FP4+ What am I missing?

[pentaxuser]

BobUK, can you say what amendments you have made to get decent contrast with HP5+

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

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

Films like delta employ tabular grain technology. This relies on putting thin narrow grains with the pointy end facing the surface of the film. Thus, producing a finer grain looking film with higher ISO. However, as manufacturers of this type of film admit, they can’t guarantee on putting all the grains in the same direction. So, for me this is not a real film with random grain distribution, and that’s why I would never use it, as it lacks physical integrity.

 

[Prest_400]

Have you considered using an ND filter?

There was a thread about "why ISO 400", which might be in RFF not here. TL-DR, some forumer asked that under daylight that speed might be excessive: As a medium format shooter I find that ISO 100 can be quite tight, and with some fine grain developer combinations plus a filter, the ISO 400 can be then a tad slower.

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 do you have more formal literature about the spectral sensitivity of the Tabular grain type films? I observe darker skies with good separation from the clouds in Delta, Acros and TMX. With that, a yellow filter is not required and thus there is about a stop gained compared to cubical grain films with filtering and compensation required. Interestingly, aside of the Orthopan films, there never was much buzz about this. Acros is Orthopan and also exhibits that sky separation. Only Kodak does mention it for the T-Max line IIRC it's more of reduced/adjusted blue sensitivity.

The blue sensitivity of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX Films is slightly less than that of other Kodak panchromatic black-and-white films. This enables the response of this film to be closer to the response of the human eye. Therefore, blues may be recorded as slightly darker tones with this film—a more natural rendition.

Neat to know that the Deltas are not as demanding for the fixer, I always use quite fresh rapid fixer at 1+4 and never had problems with exhaustion.

My post is more of a Tabular vs Cubical film grain characteristics... I have all of them in my fridge and ready for service currently

 

[DREW WILEY]

In terms of spectral sensitivity, the distinction is not between T-grain films and traditional grain. D100 is T-grain, but shares the spectral sensitivity of most other Ilford Pan films. Kodak T-Max films, however, have a somewhat different spectral sensitivity, which differs somewhat even from other Kodak pan films.

I don't buy into Cliveh's offhand assertion that T-grain films have less physical integrity. What on earth is meant by that?
Early on, the grain cluster distribution of TMax 400 was a bit uneven; but that issue was solved long ago when the next generation of TMY came out.

The grain size of D100 is about midway between TMax 100 and 400. So if one needs more speed, yet reasonably fine grain, TMY400 makes quite a bit of sense, even in 35mm work.

My main gripe with Delta 100 is that even the emulsion side is quite slick, and hence more problematic when it comes to controlling Newton rings in a glass carrier.

 

[pentaxuser]

My main gripe with Delta 100 is that even the emulsion side is quite slick, and hence more problematic when it comes to controlling Newton rings in a glass carrier.

Might be time to mention this to Ilford, Drew?

pentaxuser

 

[Milpool]

I’m puzzled by this. I’ve always found the emulsion side of Delta 100 to be fairly conventional in sheen (ie matte enough not to give Newton ring problems) whereas the TMax emulsions are the shiny ones. In your experience you’ve found Delta more difficult than TMax for Newton rings on the emulsion side?

My main gripe with Delta 100 is that even the emulsion side is quite slick, and hence more problematic when it comes to controlling Newton rings in a glass carrier.

 

[Steven Lee]

{deleted}

{response to deletion}

....plenty of people prefer the grain appearance of traditional films. Call it texture if you want. I too find tabular grain to be finer but less pleasant than traditional emulsions. I don't want to over-generalize, but HP5+ grain looks more pleasing to me than Delta 400.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Texture implies something else, either in terms of tonality, or a physical film surface (like the presence of retouching "tooth").

And at this point, you're interjecting Delta 400, which has a quite different look from Delta 100. And there is just as much variation between various "traditional" grain appearances, between different film and developer combinations, as the difference between generic impressions of T-grain versus regular emulsions. All kinds of variables go into a final look, including the manner by which it's finally converted into a positive image.

Milpool - most films have gotten slicker in recent decades. The worst seems to be Acros, with D100 perhaps second place. Even FP4 is slicker than the original version, but with a positive improvement more resistant to handling. I work a great deal with sheet films in a foggy coastal climate, so am particularly plagued with Newton ring issues much of the year.

Thin roll film can be an even harder challenge in that respect. I routinely use Anti-Newton glass on both sides in the carrier, in every one of my enlargers. Then once supplementary masking gets involved, or advanced procedures using multiple film steps in registration, the risk of rings just gets compounded. So I have reason to be especially aware of this problem, and which films are especially prone to it. "Glassless" carriers are out of the question; they're incapable of consistent sharpness across the board.

HP5 is one of the last semi-thick emulsions around with less of an issue; and TX320 still carries a retouching tooth in sheet form. For some reason, 35mm film is less of a headache; but thin 120 roll film tends to be especially slick, in order to roll efficiently, I guess.

 

[MattKing]

Moderator's note: post deleted, as well as responses to it.
If you disagree with the factual content in a post, respond with facts and objective observations and, where appropriate, subjective observations about facts.
Attributing improper motives without any evidence is not permitted, and just using words like "nonsense" is inflammatory and not constructive in any way.
Whether or not the post you are responding to can easily be refuted.

 

[Milpool]

Everyone can like whatever they like for whatever reason. The explanation in this case made no sense as the comments regarding the Delta emulsion were mostly incorrect, so it is then simply a matter of some philosophy based on a false premise.

And what of other emulsions that have a fast tabular layer over a slow cubic layer? Is such a film half real?

In the end if someone likes the graininess of FP4+ more than Delta 100 there is really nothing more to it than they like a grainier print, and maybe a little less definition. That’s all fine, of course, and totally valid, but anyone who truly thinks they can look at a print and identify the “character” of the grain as tabular vs cubic, I have some prime oceanfront property in Arizona for sale.

First of all, let's not degrade the discussion down to personal insults, shall we? It is not hard to interpret his comments regarding "physical integrity" charitably: plenty of people prefer the grain appearance of traditional films. Call it texture if you want. I too find tabular grain to be finer but less pleasant than traditional emulsions. I don't want to over-generalize, but HP5+ grain looks more pleasing to me than Delta 400.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

{response to deletion}

....plenty of people prefer the grain appearance of traditional films. Call it texture if you want. I too find tabular grain to be finer but less pleasant than traditional emulsions. I don't want to over-generalize, but HP5+ grain looks more pleasing to me than Delta 400.

I have no idea why you would say that. How are you processing them?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Films like delta employ tabular grain technology. This relies on putting thin narrow grains with the pointy end facing the surface of the film. Thus, producing a finer grain looking film with higher ISO. However, as manufacturers of this type of film admit, they can’t guarantee on putting all the grains in the same direction. So, for me this is not a real film with random grain distribution, and that’s why I would never use it, as it lacks physical integrity.

Actually, the "tabular" grains are flatter, and the flat side is oriented towards the surface. Thus, the surface to volume ratio is greater, meaning more sensitivity for a given grain size.

Wayback Machine

See also:

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/photogrst1964/49/6/49_6_499/_pdf

 

[DREW WILEY]

One thing with respect to Milpool's earlier comment on emulsion side slickness. How "shiny" it might be is not quite the same thing as what I mean by slick. Different developers can affect shine to a degree. Also, numerous Kodak films seem to be specially overcoated to improve handling characteristics as well as scanability, which seems to help with N. ring issues too.

May is one of our driest months of the year here, although we did have a significant rainstorm a week ago. But in general, it's under these kinds of less humid conditions that I try to print Acros and Delta negatives, not during fog or rain season. I recently took a trip where I shot Acros in both roll and 4x5 sheet version, as well as some TMax100 rolls. Either of the 120 roll products can be dicey where rings are concerned in cold damp weather, but Acros especially so.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

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?

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

What type of developer is HRX. What are it's strengths and weaknesses?

 

[Dwayne Martin]

You are probably missing "Craft". By that I mean the skills to fine tune your exposure and development, and maintaining strict temperature controls during processing..

Some years ago John Davies, the British landscape photograpgher obverved that there was a wide difference in his students negative quality, all shooting FP4 and processed in ID-11. Aside from obvious exposure/deve time issues he noted another factor was poor temperature control.

Ian

Interesting. Ive always kept strict controls on temp and development even though many say its not so important with BW film...I love FP4, always have

 

[snusmumriken]

Answering the need for some actual test results in this thread, there is this excellent website, which I've referred to here on Photrio before. It's in Norwegian, but English speakers should be able to make out what's going on if they squint a bit. It is easily possible to set up on your screen a side-by-side comparison of FP4+ and HP5+ in the same developer. Here's a screenshot of them in D-76, but I've had to reduce resolution considerably to upload it, so you'll need to visit the site yourselves.

 

[f/Alex]

From what I've seen, I *think* FP4 yields deeper blacks, and *maybe* higher contrast? it's been ages since I shot HP5+ cause I detest that film, especially with how much it costs, If I'm going to spend that much money on a roll it's going to be 100TMX or 100 Delta. My use of FP4 was somewhat limited though, although I did enjoy using it, and would consider it for when I'm not running cheap film like my bulk loaded Kentmere 100.

Edit: my comment may be entirely irrelevant, since my developing methods have changed radically since i started mostly stand developing in 1+1+100 or 1+2+100 pyrocat hd and my HP5+ work was inversion developed in sprint standard.

Honestly these days I'm either shooting serious 4x5 or 120 stuff or I'm running whatever is cheap through my 35mm camera. Or phoenix, which I've taken a liking too, against my better judgement.

 

[Ian Grant]

Texture implies something else, either in terms of tonality, or a physical film surface (like the presence of retouching "tooth").

If you read Kodak's press releases for their improved emulsions one key factor is better optimised for scanning. Kodak use the term "Micro-Structure Optimized".

So yes, you are right, the "texture" of the emulsion side of films has changed over the years, no longer is that lustre of the gelatin super-coat always noticeable.

The effects of the emulsion surface on print quality has been known about for a 100 years, and the 1926 BJP Almanac has a précis of a magazine article on wet mounting miniature negatives.

Kodak called the issue surface artefacts, it was a major issue when the first digital minilabs began to be used, prints from Kodak colour films showed increased graininess compared to Fuji & Agfa films. Kodak quickly improved the emulsion hardening, and research continued to bring further improvements.

Ian

 

[Henning Serger]

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

My pleasure, Steven.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[snusmumriken]

I may need some help with this from others with better insight, but the way I interpret the curves on that fotoimport.no web site is as follows.

HP5+ appears to have a longer toe than FP4+, implying less separation of shadow tones if you underexpose HP5+. HP5+ also has a pronounced shoulder, implying some compression of highlights (not necessarily a bad thing). HP5+ is renowned for its latitude, but surely its tonality would be affected by where you place your subject on such a curved curve? The shoulder of HP5+ seems to be straightened out by the use of TMax developer, compared with D-76 (I'd like to understand how).

FP4+ has a very long straight portion to the curve, so compared with HP5+ its tonal separation throughout the scale should be excellent. A shoulder can be introduced by the use of a semi-compensating developer like FX-39.

The people behind that website seem to have taken a lot of trouble to standardise procedures as much as possible, but it seems to me that the indoor test target is unavoidably low contrast, so that results for a landscape in bright sunlight may be somewhat different.

To repeat, this is only my reading of someone else's test curves. Other interpretations may differ. Corrections to my tenuous understanding welcome!

 

[Henning Serger]

Films like delta employ tabular grain technology. This relies on putting thin narrow grains with the pointy end facing the surface of the film. Thus, producing a finer grain looking film with higher ISO. However, as manufacturers of this type of film admit, they can’t guarantee on putting all the grains in the same direction. So, for me this is not a real film with random grain distribution, and that’s why I would never use it, as it lacks physical integrity.

Well, first of all, as has been already correctly explained by others, because of their improved shape tabular grain crystals are much more light efficient than conventional ones. And their flat surface is oriented towards the incoming direction of the light.
But that is just one dimension. And a film emulsion is three dimensional. And if you are looking from above on the film, then you have in height and width a random grain distribution (different distances between grain clusters) both with conventional emulsions and with tabular grain emulsions. There is really no difference in this aspect between the two emulsion types.
You see that at once when you compare these film types under a microscope with 100x enlargement (I am doing that regularly in my scientific film tests).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning do you have more formal literature about the spectral sensitivity of the Tabular grain type films? I observe darker skies with good separation from the clouds in Delta, Acros and TMX. With that, a yellow filter is not required and thus there is about a stop gained compared to cubical grain films with filtering and compensation required. Interestingly, aside of the Orthopan films, there never was much buzz about this. Acros is Orthopan and also exhibits that sky separation. Only Kodak does mention it for the T-Max line IIRC it's more of reduced/adjusted blue sensitivity.

