrast or hue over-saturation right on the spot. I've done this with respect to shooting both large format film and my Nikon.

One example is back when I was shooting almost entirely chrome sheet film. I had a multicoated 14" Kern Dagor lens which had the highest contrast rendition and hue saturation of any lens I've ever encountered. It had only 4 air/glass interfaces, all multicoated, and would blow out of the water all your bragging rights in how much better recent lenses supposedly are in that respect. But it was simply over the top, and many of the chromes were hard to print, so I replaced it with the previous single coated version of the same thing. Likewise, when it comes to lenses in the 10 inch range, I have keep both a multicoated 240 Fuji A on hand, as well as a single coated 250 G-Claron. They're equally sharp and both superbly corrected, but lend a nuance of contrast difference.

I won't go into 35mm Nikon lenses or I'll start a stampede. But older lenses aren't just for fuddy-duddies; they fill a niche newer equivalents often don't. And you're just plain wrong in certain generic stereotypes about them all, just like you are when it comes to MF lenses.

But specific lens choice can affect how grain edge is rendered. Equally good lenses can differ in that respect, just like differences in developing can matter. Then toss in analogous differences in dye cloud effect, and you've got an interesting color film discussion.

Use XTOL the next time.

Play around with different films, different developing times and different developers until you find a combination that makes you happy.

At present this thread has devolved into a littany of suggestions as to what you should do to make us happy - the universal suggestion being that you should do as we do. To be fair to us, it is really the only advice we can give.

Would anyone follow my advice to use Fokentox 157 (a film I have never shot) developed in Creepy's FX67.5 (a developer I have never used)?

Steven Lee said:

@Film-Niko You are making good points, but let me push back somewhat. First, regarding your comment on us not seeing better MF lenses in 20 years, I believe there's at least two exceptions. They are: the Fuji lenses for Hasselblad HC mount, and PhaseOne lenses. Simply because these mounts survived into the digital age.

Click to expand...

I know, Steven. Friends of mine are using them. I haven't simply talked about them because because they are not widespread at all, a tiny niche. How many photrio members are using them? Probably extremely few. So I have just fit my comment to the audience here, to avoid writing too much.

Steven Lee said:

And the second point I want to make, is that lenses like Sigma Art or Zeiss Milvus/Otus lines have achieved their exceptional performance wide open by tripling the weight & bulk of what a typical 35mm lens looks like.

Click to expand...

The Otus line excluded (that is a very special lens line), not all Sigma Art or Milvus lenses are so big and heavy. I have used several of them, and owning some. Several are only a bit bigger than their counterparts from Canon, Nikon, Pentax. Like e.g. Sigma Art 1.4/35, the Milvus Makro-Planars, Milvus Planar 1.4/85, Milvus APO-Sonnar 2/135, Milvus Distagon 2.8/21. And sometimes there aren't even counterparts, like with the spectacular Sigma Art 2/24-35, which offers prime lens quality, and is not bigger than 3 x f2 prime lenses.

Steven Lee said:

This performance requires a lot of additional glass. I have a few of these. They make sense on a 45-60MP sensor but mounting one of them onto a film camera to produce a tiny 35mm negative makes little sense, in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree here, and I am going in the opposite direction: With digital you are limited by the Nyquist frequency of the sensor, and you cannot fully exploit these oustanding lenses. With film you don't have that problem. And you finally can exploit the huge potential of film.
With these lenses you really see what amazing quality films like TMX, Delta 100, Acros, PanF+, HR-50, CMS 20 II, Velvia 50 and 100, Provia 100F, E100 can deliver.
When they are not limited / crippled / degraded by old lens technology.
Probably 99% of photrio members simply don't know how shockingly good film can really be if you "take away the brakes". Because here is such a fetish about old stuff.
I like to make bigger prints, and I love to project slides on a big screen. And in both cases the new lenses are a huge progress.
They quality of slides shot with e.g. the Sigma Art 1.4/35 or the Milvus 1.4/50 or 1.4/85 in projection on a big screen is just breathtaking!!

And another important point for me: In digital I can reduce some lens flaws to a certain degree in post, like distortion.
You can't do that in your lab making silver-gelatine prints, or in slide projection.
The Sigma Art 1.4/35 has so little distortion that it is neglictable in 99% of the situation. Much better performance than the old 1.4/35 Nikkor. My Milvus lenses are free of distortion.
And all of my modern lenses have much better bokeh than the older ones, and a much better color rendition.
Therefore:
Especially as a film photographer (with generally much less possibilities of fixing or manipulating in post) I benefit from the new lenses.

Steven Lee said:

The 50mm f/1.4 Milvus is just ridiculous in terms of how huge & heavy it is.

Click to expand...

My experience is different: I find this lens well balanced on my camera bodies. And I enjoy the advantage that it even "stabilize" my hands a bit. I have been able to gain another 1/2 stop by lower possible shutter speeds for sharp results in comparison to my old, lighter 1.4/50.

Steven Lee said:

It is bigger and heavier than my Mamiya 645 lenses.

Click to expand...

Well, the Sekor 2.8/150 A is my main portrait tele for my Mamiya 645 bodies. The equivalent for 35mm is the Milvus 1.4/85. And that is more compact and much better balanced than the Sekor. The Sekor is quite front-heavy on the M645 body.
M645 + 2.8/150 is much bulkier and heavier than the Milvus 85mm on a Nikon or Canon body.

