FP4+ Mushy Grain

[SodaAnt]

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

More details: I metered with a spotmeter and paced important shadow areas on Zone III (two stops less exposure than the meter reading). Important highlights fell on Zone VIII. The siding in the image I posted fell on Zone V (the house is gray with a hint of blue and is very close to a standard gray card).

Camera was a Canon EOS-1N with 50mm lens in manual mode. It was a sunny, cloudless day at around 4:00pm (sunset at 7:15pm).

Want any additional information? (I keep good notes).

The film I usually use in 35mm format is TMax-100, and under a loupe the grain is less visible and sharper. Yes, TMax is a T-grain emulsion and FP4+ isn't, but even so I wasn't expecting such a big difference.

 

[pentaxuser]

The film I usually use in 35mm format is TMax-100, and under a loupe the grain is less visible and sharper. Yes, TMax is a T-grain emulsion and FP4+ isn't, but even so I wasn't expecting such a big difference.

It sounds as if you are very disappointed with FP4+. Nothing anyone has said seems to have provided enough of a redeeming feature to make it a worthwhile film for you. So can I ask: Will you now abandon its use and move on to another film?

It's just that if the answer is yes, you are moving on to another film then there is little point in anyone saying why it is an OK film to continue with

It's a bit like having a date with person X and having found out what the person is like, you decide there is no long term future relationship for you and that person. This happens all the time in life over many things

pentaxuser

 

[SodaAnt]

Will you now abandon its use and move on to another film?

No. I have several more rolls on hand that I intend to use and develop with other developers to see if there's any improvement.

Sorry if I've gored anyone's sacred cow (favorite film).

 

[john_s]

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.

I started by following the manufacturers' instructions to the letter, but my negatives are much better now that I develop to a lower contrast. I know that there are many variables in play.
And incidentally, I expose a bit more too. There are two ways to do that: change the film speed on the meter, or by careful placement. That can be as simple as pointing the meter down to avoid the bright sky, or at the other extreme, spot metering etc.

 

[madNbad]

No. I have several more rolls on hand that I intend to use and develop with other developers to see if there's any improvement.

Sorry if I've gored anyone's sacred cow (favorite film).

What you’re finding is how a film reacts to changes in developers and the process. If you have been using a T grain film like TMax or Delta and are now trying a cubic grain film for the first time they’re obvious differences.
I used a combination of TMax 400 and HC-110 for quite a while then decided to try Tri-X develop in Rodinal. The first result were terrible but by asking for assistance on the forum, I was pointed towards better results. Recently, I tried a few rolls using Ilfotec HC and found it’s not the developer for me. Next up is a D76 clone and after that Adox XT-3 when it’s available.
Little things like agitation can also have a big effect. Different developers my need a gentle agitation cycle others more aggressive.
You’re on the right path but use one developer for several rolls before jumping to the next one. Search the forum for the combination you want to try because it’s almost guaranteed someone has tried it.

 

[SodaAnt]

I started by following the manufacturers' instructions to the letter, but my negatives are much better now that I develop to a lower contrast. I know that there are many variables in play.

If I was planning to use FP4+ in 4x5 I'd do a lot more work determining a personal film speed and how it responds to development changes, but this being 35mm, I just want something that works well and looks good without too much fuss.

 

[pentaxuser]

No. I have several more rolls on hand that I intend to use and develop with other developers to see if there's any improvement.

Sorry if I've gored anyone's sacred cow (favorite film).

That's fine but my worry is that I doubt that changing developers will make the kind of difference I suspect you may be looking for

Compared to HC110 what is it that you want an improvement in and can you give us an indication of how much of an improvement you are looking for? For instance can you say what kind of negatives in what kind of film you are seeking or are definitely not seeking?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Craig]

I think FP4's strength is tonality. It can make some lovely images, but with what I'll call "traditional" grain.

 

[GregY]

I think FP4's strength is tonality. It can make some lovely images, but with what I'll call "traditional" grain.

