FP4+ What am I missing?

[Steven Lee]

@DREW WILEY how about this one? It is the closest (to your description) image I could find in my HP5+ portfolio. Does this qualify as high contrast? I mean it's the harshest light possible at 1pm, snow+rocks, at 8k feet over Tahoe. The negative has full detail everywhere. Basically I can't imagine a situation where HP5 range won't be enough, but that's just my limited experience.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

@DREW WILEY how about this one? It is the closest (to your description) image I could find in my HP5+ portfolio. Does this qualify as high contrast? I mean it's the harshest light possible at 1pm, snow+rocks, at 8k feet over Tahoe. The negative has full detail everywhere. Basically I can't imagine a situation where HP5 range won't be enough, but that's just my limited experience.

As you are getting results that you like from HP5 Plus, just stick with it and switch over to Delta 100 when you want finer grain. FP4 Plus obviously isn't for you.
Personally, I like FP4 Plus but it isn't to everyone's liking.

 

[MARTIE]

Of the shots you've shown so far, my preference is clearly for 'under the bridge' FP4+. And given the subject matter and light conditions, perhaps not surprising.

I'd keep using both speed films but for situations which they were both intended and designed for. Although, each to their own, I guess.

I presume they were all taken with the same camera and lens?

 

[otto.f]

Deep blacks, landscape. These are the things where FP4+ stands out. If you don't see that, it's probably the developer, or lack of experience with other films.

 

[loccdor]

HP5 is lower contrast than FP4. So I'd prefer to use FP4 in duller light and HP5 works well in harsh sunlight or artificial light. I think to get similar contrasts from the films in the same conditions, you'd have to shoot the HP5 at 800.

I do see significantly finer grain in FP4.

I have heard FP4 is also much better for reversal processing, in case that is of interest.

FP4 will age more gracefully in expiration, being a slower film.

HP5 is better when shooting in unpredictable light conditions or shooting parts of the same roll of film at different rated speeds due to its latitude. That also makes it better for beginners.

Delta 100 is a different animal, more modern looking, can give a near-medium-format look to 35mm.

As far as subjective artistic feelings go, HP5 to me imparts a slightly sad, nostalgic look to images. They look kind of like they were shot in the 40s or 50s. FP4 is also nostalgic, but I get less of a sad feeling from it, and more vibrance. Delta 100 reminds me of the 80s in its look.

 

[Steven Lee]

As far as subjective artistic feelings go, HP5 to me imparts a slightly sad, nostalgic look to images. They look kind of like they were shot in the 40s or 50s. FP4 is also nostalgic, but I get less of a sad feeling from it, and more vibrance. Delta 100 reminds me of the 80s in its look.

I am glad someone else sees that too! Yes, there's this "charcoal painting" feeling to HP5+ images I often notice too, but fail to explain the effect in technical terms.

 

[DREW WILEY]

At this point, the conversation seems to be on a different planet, apparently a make-believe one.

 

[retina_restoration]

It's such a shame that an honest discussion like this ends up in an argument with vague insults being bandied about.

 

[snusmumriken]

I am glad someone else sees that too! Yes, there's this "charcoal painting" feeling to HP5+ images I often notice too, but fail to explain the effect in technical terms.

And for me too, it's a relief to learn that others find it difficult to relate the 'look' of an image to characteristic curves. It's not that I don't understand the science, either.

 

[qqphot]

It's such a shame that an honest discussion like this ends up in an argument with vague insults being bandied about.

I agree. I think the patronizing responses early on ("you lack Craft", etc) set the tone for insults being tossed around. At any rate, I've certainly learned not to ask similar questions in the future!

 

[Pioneer]

I agree. I think the patronizing responses early on ("you lack Craft", etc) set the tone for insults being tossed around. At any rate, I've certainly learned not to ask similar questions in the future!

I found all of these responses interesting and worth considering no matter how they seem to be presented. For example "Craft" (I would personally call it technique) is certainly worth considering. Everyone does some things differently than others do them. I would think that you would want to look at and discuss how you expose and develop this film and then compare it with the manufacturer's recommendations as well as each others methods. Unfortunately I didn't see a lot of that discussion as it seemed to get lost.

For example, what developer(s), what temp(s) are you using, what agitation schedules, developing times and so on. It appears that there are several responders who like and use FP4+; what is their technique (craft) and how is it different than your own?

I don't use FP4+ so can't comment but discussions about various trouble shooting and comparison methods would be useful for everyone, no matter what film they are using. It is a pity to see all this useful give and take being lost to what may simply be misunderstandings which can easily occur between people who may be more accustomed to different languages.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Steven - As far as a "charcoal effect" in your 35mm work, it might be analogous to that almost etched look I get with HP5 at moderate sized enlargements (up to 3X) from 8x10 film. But that is also related to the specific staining effect of pyro development and the resultant "watercolor grain" as we call it - smoothly blended, but with exceptional edge acutance.
At one point I had one of these framed HP5 prints on the wall adjacent to an exceptionally well done scraper etching on chalkboard, where black and brown ink is coated on the white chalk, and then the image scraped out with a sharp object. There was indeed a kind of visual affinity.