Steven Lee said:

I will agree with you on the need for better coatings.

Click to expand...

I was really positively 'shocked' by the outstanding performance of my Milvus lenses in that regard: When a 11 element lens is so much better than old 5 or 6 element lenses......I would not have expected that at all before I have seen it with my own eyes.

snusmumriken said:

If your scene was of average brightness range, then the mfr’s recommendation should get you a printable negative. You may need to adjust that to suit the way you then turn that negative into a positive. Your scanner may work better with a thinner negative, for instance. If printing, you have to learn by trial and error what kind of negative works best with your enlarger, print developer and paper.

Click to expand...

The scene was of average brightness, with five stops difference between the highs and the lows. I metered for the lows, placing them on Zone III.

As previously mentioned, I have no enlarger, so my use case is entirely scanning and viewing on monitors or inkjet printing.

Sirius Glass said:

Use XTOL the next time.

Click to expand...

It's on my list of developers to try, along with D-76, Rodinal, and D-23.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Play around with different films, different developing times and different developers until you find a combination that makes you happy.

At present this thread has devolved into a littany of suggestions as to what you should do to make us happy - the universal suggestion being that you should do as we do. To be fair to us, it is really the only advice we can give.

Would anyone follow my advice to use Fokentox 157 (a film I have never shot) developed in Creepy's FX67.5 (a developer I have never used)?

Click to expand...

Nicholas, I agree with you in part.." To be fair to us, it is really the only advice we can give."
But.... the OP has used one roll of FP4, has not discussed the scene brightness range, how he has metered. He has then processed following directions and viewed the negative under a loop and concluded that FP4+ has mushy grain and is too contrasty..... We actually have too little information to offer specific help....since we have little to work with except for the OPs opinions based on little fact or experience

Film-Niko said:

Well, the Sekor 2.8/150 A is my main portrait tele for my Mamiya 645 bodies. The equivalent for 35mm is the Milvus 1.4/85. And that is more compact and much better balanced than the Sekor. The Sekor is quite front-heavy on the M645 body.
M645 + 2.8/150 is much bulkier and heavier than the Milvus 85mm on a Nikon or Canon body.

Click to expand...

Looks like we just have a different tolerance for weight and preferences for handling. I have the Milvus 1.4/85 also and find it utterly pointless on my FM3a. But let's put these difference of opinion aside, and just consider the fact that undeniably these latest generation 35mm lenses are much heavier than their predecessors from the 80s. And if you apply the same weight multiplier to 6x6 or 6x7 lenses from Hasselblad/Zeiss or Bronica or Mamiya RB/RZ you'll be looking at a formidable dumbbell set which you can mount your cameras onto!

Sirius Glass said:

Use XTOL the next time.

Click to expand...

Yes, I kept on getting sand kicked in my face and was a failure with the girls until I tried a course of Xtol

pentaxuser

GregY said:

the OP has used one roll of FP4+... and concluded that FP4+ [in HC110] has mushy grain and is too contrasty.

Click to expand...

Well of course it is. I could have told him that. After all I don't shoot FP4+ and don't use HC110 and can thus impartially condemn the combination. Don't really need to know anything else, it would only confuse the issue. Instead I can confidently tell the OP that he will be very happy with TMX in Microdol-X 1:3, which I do use. Insert smileys as needed.

Also, I think the OP should toss the scanner in the skip and buy an enlarger, 3 trays, a red Christmas bulb, some paper and a Tri-Chem pack. Happiness will only increase. More smileys would go here if I didn't hate them so.

Asking too many people for advice is futile. Does make for nice long threads, though.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Well of course it is. I could have told him that. After all I don't shoot FP4+ and don't use HC110 and can thus impartially condemn the combination. Don't really need to know anything else, it would only confuse the issue. Instead I can confidently tell the OP that he will be very happy with TMX in Microdol-X 1:3, which I do use. Insert smileys as needed.

Also, I think the OP should toss the scanner in the skip and buy an enlarger, 3 trays, a red Christmas bulb, some paper and a Tri-Chem pack. Happiness will only increase. More smileys would go here if I didn't hate them so.

Asking too many people for advice is futile. Does make for nice long threads, though.

Click to expand...

The thread is definitely all over the place Nicholas. I print & don't scan,but the OP could for example, complete his process....& make an inkjet print before condemning FP4+..... Just looking at the negative w a 15x loupe and pronouncing the grain
"mushy" doesn't accomplish much.

SodaAnt said:

The scene was of average brightness, with five stops difference between the highs and the lows. I metered for the lows, placing them on Zone III.

As previously mentioned, I have no enlarger, so my use case is entirely scanning and viewing on monitors or inkjet printing.

Click to expand...

How accurate is your thermometer? A 2C error can end up giving you very different results.
Agitation also can have a big effect.
And the grain you perceive in the scans may be more related to the scanner and software than the developed film.

Moderator hat on:
Can people please return to the subject of the thread, which has essentially nothing to do with camera lenses, and only a little to do with film format.
Hat doffed.

Well 99% of my photographs are taken on FP4 and no way is the grain mushy. I would suggest you check your process dev/time/temp.

Nicholas Lindan said:

Also, I think the OP should toss the scanner in the skip and buy an enlarger, 3 trays, a red Christmas bulb, some paper and a Tri-Chem pack. Happiness will only increase. More smileys would go here if I didn't hate them so.

Click to expand...

Or I could switch back to digital.