Exactly..... I still ask of SodaAnt...how can you judge without making a print (even an inkjet). I don't want you to like it.......but many people do, for many formats. It's print tonality as Craig is a strong point. It's much more forgiving of exposure errors than TMax.
If you can write it off by looking at a 35mm negative through a loupe, you have some voodoo skills that i don't.....

 

[DREW WILEY]

All kind of developers work just fine with FP4. I can't recall any of them ever making its grain "mushy". Set a bit of money aside for a serious quality professional drum scan, and then look at that, or ask for a professionally done sample print from it. Otherwise, it's like trying to drive down the road with bugs n mud smeared all over the windshield.

 

[SodaAnt]

Let me try coming at this from a different angle. What film, in 35mm format, in combination with a developer, would be best for negatives intended to be scanned and viewed on a web site rather than printed, either traditionally or scanned and printed on an inkjet.

 

[dynachrome]

I thought that only D-76 you make up from scratch has the rising alkalinity problem and that packaged D-76 or ID-11 doesn't behave that way. You can also modify the D-76 formula to solve that problem.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

... What film, in 35mm format, in combination with a developer, would be best ...

There is no answer. People say 'this works for me' and every recommendation is different. You have to find your own film, developer, clothes line clip ... You might want to start out following the advice of someone whose photographs you admire.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Nicholas Lindan there is the answer. SodaAnt mistakenly thought that his choice of film and developer produced mushy grain. Turns out, he hasn't even seen the grain from FP4+ and HC-110 because he doesn't have the equipment to see it. It's too early for him to even begin the process of finding what works. First, he needs to get a darkroom going, or significantly upgrade his scanning game. Or even a 15x loupe will do.

 

[SodaAnt]

Turns out, he hasn't even seen the grain from FP4+ and HC-110 because he doesn't have the equipment to see it.

How about a microscope? Will that do? I have several.

Regarding a loupe, see post #3 in this thread.

 

[MattKing]

I think that it is possible to end up with decent scans from a higher end Epson flat-bed scanner and 35mm film.
But you need to work at it at the scanning end.
It may be the case that changing the film and developer and procedure will serve to compensate for what appears to be a mediocre scan, but the negatives you end up with may in turn be fairly poor when the scans are better or the negative is printed well in a darkroom.
Is it possible to see a digital photo of the negatives themselves - backlit and with the sprockets and edges and space between the frames visible?

 

[Sirius Glass]

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

 

[snusmumriken]

@Nicholas Lindan there is the answer. SodaAnt mistakenly thought that his choice of film and developer produced mushy grain. Turns out, he hasn't even seen the grain from FP4+ and HC-110 because he doesn't have the equipment to see it. It's too early for him to even begin the process of finding what works. First, he needs to get a darkroom going, or significantly upgrade his scanning game. Or even a 15x loupe will do.

Steven, to be fair, with experience it is possible to see with the naked eye if there is a big difference in graininess between one negative and another. You don’t have to be able to see individual grains. Whether the OP has comparative material we don’t know. Obviously scanning introduces artefacts unhelpfully.

I don’t think there is an easy answer to @SodaAnt ’s re-phrased question about what is the best film/dev etc. I imagine each of us has rung the changes until we found something we were content with.

As for FP4+ being a sacred cow (gored by an ant), it’s worth reflecting on why Ilford and others still make conventional emulsions in small formats, despite the existence of T-Max, Delta, etc. Obviously because they sell - but why do photographers want to buy them? See post 108 and others.

 

[albireo]

Ilford may not agree with this, but I think FP4+ works best in metol-only developers. Perceptol is lovely, but it does lose speed and there are plenty of others without the salt, like D-23.

Obviously there are finer-grained medium-speed films, but FP4+ remains a beautiful film, even in 35mm. For several years I have run Delta 100 and FP4+ side-by-side. I appreciate both, but I am particularly fond of FP4+. I definitely wouldn’t describe it as coarse-grained.

