FP4+ What am I missing?

[brbo]

The OP was puzzled why he did not see a greater difference in grain size between the two films

My point was an extreme, of how control needs to be of the entire process, in terms of temperature, from developer to washing, and if you read what I wrote I answered your question.

Well, I DID read your first reply (and read it again a couple of time), but couldn't figure out that you were puzzled about reticulation. I must be a little slow or it's just a language barrier...

Additional explanations in your other replies helped. It's all clear to me now, thanks!

 

[Steven Lee]

I think the main problem is in OP’s qualitative/subjective characterization of image structure. All other things being equal (ie it is not enough to use the same developer, but the films also need to be developed to the same contrast) FP4+ is finer grained than HP5+. The higher the magnification the more pronounced this will be. In a subjective comparison it is also helpful to use the same image (or at least something with a similar luminance range/distribution).

According to the Ilford tech sheets there are other differences between the films. HP5+ is designed to be more “pushable” than FP4+, the films have different reciprocity factors for long exposures, and different spectral sensitivities.

Thank you, this was probably the most informative comment so far. Despite my carefully worded disclaimer, most folks assumed that I'm unhappy about (or even attacking) FP4+. I am not. It is a great film. I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to be shooting two stocks, e.g. HP5+FP4 instead of just HP5+. The inconvenience of not developing all rolls in the same tank, and flipping ISO setting on my meter doesn't offer much in return.

I dismiss any contrast-related suggestions as well. Contrast is not set in stone with B&W. I can tweak CI for both films to what I need just fine. Your comment made me think that perhaps my question can be answered by the combination of:

1. HP5+ grain is remarkably nice in Xtol
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.

 

[Steven Lee]

What you are missing, is learning to control exposure and development of a single type of film. As Ralph said: - FP4+ is a 'real' B&W film.

You can be assured that I am not missing that. I can also tie my shoes, brush my teeth, and I don't pee in photo chemicals: so cross those off your list as well. There was another character above who assumed I can't keep a liquid at a temperature. Can we just move past the insult stage please? I wasn't questioning my mental capacity, I was asking about **your** use cases for FP4+.

 

[Steven Lee]

FP4+ is indispensable for creating alt process negatives - in a staining developer (I use PMK 99% of the time) it creates an ideal negative for Salted Paper printing, and for Kallitype. The film base + fog level is much lower than HP5+ (and lower than many other films) making it ideal for POP printing.

Thank you!

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, I DID read your first reply (and read it again a couple of time), but couldn't figure out that you were puzzled about reticulation. I must be a little slow or it's just a language barrier...

Additional explanations in your other replies helped. It's all clear to me now, thanks!

I was puzzled why the bottles containing the stop bath and fixer were at room temperature, in the kitchen of my old house, with no central heating at the time, and a very cold kitchen. That was despite 2 roll of 120 being processed 30 - 45 minutes earlier in the same chemistry. I did ask the next day and the other photographer had not checked subsequent temperatures, after the developer.

Ah, I left the micro word out.

Most modern films won't reticulate as they are well hardened. Reticulation was where the emulsion as well as the super coat cracked, a bit like crazy paving.

Older photographers who shot films like FP3 and HP3. and the Kodak equivalents of the same era will remember how easily films reticulated.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

FP4 and HP5 are quite different in several respects, including curve shape, grain structure, and speed. Because FP4 is so versatile and relatively easy to manage, it's the film I generally recommend to beginners. In its former rendiion, it's the film I chose to learn view camera work. And I've kept it in my sheet film arsenal selection ever since for a good reason.

I prefer other films than FP4 for 120 roll film work, or 35mm, and never shoot HP5 in anything except 8x10 format, where I've shot and printed a great deal of it. But I'm not a journalistic type shooter, so have very high expectations when it comes to print quality. For me, there is simply no way FP4 and HP5 visually interchange.

It's not just about "contrast index", but the whole personality distinction between the two sets of characteristic curves. HP5 is a relatively long toe film with a long upsweep, while FP4 has a long straight line once you boost the exposure about a stop above box speed. This means that shadows and highlights in particular get rendered differently.

Scanning introduces its own set of variables which complicates the whole question.

Don't worry about the topic of reticulation. Those of us who remember that are now rather reticulated ourselves.

 

[GregY]

Thank you, this was probably the most informative comment so far. Despite my carefully worded disclaimer, most folks assumed that I'm unhappy about (or even attacking) FP4+. I am not. It is a great film. I'm just not seeing any compelling reasons to be shooting two stocks, e.g. HP5+FP4 instead of just HP5+. The inconvenience of not developing all rolls in the same tank, and flipping ISO setting on my meter doesn't offer much in return.

I dismiss any contrast-related suggestions as well. Contrast is not set in stone with B&W. I can tweak CI for both films to what I need just fine. Your comment made me think that perhaps my question can be answered by the combination of:

1. HP5+ grain is remarkably nice in Xtol
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.

Steven, #2.....
Also preference comes into play. I've shot tons of HP5 over the decades and prefer TriX...... but i love the native contrast of FP4..... even in 5"x7" film.

 

[Milpool]

Your characterization of HP5+ sensitometry seems to contradict what Ilford says. I don't see any evidence of an upsweep in the published curve, and Ilford recommends HP5+ for push-processing - an upswept curve seems to me to be the opposite of the curve shape you'd design into a film recommended for pushing.

FP4 and HP5 are quite different in several respects, including curve shape, grain structure, and speed. Because FP4 is so versatile and relatively easy to manage, it's the film I generally recommend to beginners. In its former rendiion, it's the film I chose to learn view camera work. And I've kept it in my sheet film arsenal selection ever since for a good reason.

I prefer other films than FP4 for 120 roll film work, or 35mm, and never shoot HP5 in anything except 8x10 format, where I've shot and printed a great deal of it. But I'm not a journalistic type shooter, so have very high expectations when it comes to print quality. For me, there is simply no way FP4 and HP5 visually interchange.

It's not just about "contrast index", but the whole personality distinction between the two sets of characteristic curves. HP5 is a relatively long toe film with a long upsweep, while FP4 has a long straight line once you boost the exposure about a stop above box speed. This means that shadows and highlights in particular get rendered differently.

Scanning introduces its own set of variables which complicates the whole question.

Don't worry about the topic of reticulation. Those of us who remember that are now rather reticulated ourselves.

 

[Steven Lee]

I prefer other films than FP4 for 120 roll film work, or 35mm, and never shoot HP5 in anything except 8x10 format, where I've shot and printed a great deal of it. But I'm not a journalistic type shooter, so have very high expectations when it comes to print quality. For me, there is simply no way FP4 and HP5 visually interchange.

Sorry but I lost your train of thought. In your comment you seem to be saying that you prefer FP4+ curve shape, but then you mention that you use HP5+ in 8x10". Are you saying that HP+ is formulated differently in LF?

P.S. I would also agree with @Milpool that your description of the HP5+ curve doesn't match my experience (or Ilford datasheet), especially the long-toe part, but I assume that's influenced for your choice of chemistry.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Your characterization of HP5+ sensitometry seems to contradict what Ilford says. I don't see any evidence of an upsweep in the published curve, and Ilford recommends HP5+ for push-processing - an upswept curve seems to me to be the opposite of the curve shape you'd design into a film recommended for pushing.

What's interesting is how small the differences in curve shape are in the toes and straight line sections of HP5+, FP4+, Delta 100 and Delta 400, with the significant differences only really kicking in with the shoulder characteristics (and/ or where the shoulder kicks in). Rather amusingly, they track equally tightly to Kodak Super-XX's curve, which rather punctures the often perplexing claims of some who cannot understand that Super-XX was a general purpose film, as are the aforementioned Ilford products.

That's assuming that whoever is doing the tests has got their exposure and development under adequate control. And that they're developing in something sensible.

 

[Ian Grant]

You can be assured that I am not missing that. I can also tie my shoes, brush my teeth, and I don't pee in photo chemicals: so cross those off your list as well. There was another character above who assumed I can't keep a liquid at a temperature. Can we just move past the insult stage please? I wasn't questioning my mental capacity, I was asking about **your** use cases for FP4+.

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

Ironically I am attracted to things I don't understand, so I've been shooting quite a lot of FP4+ in medium format. Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

Over the years I have used thousands of 35mm & 120,rolls, and even more sheets of FP4. It was my default film for over 20 years. It's probably the best-selling B&W film worldwide. (Ilford have by far the largest market share, Foma may have overtaken Kodak.

I do shoot HP5, only in 5x4 for hand held work and the results are superb, I prefer Delta 400 for 120.

What niche does FP4 fill, the basic general purpose all round fine grain film stock, like Plus X.

Ian

 

[MFstooges]

I could live happily with just FP4+ in all formats.

FP4+ for me too. I haven't had good luck with Delta 100 and my choice of developer yet so I'll stick with FP4

 

[retina_restoration]

Thank you!

One thing I didn't mention: I find the separation of the highest values is superior with FP4+ compared to HP5+, which I find renders the delicate high values a bit flatter.

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, Stephen. The curve shape distinction between FP4 and HP5 is there regardless of whether in sheet or roll version.
I totally disagree with Lachlan that these differences are inconsequential, or that all of them can be manipulated to resemble old Super XX. Nonsense. I have hundreds of prints which were highly successful because I recognized the real differences and when it particularly counted. Maybe he's simply not familiar with the implications of true high contrast settings which HP5 can't handle well. But I get that kind of pushback from any number of photographers who haven't spent their years like I have dealing with the extremes of sparkling glaciers adjacent to deep shade in high altitude light, or deep redwood forests with 12 stop extremes once the morning fog dissipates.

FP4, along with D100 and Acros, does somewhat better in that respect than HP5, but certainly nowhere near as well as TMax films or old "straight-line" films like Super-XX or Bergger 200, which all have a very short toe which rapidly launches off like a rocket onto the straight line section of the curve, allowing for significantly better deep shadow gradation.

Handling those kinds of very deep shade situations via overexposure just risks the upper end shouldering off and blowing out the highlights instead. Or the Zone System mantra tells you to flatten the whole contrast range with heavy handed compression or "minus" development, which inevitably smothers all the life and sparkle out of of delicate mid tonality too. It makes way more sense to go with a more suitable film choice to begin with, rather than pretending all films can be made to look the same.

I don't like referring to "Pushing" in this context because it misappropriates a term from color film lab development and makes its meaning ambiguous. At least the Zone System refers to shadow "placement" as an anchor point in reference to "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights".

One problem with casual perusal of tiny abbreviated curves on tech sheets is that you can't as easily detect the toe distinctions anywhere near as well as making full scale densitometer plots on big sheets of translucent paper, and then seeing how well the respective results do or don't match over a light box.

Short story : Choose a shoe size which fits the foot comfortably, rather than trying to force the foot into a shoe too small to begin with. All of these films are capable of superb results, but not necessarily in every kind of lighting situation. FP4 is an excellent middle-of-the-road film in that respect; but it has its limitations. And people shouldn't confuse what it does well with what former Plus X was designed for - different animals indeed.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

Ironically I am attracted to things I don't understand, so I've been shooting quite a lot of FP4+ in medium format. Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

In medium format. the finer grain of FP4+ may not be as apparent as in 35mm. With good technique, you should be able to make 16x20 prints from 35mm FP4+ with little or no apparent grain. The Delta films are supposed to have less latitude; that's why Ilford still make the conventional films. In uncontrolled lighting situations, the conventional films will work better.

One thing I have discovered is that different speeds of film demand different dilutions. Take FX39, for example. For Delta 3200, a dilution of 1+5 or 1+8 will work well. For FP4+, T-Max 100, T-Max 400, Tri-X, Hp5+, and Acros, 1+14 or 1+17 will be better. For Pan-F+, 1+19 works well. The usual recommendations give different times for the same dilution. I have found that using different dilutions gives better results.

 

[Milpool]

I agree. In all honesty I would add the current Kodak films (besides TXP) as well as Acros to the list too. As you point out, they differ to varying degrees (sometimes substantially) as you get into the more extreme highlights, and in how density builds up there with increased development, but further down the curve they are all similar enough to be virtually the same from a tone reproduction perspective. That’s if one is objective, of course.

What's interesting is how small the differences in curve shape are in the toes and straight line sections of HP5+, FP4+, Delta 100 and Delta 400, with the significant differences only really kicking in with the shoulder characteristics (and/ or where the shoulder kicks in). Rather amusingly, they track equally tightly to Kodak Super-XX's curve, which rather punctures the often perplexing claims of some who cannot understand that Super-XX was a general purpose film, as are the aforementioned Ilford products.

That's assuming that whoever is doing the tests has got their exposure and development under adequate control. And that they're developing in something sensible.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

One thing I didn't mention: I find the separation of the highest values is superior with FP4+ compared to HP5+, which I find renders the delicate high values a bit flatter.

That's because of the dilution. Use less dilute developer with HP5+.

 

[DREW WILEY]

D 100 can handle fairly long scene contrast ranges as well as FP4; but having a higher gamma, it's needs more careful metering, that's all. It isn't as forgiving in that respect as FP4.

You have the same distinction among Kodak films between Tri-X, which is fairly forgiving, and TMax films which need more careful metering.

I don't like relying on the concept of "latitude", but do admit that on rainy days with a 6X9 RF tucked under my parka, it does at times make sense when out casually shooting to have a particularly forgiving film like Delta 3200 in the camera.

 

[Steven Lee]

@DREW WILEY I suppose I am not faced with the extreme contrast subjects that you're after, so I have not had a chance to notice the wider range of FP4+, in fact I can't recall a single time when HP5+ did not have enough range for what I need in a scene.

Here's an example of a subject I've photographed many times. This one is FP4+ but I've done this with both films:


There is plenty of shadow detail in the darkest areas, while the white house wall is not blown up, on both FP4+ and HP5+. If you see sections of the 100% pure black in the scan, that was intentional - there's detail in the negative.

But thanks for the response!

 

[George Collier]

Outstanding tonal quality beginning in the 70's when I first began using it with ID-11 (Neither had the + then).
I noticed the long range capacity of the film.
Once I was in Wash DC mid 70's, I was shooting architecture for a firm, and when leaving on the elevator, I ran into Robert Lautman, a prominent architectural photographer of the 20th century. We chatted about the films we used, and he went on at length about how much he loved FP4. I still remember him gesturing about the long straight portion of the curve. (we both used 4x5 - and architectural subjects can often be of long tonal range)
It is still one of two films I use, now 35mm only - FP4+ and HP5+, both in Rodinal.

 

[MattKing]

Before its demise, I used to have Plus-X in my bag, because I thought its characteristics were sufficiently distinctive from my main choice, T-Max 400, as to provide me with two different looks, while offering reasonably similar levels of grain.
I've considered using FP4+ in the place of Plus-X, but instead I'm using T-Max 100 for its distinctly finer grain.
With Plus-X, it was the different look that I relied on, in those situations where both T-Max 400 and Plus-X would work.

 

[MARTIE]

@DREW WILEY I suppose I am not faced with the extreme contrast subjects that you're after, so I have not had a chance to notice the wider range of FP4+, in fact I can't recall a single time when HP5+ did not have enough range for what I need in a scene.

Here's an example of a subject I've photographed many times. This one is FP4+ but I've done this with both films:
View attachment 369854

There is plenty of shadow detail in the darkest areas, while the white house wall is not blown up, on both FP4+ and HP5+. If you see sections of the 100% pure black in the scan, that was intentional - there's detail in the negative.

But thanks for the response!

Nice shot. And how about the HP5+?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Thanks for posting the shot, Steven; and yes, that's a tonal range FP4 can easily handle, but not what I would personally classify as especially high contrast. Typical white paint is a lot less bright than many of the actual specular reflections I encounter where I still need textural differentiation. In fact, most weathered white house paints are only around 80% reflective, not even as bright as the soft fur on my white cat.

Similarly, your shadows in that picture contain quite a bit of fill light. So again, yes, FP4 is a good choice for most architectural photography, even outdoors. But due to get better shadow gradation, I routinely rate FP4 at 50. Doing so, the highlights rarely blow out with that kind of subject matter. Doing landscape work in the mountains or desert is a different story, where I really do need longer scale films.

 

[MTGseattle]

I don't see anything "missing" in that example Steven. I like the composition.

Not to derail the thread, but when we talk about temperature control while processing black and white roll film how nitpicky do we need to be? I know full well what having 75-80 Fahrenheit developer is likely to do, but let's say your fix is a few degrees off from everything else. is that actually going to cause a visual change? I fully agree and embrace the idea of adherence to a process and maintaining some standards, but seriously, are there any real pitfalls past the developer?

 

[Steven Lee]

Nice shot. And how about the HP5+?

I don't have an HP5+ shot from exactly the same spot, but here's a similar light+subject shot nearby on HP5+ under the same light :



Same thing: the shadows and the white house siding have full detail. The 100% black areas are intentionally darkened after scanning.