No, not the "soot and chalk" look that AA always condemned due to lack of shadow and highlight texture, but just a special look which can hover been graphic and photographic. Not "artsy" at all, but distinct. I have a lot of HP5 prints which give that impression.

 

[snusmumriken]

Steven - As far as a "charcoal effect" in your 35mm work, it might be analogous to that almost etched look I get with HP5 at moderate sized enlargements (up to 3X) from 8x10 film. But that is also related to the specific staining effect of pyro development and the resultant "watercolor grain" as we call it - smoothly blended, but with exceptional edge acutance.
At one point I had one of these framed HP5 prints on the wall adjacent to an exceptionally well done scraper etching on chalkboard, where black and brown ink is coated on the white chalk, and then the image scraped out with a sharp object. There was indeed a kind of visual affinity.

No, not the "soot and chalk" look that AA always condemned due to lack of shadow and highlight texture, but just a special look which can hover been graphic and photographic. Not "artsy" at all, but distinct. I have a lot of HP5 prints which give that impression.

Could you show us an example of the effect you are talking about?

 

[GregY]

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 the best description of what i observed as well! Thank you.

 

[Ian Grant]

I agree. I think the patronizing responses early on ("you lack Craft", etc) set the tone for insults being tossed around. At any rate, I've certainly learned not to ask similar questions in the future!

I'm quite happy to re-iterate the term Craft, however the OP with his two examples has shown it is not the basic issue here. However, as others have said there should be a significant difference between FP4 and HP5 when it comes to fine grain, sharpness, etc.

The OP asked a simple question, I WAS A BIT SHARP, I apologise for that, but as he obviously expected to see a larger difference, which to be honest he should expect to be seeing, then it is fine-tuning, craft.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

I have used HP5+ almost to the exclusion of any other film sínce I started b&w photography in about 2003 and never really noticed any charcoal effect or maybe I have and just haven't recognised what it is
I can't say I have recognised it in Andrew O' Neill's pictures either and he shoots quite a lot of HP5+, mainly in LF format whereas, mine has always been 135, 645 and to a smaller extent 6x6

What do I need to look for to see this effect?

Thanks

pentaxuser


.

 

[Steven Lee]

What do I need to look for to see this effect?

@pentaxuser here's from my last 35mm roll of HP5+



It is subtle, but that's why I love it. The same photo taken on TMax or Delta films would have looked quite different, more realistic and life-like.

 

[MattKing]

As a resident of the UK, pentaxuser might think that that scene looks very realistic .
Similar to how our "wet coast" area looks in November light!

 

[Richard Jepsen]

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?

It would be more of a test to compare FP4 in 135 format to HP5 In small format. I think you would easily see a difference between the two films that in MF is less apparent.

 

[mshchem]

Yep, I remember when you didn't use anything faster than required to get the job done. Tri-X in 35mm back in the day was "gritty" which means big ole grain. Hard to replace that with modern films. Maybe push 400 to 3200?
I love every film Ilford and Kodak have in the current catalog.

 

[Steven Lee]

As a resident of the UK, pentaxuser might think that that scene looks very realistic .
Similar to how our "wet coast" area looks in November light!

LOL. I see what you mean. Well, here's that same effect in a photo taken in the US (Virginia):

 

[pentaxuser]

As a resident of the UK, pentaxuser might think that that scene looks very realistic .
Similar to how our "wet coast" area looks in November light!

Well that about sums it up, Matt and not just on a November night. It just looks like a normal picture reflecting the light conditions as they were

On the bigger issue and at the nub of this thread is the fact that the OP, Steven ín this case, but it could be many others see or do not see different things which either differentiate HP5+ from FP4 or do not

What is clearly the case is that Steven has concluded that FP4 is not sufficiently different from HP5 to make it worth his while to use both films.

I never felt that those who do see differences had any chance of convincing him otherwise so in that situation I did wonder if there was ever any point in putting forward reasons why FP4 had advantages or differences

All that was likely to happen at best was that we'd end up politely agreeing to differ but instead we ended up in the "at worst" situation of the thread turning a little ugly with no compensating benefits to anyone

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sorry, folks... It is IMPOSSIBLE to show what I mean over the web. You'd need to look at real prints up close, and from my own experience, made from 8x10 negs and pyro development. There's a sweet spot around 1-1/2x to 3X magnification where the "etched" effect can be stunning; in other words from around print size 11X14 to 20X24 inches when 8x10 negs are involved. I've never got equal results from 4x5 HP5 film (though nice results in other ways). And I've never shot it in smaller size than that.

But this has been an interesting discussion, especially since it revolves around how different films have different personalities. I've used so many different films that I probably have voices in my head by now.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, if that’s the case then many of us will never really know what you are talking/writing about. How sad…

 

[brbo]

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.