FP4 Plus at ISO 800

Palantiri7 · Jan 1, 2009

Happy New Year everybody!

In the, um, unlikely event that someone may be interested, I just tried out 120 FP4 Plus rated at ISO 800. The picture was taken in dim window light, and I stand developed the film in HC-110 dil. B for 20 minutes at 20 degrees C. I agitated for the first minute. The film was scanned in RGB, and inverted in Photoshop. I used the blue channel, and tossed the red and the green. I must say that the negs turned out quite well, and were easy to scan. So, I'm happy I can uprate FP4 in an emergency and be happy!

Cheers,

Rory

TN98 · Jan 1, 2009

Very nice. Thanks.

wogster · Jan 1, 2009

Palantiri7 said:
Happy New Year everybody!

In the, um, unlikely event that someone may be interested, I just tried out 120 FP4 Plus rated at ISO 800. The picture was taken in dim window light, and I stand developed the film in HC-110 dil. B for 20 minutes at 20 degrees C. I agitated for the first minute. The film was scanned in RGB, and inverted in Photoshop. I used the blue channel, and tossed the red and the green. I must say that the negs turned out quite well, and were easy to scan. So, I'm happy I can uprate FP4 in an emergency and be happy!

Cheers,

Rory

This is definitely something to keep in mind.... I wonder if Δ 100 would let you get away with that trick?????

tony lockerbie · Jan 1, 2009

Looks good, the FP4 has held up well to this treatment. Damn cute cat as well!
Tony

bspeed · Jan 1, 2009

I'm impressed, just cut and pasted your post into notepad
thanks for the lesson!

bspeed · Jan 1, 2009

Curious about the agitation, what would have happened if you followed a "normal agitation routine ? more grain?

Palantiri7 · Jan 1, 2009

Thnx everybody. Yeah bspeed, I get grainy FP4 when I agitate normally with HC-110. Also, Thomas Bertilsson explains really well why it may be better to stand develop when pushing a film in this thread:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Thanks Thomas!

Ian Leake · Jan 1, 2009

Wow. Do you think the negative would print easily?

Palantiri7 · Jan 1, 2009

The negatives look fine for printing IMO.

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 1, 2009

How does it print in the darkroom where it really matters? Would love to see a scan of the print.

Stephanie Brim · Jan 1, 2009

Yeah, could you print it and then scan it for us? I'm impressed by the film scan, but I'm really curious as to what grade it would print on.

Palantiri7 · Jan 1, 2009

I'll do that this weekend.

Palantiri7 · Jan 3, 2009

As per request:

Scan of print made on Multigrade Warmtone RC, developed in Fotospeed warmtone developer. Settings on dichroic head - 25 magenta, 80 yellow (I normally set this to about 49 magenta, 50 yellow for my normally exposed negatives).

tony lockerbie · Jan 3, 2009

Pretty impressive, I think that you have made Delta 3200 redundant!
Tony

Ian Leake · Jan 4, 2009

Yes, very impressive

Andrew O'Neill · Jan 4, 2009

The scanned negative looks slightly better than the scanned print. Not as harsh. But pretty darn impressive for being underexposed by 3 stops.

Palantiri7 · Jan 4, 2009

Ya, I should have backed off the magenta filtration a bit. Ah well.

2F/2F · Jan 4, 2009

Nice results!

Why don't you tell us the specifics of how you metered, and let us know some key densitometer readings? Methinks this may not be as miraculous as it seems, and once the info is made clear, will boil down to a "mistake" in metering technique that happened to work in your favor. Results that nice from any film underexposed three stops is a fluke, plain and simple.

Not that it isn't a great pic of a great fuzzy kitty!

tim_walls · Jan 4, 2009

Palantiri7 said:
Happy New Year everybody!

In the, um, unlikely event that someone may be interested, I just tried out 120 FP4 Plus rated at ISO 800. The picture was taken in dim window light, and I stand developed the film in HC-110 dil. B for 20 minutes at 20 degrees C. I agitated for the first minute. The film was scanned in RGB, and inverted in Photoshop. I used the blue channel, and tossed the red and the green. I must say that the negs turned out quite well, and were easy to scan. So, I'm happy I can uprate FP4 in an emergency and be happy!

Thanks for this... I happened to be wandering around the British Museum late Friday night (not a planned photo trip - just had a couple of hours to kill before meeting some family for evening drinks) and didn't have any fast film on me; remembering this thread I thought I'd give this a go!

With a bit of luck I'll find time to develop the roll this afternoon; I'll post the results...

Palantiri7 · Jan 4, 2009

I hope it works out, Tim. Hi 2F/2F, yes, I've been thinking 'fluke' myself. I will try another roll. I used simple center-weighted metering on a Rollei 6003 SRC 1000, which has a pretty good meter. I'm embarrassed to report that I don't own a densitometer, so I am very sorry I can't offer any useful information there. Forgive me!

bspeed · Jan 4, 2009

Thanks kindly for the apug thread link! I have 3 4x5 negatives of that film I exposed for 400iso, will give your method a try.

tim_walls · Jan 4, 2009

Palantiri7 said:
I hope it works out, Tim.

Well, test roll is hanging up to dry at the moment. First impressions are positive - there's a full range of densities in any event...

I'll see if I'm in a fit state to try scanning some when I get back from the pub tonight.

Palantiri7 · Jan 4, 2009

Joy!! Thanks for that Tim; I started to get scared that this might have been a one-hit wonder. Ooh, scanning while inebriated! That must be more fun than my staring at the scanner while I'm sober.

tim_walls · Jan 4, 2009

Palantiri7 said:
Joy!! Thanks for that Tim; I started to get scared that this might have been a one-hit wonder. Ooh, scanning while inebriated! That must be more fun than my staring at the scanner while I'm sober.

Well, excuse the dust/scratches - this is the first roll I've developed since moving home and I'll be blowed if I can find my blower brush (and I've decided my experimental squeegeeing - 'cos the water round here is terrible - was an error) - but here are a couple more or less straight from the scanner. These are just straight scanned in B&W mode, with a tiny curve tweak on the first and absolutely nothing done on the second.

I don't claim these as great photos by the way . They're literally just a couple grabbed straight from the first strip - now I really must get me down to the pub or the wife is going to kill me...

35mm FP4+, pushed to 800 and stand dev'd for 20 minutes at 20C, agitating for first 60 seconds:

Domin · Jan 4, 2009

This summer I shot FP4 @ 1000 , D100 @800 and D100 @1000. Both films do work. I think that they behave better in daylight than incandescent light. I suspect the spectral sensitivity.

3 stop push has its caveats - that means virtually no shadow detail and high risk of underexposure especially when using centre-weighted metering. My success rate is that of D3200 @ 3200 or 6400.

What surprises me is that anyone is surprised that it works or suspect its a fluke. Why is that?

FP4 Plus at ISO 800

Palantiri7

Attachments

TN98

wogster

tony lockerbie

bspeed

bspeed

Palantiri7

Ian Leake

Palantiri7

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Stephanie Brim

Palantiri7

Palantiri7

Attachments

tony lockerbie

Ian Leake

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

Palantiri7

2F/2F

tim_walls

Palantiri7

bspeed

tim_walls

Palantiri7

tim_walls

Attachments

Domin

FP4 Plus at ISO 800

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Moderator

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency