FP4+ What am I missing?

I think probably the most important reason why discussions about the characteristics of films, developers etc. virtually always go this way (and are basically useless) is that there is almost never a proper, controlled comparison underlying anyone’s opinion or description.

In order to meaningfully describe a difference between what A does and what B does, at the very least it needs to be the same picture, developed to the same contrast, enlarged by the same amount in the same way, with the results viewed side by side. Otherwise it’s basically random comments which are almost guaranteed to be disagreed about.

Of course, controlled, objective comparisons are no guarantee the thread doesn’t go off the rails anyway because there are always people who will stick with their beliefs and just argue regardless of whether or not the argument has any reasonable basis, but at least you’d have some sort of rational starting point.

brbo said:

On a photography oriented forum all we have is words...
On a social site based on short messages all we have is videos and photos...


I think some people should just switch.

Click to expand...

It is a misconception that some users think that HP5 is less contrasty than FP4. In fact, development time can be adjusted so that they have the same overall contrast. They will, however, have differently shaped curves, and those curves are affected by the developer choice. That's where the craft enters the picture.

This past month I got to eat apple pie twice. My wife brought home a store-bought one, and made one herself. They looked the same, and were the same general idea. But hers tasted way better - slight differences in ingredients and how they were mixed.

Here about all we can do is say, Try this, try that, and share formulas. But you gotta taste the result for yourself, visually. Get past the web and get out and look at actual well made prints in museums and fine galleries. I haven't personally related anything about HP5 that hasn't been well known by quite a number of serious printmakers for a long time.

These days we see an unfortunate tendency of people getting info off the Net, rather than doing the tedious work of multiple test shots with different times, developers, etc. In my student days I had a view camera, which made things simpler. I could shoot the same scene three times on three sheets of film, develop them for different times, and see how they looked when contact printed. I had actual teachers who would look at the negs and prints and offer advice. Can't do that on an Internet forum. And forums make snarkiness a little too easy

Nobody can tell what film or developer was used by looking at prints in museums.

Regarding HP5+, you’ve related it has an upswept curve (it doesn’t) and “watercolor grain” (what do watercolors have to do with negatives?)

DREW WILEY said:

This past month I got to eat apple pie twice. My wife brought home a store-bought one, and made one herself. They looked the same, and were the same general idea. But hers tasted way better - slight differences in ingredients and how they were mixed.

Here about all we can do is say, Try this, try that, and share formulas. But you gotta taste the result for yourself, visually. Get past the web and get out and look at actual well made prints in museums and fine galleries. I haven't personally related anything about HP5 that hasn't been well known by quite a number of serious printmakers for a long time

Click to expand...

DREW WILEY said:

Here about all we can do is say, Try this, try that, and share formulas.

Click to expand...

No, we can also share our results here in the form of images of the raw film and finished images made digitally via scanning or in the wet darkroom, with full knowledge that they are not the same as a print but since we’re not complete imbeciles we can still learn from them, and thereby help each other improve. It happens at Photrio every day.

Milpool - Again, it's a visible effect. "Watercolor grain" means its highly blended and smooth, BUT in this case with distinctly enhanced edge effect, creating an almost outlined definition of details at a certain level of magnification. So in this case, one can sure indeed tell what specific film and developer was used. There's a signature characteristic to it.

No, an acute viewer might not even care about those technical specifics we discuss on forums like this one; but they can appreciate the visual effect.

It is true that some posters are better at creating meaningful "pictures" with words - the sort of pictures that communicate meaning and visual impression.
And some are worse.
I actually got what Drew was talking about when he said "Watercolor grain". But it wasn't immediately obvious.
There are many really good photographers who can't talk their way out of the proverbial paper bag.
The same applies to technicians.
However there are also wordsmiths who are wizards with their cameras or their darkroom work.
And a site like this sees all sorts.

There was a heated discussion of "watercolor grain" on a different forum recently. A rather well educated chemist dismissed it as nonsense, whereas a number of experienced printmakers strongly defended it. What the chemist missed is how two things, which he totally overlooked at first, visually interact in a hard to explain way to produce this effect. One of these pertains to the manner in which pryogallol progressively tans and hardens the emulsion, differentially controlling development; and the other is the role the specific color of the pyro stain factors into this. And HP5 seems to behave differently from other current films in this respect.

The effects of tanning development have long been recognized, and were crucial to the commercial development of both the Matrix film used in dye transfer printing, also in the Technicolor process, and in numerous graphics applications as well. But in more recent decades, most of the research about gelatin tanning has taken place in the field of medical prosthetics, and even they don't understand exactly why it happens, as much as that it does happen, and has practical implications.

As far as I'm concerned, if it works, it works.

FP4 grain does not respond in the same way. I love both of these films, but for somewhat different reasons.

Unfortunately, it exactly these fine visual nuances of grain structure and edge effect which are so difficult to visually convey over the web, where nearly everything gets interpolated through a different kind of sharpening which actually obscures the real deal, and is far too vague anyway to render the real impression. And even looking at HP5 film structure under the microscope doesn't tell you what the end result will look like in an actual print. There are multiple variables involved.

I believe you, Drew. If only there could be a recommendation on where to see such a print. The “look around and figure it out” solution is completely lost on me… and I’m motivated to understand… possibly not motivated enough or maybe just not smart enough to recognize it if I inadvertently saw it.

I think this is more likely an example of using pyrogallol as a kind of get-out-of-jail-free prelude to word salad, even though there really isn't anything mysterious going on with pyro and HP5+. But ok.

Perhaps you could improve my "word salad" with something better? Fortunately, quite a few photographers, some of considerable reputation, gave Gordon Hutchings the benefit of the doubt when he published a book on his PMK formula,
and tried it out for themselves, and indeed noted its especial effect with HP5. Thousands of excellent prints confirm his observations, including many of mine.

No, HP5 is not the only 8x10 film I've used; and not all my development has involved various pyro formulas. I have all kinds of results to compare with. The visual distinction is real. Thank goodness we still have a large potential selection of films, developers, and papers. Otherwise, somebody could just market the "Generica" brand line of products, with generic boring results, and call it a day.

A primary reason I frequently shoot FP4+ over HP5+ is that I own a number of older cameras whose maximum speeds are 1/500s or 1/1000s. When shooting ISO 400 film on a bright sunny day, especially at the beach, I am often forced to shoot at f16 or f22 for proper exposure. With FP4+, I can use these same cameras and open up my apertures to around 8 (my preferred general purpose aperture) under the same conditions.

Wallendo said:

A primary reason I frequently shoot FP4+ over HP5+ is that I own a number of older cameras whose maximum speeds are 1/500s or 1/1000s. When shooting ISO 400 film on a bright sunny day, especially at the beach, I am often forced to shoot at f16 or f22 for proper exposure. With FP4+, I can use these same cameras and open up my apertures to around 8 (my preferred general purpose aperture) under the same conditions.

Click to expand...

Living in Southwest Florida, I have likewise found fewer situations that require higher speed films. That said, however, I sometimes want the rendering characteristics of TriX or TMAX-400 for aesthetic purposes. In these situations, I use Neutral Density filters allowing me to expose these higher speed films at 100 ASA.

Wallendo said:

A primary reason I frequently shoot FP4+ over HP5+ is that I own a number of older cameras whose maximum speeds are 1/500s or 1/1000s. When shooting ISO 400 film on a bright sunny day, especially at the beach, I am often forced to shoot at f16 or f22 for proper exposure. With FP4+, I can use these same cameras and open up my apertures to around 8 (my preferred general purpose aperture) under the same conditions.

Click to expand...

Have you considered using an ND filter?

Specialness of specialness, inwardness towards inwardness, results may vary. But looking at the big picture. There will be differences that are quit striking

FP4+ grain similar to HP5+? That hasn't been my experience at all.

Regardless, try FP4+ and Pyrocat-HD. That combination is just wonderful, especially in large format.

DREW WILEY said:

Perhaps you could improve my "word salad" with something better? Fortunately, quite a few photographers, some of considerable reputation, gave Gordon Hutchings the benefit of the doubt when he published a book on his PMK formula,
and tried it out for themselves, and indeed noted its especial effect with HP5. Thousands of excellent prints confirm his observations, including many of mine.

No, HP5 is not the only 8x10 film I've used; and not all my development has involved various pyro formulas. I have all kinds of results to compare with. The visual distinction is real. Thank goodness we still have a large potential selection of films, developers, and papers. Otherwise, somebody could just market the "Generica" brand line of products, with generic boring results, and call it a day.

Click to expand...

Well, we can probably at least agree on the part about it being good to have several options to choose from. Having only one film in production would be a pretty lousy situation. If we have to go that way though, it had better be Kodak Generica.

Wallendo said:

A primary reason I frequently shoot FP4+ over HP5+ is that I own a number of older cameras whose maximum speeds are 1/500s or 1/1000s. When shooting ISO 400 film on a bright sunny day, especially at the beach, I am often forced to shoot at f16 or f22 for proper exposure. With FP4+, I can use these same cameras and open up my apertures to around 8 (my preferred general purpose aperture) under the same conditions.

Click to expand...

While the OP's original post has delved into film characteristics of FP4+ and FP5+ Wallendo's response is the correct one. And as far as ND (or even polarizers) go try fining one for a 5c Elmar or a Kodak Retina, let alone quit a few other lenses I own.

Steven Lee said:

2. I do not print big enough, or scan at high enough resolution, to appreciate the difference in grain between FP4+ and HP5+

The latter is very likely because I primarily shoot them in 6x6 format, so I don't work with high magnifications indeed. I should have mentioned above that I don't shoot FP4+ in 35mm.

Click to expand...

Hallo Steven,

that certainly plays a role in your impression that you don't see a big difference in grain between these two films.

But if you photograph the same fine detailed scene, or a resolution test chart, with the same lens under identical test conditions, and if you develop both in the same developer, and then evaluate the negatives under a 10x loupe, or under a microscope at higher enlargement, you will definitely see a very significant difference. I have done all that.

With prints from 35mm film you will see smaller differences in 18x24cm prints, and more significant differences from 20x30cm upwards. The bigger the enlargements, the more obvious the difference.

And back to the original question in your first original first post "What am I missing?".
Well, what are the strengths of FP4+, what has made it popular over all the years?
Due to my tests and experiences with it, the following factors:
- It has been a solid, trustworthy "workhorse", with very easy handling
- It is very "developer tolerant": With that term I mean that you can fine-tune the characteristic curve of the film in the direction you want and need. For example a straight, linear CC is needed: Just use Ilford DD-X, and you get a perfect linear curve. Same for other developers with this feature like Ultrafin T-Plus or Kodak T-Max Dev..
You need a semi-compensating curve: Just use ID 11 / D-76 in 1+1 dilution, or XTOL / XT-3 in 1+1.
You need full compensation, choose ADOX FX-39 II in 1+14 or 1+19 dilution, or Moersch MZB.
And so on.....
FP4+ reacts very well to fine-tuning the CC by different developers.
- It has a spectral sensitivity which works very well for different applications.

But concerning resolution, sharpness and grain FP4+ is not better than other films in that ISO 100 / 125 class with traditional / conventional emulsion technology.

But if you want much higher resolution, much better sharpness and much finer grain, then just take Ilford's Delta 100.
In my experience with Delta 100 since its introduction in 1992, Delta 100 is
Ilford's best FP4+ ever!
Why?
Because all the above mentioned advantages of FP4+ are also valid for Delta 100.
Delta 100 also does not have the (small) disadvantages of Kodak's T-Max films like longer fixing times. Delta 100 in fresh rapid fixer is clear in 45-60 seconds.
The CC of Delta can also be very well fine-tuned by the specific developers.
And in addition to all FP4+ strengths Delta offers this excellent and much much better resolution, sharpness and fineness of grain = better enlargement capability.

I regularly organise photographer meetings. And offer blind tests. And prints from 35mm Delta 100, developed in SPUR HRX, have been often considered being from medium format film, when compared to medium format FP4+ shots developed in DD-X, ID 11, D-76, Rodinal.

Best regards,
Henning

@Henning Serger super helpful as always, thank you sir!

Forgive me for asking, but I have an off-topic question for @Henning Serger:

I am shooting 135 film, hand-held, and the shutter speeds I get at EI 80-100 are sometimes marginal for me. If I wanted to shoot Ilford Delta 100 (or FP4+) at EI 160 without giving up much shadow detail, or picking up much grain, which developer would you recommend?

I have tried metering both Delta 100 and FP4+ at EI 160 and processing in Ilford Microphen, but so far, just 1 roll each. The Delta 100 grain looks a little bit finer to me than FP4+, and the Delta 100 looks a little sharper, as well.

I think shadow detail was OK, from both films, but maybe some room for improvement...?

Is there some other processing chemistry I should try that might be even more "speed maintaining" than Microphen? I would prefer to use a commercial, off-the-shelf, chemistry rather than trying to mix up a recipe from raw ingredients.

Thank you.

Sorry to interrupt before Henning can give his answer; but if you open up the contest to more contenders than just Ilford ones, realize that you will get both distinctly better shadow detail as well as finer grain than D100 by using TMax 100.
You can also use actual 100 box speed with TMX100. But in order to boost D100 up onto its straight line, you really need to expose it well below 100, like at 50 for comparable deep shadow gradation, and certainly not at 160!

Otherwise, FP4 is FP4, and Delta is Delta, and NOT an "improved FP4". There are a number of significant differences.
D100 is an excellent film in its own right; but I think of it more as an attempt to compete in Kodak's T-grain space. And I find the look of these to be somewhat different. Experiment to see what you like the most for your own needs.

runswithsizzers said:

Forgive me for asking, but I have an off-topic question for @Henning Serger:

I am shooting 135 film, hand-held, and the shutter speeds I get at EI 80-100 are sometimes marginal for me. If I wanted to shoot Ilford Delta 100 (or FP4+) at EI 160 without giving up much shadow detail, or picking up much grain, which developer would you recommend?

I have tried metering both Delta 100 and FP4+ at EI 160 and processing in Ilford Microphen, but so far, just 1 roll each. The Delta 100 grain looks a little bit finer to me than FP4+, and the Delta 100 looks a little sharper, as well.

I think shadow detail was OK, from both films, but maybe some room for improvement...?

Is there some other processing chemistry I should try that might be even more "speed maintaining" than Microphen? I would prefer to use a commercial, off-the-shelf, chemistry rather than trying to mix up a recipe from raw ingredients.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

The highest effective speed / shadow detail with Delta 100 I've had so far with Ilford DD-X. I've got (almost) box speed. Based on sensitometric tests, measured with my Heiland TRD-2 sensitometer.

The combination of Delta 100 with DD-X also gives you
- a perfect straight linear characteristic curve
- very fine grain
- DD-X has very good shelf life.

The weak spot of DD-X is sharpness: Results of Delta 100 in DD-X look softer in sharpness compared to e.g. ADOX XT-3 or XTOL in 1+1, compared to Rodinal and FX-39 II, and especially compared to SPUR HRX and Acurol (both offer excellent sharpness with Delta 100, but you have to "pay" for that with less speed).
Another disadvantage of DD-X: Price.

Maybe two other options you may think about, as alternative to pushing the film to an E.I. of 160/23°:
- Using a lens with wider open aperture, or one with a better open aperture performance compared to your current ones.
- Using fill-in flash: You only need 2/3 to 1 stop additional light. That is perfectly possible with fill-in flash in an absolutely natural way, so that the viewer don't even realize that an additional light source was used.

Best regards,
Henning

takilmaboxer said:

It is a misconception that some users think that HP5 is less contrasty than FP4. In fact, development time can be adjusted so that they have the same overall contrast. They will, however, have differently shaped curves, and those curves are affected by the developer choice. That's where the craft enters the picture.

Click to expand...

I am one of those that did believe HP5 was less contrasty in the seventies and eighties. (I think my dates are roughly correct.)
I rigidly stuck to manufacturers speed ratings, times and temperatures for processing.
My results with HP5 were a lot less contrasty than FP4.

As a result I rarely bought HP5

It was only when I started to follow the odd gem of advice found occasionally in magazines that I amended speeds and developing techniques. Finally getting what I think are negatives and prints from HP5 with decent contrast.
The manufacturers data are only recommendations for a starting point. Trouble was I took them as rock solid facts.
All pre internet.