+1

And it only gets better once you go up in size. I have some beautiful FP4+ 120 negatives developed in D76 1+1 or Rodinal 1+50. Stunning film, almost completely grainless in my negative scanning setup, unless I've messed up exposure and/or development (overdevelopment and underexposure can greatly emphasise perceived 'graininess' in a film scanning workflow).

 

[logan2z]

This thread is 5 pages in and I still don't know what it means for grain to be 'mushy'. Anyone care to post an example of mushy vs. non-mushy grain?

I use FP4+ in 120 with Rodinal 1:50 and it has never crossed my mind to use the term 'mushy' to describe the results.

 

[snusmumriken]

This thread is 5 pages in and I still don't know what it means for grain to be 'mushy'. Anyone care to post an example of mushy vs. non-mushy grain?

I use FP4+ in 120 with Rodinal 1:50 and it has never crossed my mind to use the term 'mushy' to describe the results.

I’ve been wondering the same. My sketchy understanding is that graininess is an apparent horizontal clumping of a distribution of silver that is actually 3-dimensional. The more you zoom in, the more indistinct it shows itself to be. It’s like trying to focus on a galaxy.

I assume that what we all look for is fine image detail that isn’t obscured by that graininess. If it isn’t distinctly there, it could be because of missed focus, a bad lens, camera shake, a solvent developer, etc. If you can be certain that none of those apply, I guess it’s tempting to say the film has ‘mushy grain’ and the interweb will nod sagely.

I hope someone who actually knows about this stuff will chime in. I’ve already told you more than I know.

 

[L Gebhardt]

Let me try coming at this from a different angle. What film, in 35mm format, in combination with a developer, would be best for negatives intended to be scanned and viewed on a web site rather than printed, either traditionally or scanned and printed on an inkjet.

Best is subjective. With that out of the way try a staining developer since some of the image is formed by staining between the grain, minimizing it appearance. The develop for less time than normal, which will further reduce grain development. But that will also reduce effective film speed. Try shooting a roll of FP4 at 80 and develop in Pyrocat for 30% less time than recommended. That should still give you a negative that will print on higher paper grades and should scan very nicely.

Make sure to scan with 16bit per channel and try a color scan to see which channel is the cleanest noise wise and use that one instead of just inverting in the scanner.

 

[Frank53]

This thread is 5 pages in and I still don't know what it means for grain to be 'mushy'. Anyone care to post an example of mushy vs. non-mushy grain?

I use FP4+ in 120 with Rodinal 1:50 and it has never crossed my mind to use the term 'mushy' to describe the results.

We the OP means is imho not about film and development but about scanning with a flatbed scanner.
i made 2 quick scans, one with an Epson 850, one with a Minolta 5400. What you see is a 40x enlargement of an fp4+ negative. It’s part of the unsharp background, to see more grain. Not a very scientific test, but I hope you see what I mean.

 

[GregY]

SAnt, as Matt King suggested, show us a digital backlit photo of your whole negative.
To address your question, just about any 100 or 400 iso film properly exposed, developed & scanned (in your case) will be more than adequate for viewing on a website.
As an example,(i don't own a scanner) here's an iPhone photo of a 15"x15" darkroom print from an FP4+ negative.... not a hint of mushy grain

 

[Steven Lee]

Steven, to be fair, with experience it is possible to see with the naked eye if there is a big difference in graininess between one negative and another. You don’t have to be able to see individual grains. Whether the OP has comparative material we don’t know. Obviously scanning introduces artefacts unhelpfully.

Somehow I missed that he also looked at the negs with a loupe. TBH I am somewhat confused what to suggest here, because grain appearance matters when looking at the final product which in this case is a scan. "Mushy" only makes sense in a context of a given magnification. The image by @GregY above demonstrates this perfectly. There is not a hint of grain in a digital equivalent of a 2.5-inch print.

All films will begin showing monster grain eventually as you keep increasing magnification. But the thing about low resolution scanning is that it makes grain look ugly even on screen-sized JPEGs or tiny ink prints. That's why I suggested that his experiments with films and developers are premature, he needs to have an equipment capable of 35mm film scanning. V850 can't do it.