No, no formal literature I know of. And I agree with Drew that this has most probably nothing to do with conventional vs. tabular grain emulsions, but is just a decision of the emulsionists for the spectral sensitivity.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

The grain size of D100 is about midway between TMax 100 and 400.

Hello Drew,

from my numerous film tests of both films I have to disagree here: Delta 100 is much closer to TMX in grain size. The difference to TMY-2 is much bigger.
The same is valid for sharpness and resolution.

Here my resolution values for all three films in my standard film test (object contrast 1:4, values for system resolution with the Zeiss ZF 2/50 at f5.6, developed in SPUR HRX):
TMX: 135-150 lp/mm
Delta 100: 130-140 lp/mm
TMY-2: 90-105 lp/mm.

This order in resolution for these three films is also valid for fineness of grain: TMX at the top, Delta 100 very close behind, and TMY-2 with a significant distance.
Same for sharpness. But with one addition: "Objective sharpness" (clear edge sharpness), evaluated under a microscope, of TMX is a bit better than Delta 100.
But Delta 100 very often (depends also on developer) looks subjectively a bit sharper at most standard print sizes. Not only my observation, but also shared by several very experienced photographer friends, and confirmed in blind test comparisons.

So if one needs more speed, yet reasonably fine grain, TMY400 makes quite a bit of sense, even in 35mm work.

Indeed. It is by far the finest grained, sharpest and highest resolving ISO 400/27° BW film. It surpasses even some conventional grain type films of the ISO 100/21° class in resolution (like Fomapan 100).
Unfortunately it has become extremely expensive here in Europe due to Kodak Alaris counterproductive pricing policy.

My main gripe with Delta 100 is that even the emulsion side is quite slick, and hence more problematic when it comes to controlling Newton rings in a glass carrier.

Hm, I have never had any problems in that regard with Delta 100 in 135 and 120 formats with my Kaiser Anti-Newton glass carrier in my Kaiser System V enlarger.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

What type of developer is HRX. What are it's strengths and weaknesses?

Hello Keith,

SPUR HRX is a high-resolution developer (therefore also the HR in the name).
It combines extremely fine grain with excellent sharpness, which together results in optimal resolution.
It is a developer to fully exploit / to use to full capacity the outstanding detail rendition of HR-50, PanF+, TMX, Delta 100, Acros 100 II, Delta 400, TMY-2.
It has also a good shelf life. And with several films you can use it also as a (semi)compensating developer.

Weakness: Well in the "magic triangle" for developers of sharpness, fineness of grain and speed it is impossible to optimize all three at the same time. You can only optimize 1 to max. 2 of these three parameters, with at least one parameter you have to made compromises.
In the case of HRX the compromise is effective film speed, which is on average about 1/3 stop less compared to XT-3 (XTOL). It of course depends on the specific film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

To repeat, this is only my reading of someone else's test curves. Other interpretations may differ. Corrections to my tenuous understanding welcome!

The most important factor is probably to know that characteristic curves are not completely "hammered in stone"!

Give me FP4+ or Delta 100 for example - both two being very versatile and flexible films in that regard - and I can create many different characteristic curves dependent on
- the specific developer used
- the specific dilution used
- the specific agitation rhythm used.

I can develop them just in the way I want / need for specific applications, with significantly different CCs.

For everyone who wants to optimize his BW developing results I can only highly recommend to use a densitometer and evaluate the characteristic curves.
Because that offers you all the information needed:
- real effective film speed of your film / developer combination
- behaviour of your comb. in the shadows, mid-tones and highlights
- you see immediately where certain problems have their origin with your individual workflow so far.

If BW film photographers would do that 90-95% of all questions concerning film development problems would dissappear.
A densitometer and CC evaluation is probably the most powerful tool you can use for optimizing your personal development process.

But unfortunately instead most photographers refuse to do it, come to forums and ask for the "magic bullet":
"Tell me, with what developer and time I have to develop film xy to get perfect results."
But it cannot work that way, as other photographers do use
- different cameras with different lightmeters which may vary to the ones you use by 1/3, 1/2 or even more stops
- the thermometers they use may also differ from yours, most photographers don't use calibrated ones
- their agitation method may differ as well.......

So the only way for perfect results for you, which you like and with which you are fully satiesfied with is to optimize your workflow for the equipment and procedures you are using.
With a very good, precise densitometer (e.g. Heiland TRD-2) and evaluating the CCs of your film-developer combinations exactly that is possible in a perfect way.

Best regards,
Henning