FP4 Plus in Rodinal Question.

[pentaxuser]

I fail to see how price can be of any consideration with developers. we are talking pennies per roll!

Ralph, it might be a consideration when comparing 2 developers that are, allegedly, similar enough to produce identical negatives unless one of the two had another or other benefits such as much greater longevity. Given that HC110 has changed this extra longevity may be in doubt or sufficiently in doubt as to make a price difference a worthwhile consideration

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

radiant, thanks for the reply and I understand, I think, what you mean. However it was just that you chose 2 film in particular that exhibited mushiness in Rodinal where I'd have thought that the drawbacks of Rodinal in the terms you mention would not have been confined to just those 2 unless there is something that is common to those 2 films, FP4 and HP5 but not applicable to any others

pentaxuser

 

[cirwin2010]

I rather like Rodinal with Ilford FP4+ using 120 film.

I typically rate the film at ISO 100 and develop in 1:50 for 12min at 20c (per the massive dev chart). I have enlarged a 6x6 negative up to 15x15" with this combination. There is visible grain in areas with flat mid tones, I personally don't find it offensive. You also can't see it at a typical viewing distance of a few feet.

I have found that using a condenser enlarger that this combination can produce a bit more contrast than I would like to work with when printing. I may try shooting and developing for ISO 64 going forward.

Depending on the size of your enlargement, technique, and resolving power of your lens, you may find that the grain will obscure fine details. I am not sure if this is mostly to due with the film itself or how I am developing it. By comparison 120 Acros II developing in Rodinal 1:100 can deliver far more fine detail with nearly invisible grain at enlargements up to 16x20"

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Keith, Never a great fan of 35mm FP4 in Rodinal. I endorse what pentaxuser mentioned in a previous post, over a certain size the grain can be too intrusive, although with 120 it is less noticeable. I still prefer ID11 for FP4 or DDX if I could afford it.

Your photos look on your website.

I will stick with the D76.

Thanks

 

[gone]

If the op likes D76 and wants to stop mixing powders, they should try F76+. I use it for all sorts of films, it's a great developer that keeps a long time.

 

[pentaxuser]

If the op likes D76 and wants to stop mixing powders, they should try F76+. I use it for all sorts of films, it's a great developer that keeps a long time.

The OP is based in the U.K. as am I and I have never seen F76 for sale here nor for that matter any of the Clayton chemicals photographic range

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For years I have used either D76 or ID-11, whichever was cheapest at the time of purchase. I want to get away from powder developers and was considering Rodinal as an alternative.
If anyone is using FP4 Plus in Rodinal for darkroom printing, which dilution do you think works best? 1+25 or 1+50?
Thanks in advance.

1:50.
But FP4+ in Rodinal looks like an ISO400 film. Especially at EI125.
What you used before, D-76/ID-11, gives IMO much better grain and tone. Both look very good at EI64/80.
Best I used was Perceptol at EI50.
I read you don't like powders, but I think there are no liquid developers that do the same...
Perceptol lasts more than a year in amber glass bottles. A bit expensive if you develop a lot of film, though.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

In case you haven't seen this:

Pebble Project: FP4+ — Richard Pickup Photography

In this instalment of Pebble Project I present four examples of FP4+ in different developers. In a sense, the results here speak for themselves and the reader is invited to draw his / her own conclusions. That said, I’d like share a little commentary of my own as guidance, especially for the reader

www.richardpickup.com

A couple of liquid developers there... DD-X at 1+4 seems too solvent -too soft- for 35mm FP4+.
But: apart from grain that's exaggerated after negative scanning, film could have been exposed more generously.
So, not perfect information, but just a rough guide.

 

[pentaxuser]

1:50.
But FP4+ in Rodinal looks like an ISO400 film. Especially at EI125.

Can you help me to understand what this means, i.e. I take it that you do not mean it achieves a speed of 400 so what is it about its looks that makes it look like an ISO 400 film? What speed film does it look like at say 1:25 and if this is a different speed why might this be?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Can you help me to understand what this means, i.e. I take it that you do not mean it achieves a speed of 400 so what is it about its looks that makes it look like an ISO 400 film? What speed film does it look like at say 1:25 and if this is a different speed why might this be?

Thanks

pentaxuser

FP4+ shows a lot more grain at EI125 than at EI50.
Apart, at EI125 its tone isn't as clean as at EI80 and EI50.
At box speed, its shadows have less contrast/separation as we're using film's toe.
FP4+ at EI125 can look, with some developers, very close to HP5+ well used: an ISO400 film look, more than an ISO100/125 film look.
Of course FP4+ can be used at EI125: it won't warn us.
Obviously we can place middle grays where they should be even if we expose at EI125, but that doesn't produce the best FP4+ tone or grain.
Metol developers work very well with FP4+, and even D-76, if we expose at EI50, produces results that are very close to those of Perceptol/D-23/Mic-X.
About Rodinal: 1:25 is not necessary. Even for soft scenes 1:50 is more than enough: FP4's native contrast is higher than HP5's.
But IMO it's EI what defines image structure with FP4+.
So, if apart from exposing FP4+ at EI125 (not the best tone or grain), we develop it with Rodinal (which depresses middle tones a bit, and gives big grain), FP4+ looks like a bad ISO400 film, not like well exposed and well developed FP4+, a gorgeous film.

 

[pentaxuser]

FP4+ shows a lot more grain at EI125 than at EI50.
Apart, at EI125 its tone isn't as clean as at EI80 and EI50.
At box speed, its shadows have less contrast/separation as we're using film's toe.
FP4+ at EI125 can look, with some developers, very close to HP5+ well used: an ISO400 film look, more than an ISO100/125 film look.
Of course FP4+ can be used at EI125: it won't warn us.
Obviously we can place middle grays where they should be even if we expose at EI125, but that doesn't produce the best FP4+ tone or grain.
Metol developers work very well with FP4+, and even D-76, if we expose at EI50, produces results that are very close to those of Perceptol/D-23/Mic-X.
About Rodinal: 1:25 is not necessary. Even for soft scenes 1:50 is more than enough: FP4's native contrast is higher than HP5's.
But IMO it's EI what defines image structure with FP4+.
So, if apart from exposing FP4+ at EI125 (not the best tone or grain), we develop it with Rodinal (which depresses middle tones a bit, and gives big grain), FP4+ looks like a bad ISO400 film, not like well exposed and well developed FP4+, a gorgeous film.

Thanks. I don't think I had heard about its grain being a lot less at EI 50. I had always thought that in establishing the ISO D76 is used but it seems that even with D76 a better speed is 50. This seems a large decrease in speed.

My FP4 at box speed in Xtol didn't look like a bad 400 speed film to me nor particularly grainy but as in most things opinions vary

pentaxuser

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

No doubt opinions vary: I prefer sharp grain.
And yet there are people who think photographs are better when they have less grain. Go figure.
I say yet, because that comes from the pictorialist and f/64 group era, a century ago.
IMO, if I ever wanted dissolved grain, top speed, and highest resolution, I'd use digital cameras: it makes more sense... As you said, opinions vary.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Another relevant factor, pentaxuser, is an EI (say 125 for FP4+ in your case) doesn't mean the same in everyone's case: maybe your EI125 metering and shadows placement are done in ways that let you use the best part of the film's curve, so you can get better results than those coming from other people's procedures, and then you get the best possible results at EI125.
I've used FP4+ even at EI200 in Microphen, but at that speed HP5+, Tri-X and TMY look better IMO.
When I said FP4+ can look like a bad ISO400 film, I meant it's happened to me.
Have a nice day.

 

[BHuij]

FP4+ in Rodinal possibly my favorite go-to in 120 and 4x5. I don't love it in 35mm because I find the grain to be harsh and excessive when enlarged from small negatives like that. It's a nonissue in medium format and up, at least at the sizes I print (virtually never larger than 16x20... at least so far).

I rate mine at EI 64 and use rotary development for 7 minutes in 1:100. You'd probably get a little more film speed by using 1:50 or 1:25, but I found it hard to tame contrast at those dilutions since I'm constantly agitating.

Hard to go wrong though IMO as long as you find the dilution and time that gives you results you're happy with. FP4+ in Rodinal gives me a look I can't get from other combos. My print shadows are deep and bold but also full of detail. The image is very sharp, satisfyingly so, but lacks the "clinical" look I get from, say, TMX or even Delta 100. And the contrast is punchy enough to be a bit eye-catching, but not overdone (obviously this can be changed by varying development and print grade). I don't get a lot of boring grays, the midtones seem to just pop more. Bruce Barnbaum explains this as the difference between "middle gray" and "middle silver."

 

[aparat]

I know it's an old thread, but I thought I'd share my experiences with FP4 Plus and Rodinal. I have chosen a semi-stand development for negatives that need nice tonality and a bit of extra contrast. I use Rollei R09 One shot at a 1+100 dilution at 20C for 40 minutes. By the way, I recently tested the Rollei R09 One Shot against Adox Rodinal, and they give virtually identical results for this technique. I agitate continuously for the first minute and then three inversions at half-point. I find that the initial agitation is crucial to getting even development with this technique. The curve below shows the results of this kind of development.

 

[NB23]

Ilfotec-hc sounds like a match made in heaven