Ilford FP4+ in HC110 tested. From way too contrasty to normal.

[Stephen Benskin]

This has been interesting to read. I have nothing to contribute, but I would like to understand some of the experimental technique -

For those here using densitometers and compiling contrast curves, what is the method for applying a known exposure to the film calibrated to the desired units? Is it done by photographing a chart under known/measured lighting conditions, or some other way?

By using a step tablet and preferably a sensitometer.

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks for the reply...I had a senior moment and thought I had read all of the pdf, but did not get back to it and missed the last couple of pages.

Yes, alt processes, and using the processes with negs with a high DR...for Platinum/palladium printing without any contrast agent, for example, and a little higher DR for negatives destined for carbon printing.

For platinum printing, FP4+ with Ilford Universal PQ Developer was recommended by Terry King, who was a member of the Royal Photo Society who revisited the older photo processes for study. As well as expanding FP4+ nicely, he mentioned that the midtones also expanded well along with the highlights. The prints are good, and I do like the look of a well-expanded negative. I have also used straight Dektol.

Not issues silver printers usually deal with.

But issues that every study of film characteristics should include.

Besides, you're shooting in the depths of redwood groves, where there isn't much Subject Luminance Range to begin with.

 

[spookyphoto]

This has been interesting to read. I have nothing to contribute, but I would like to understand some of the experimental technique -

For those here using densitometers and compiling contrast curves, what is the method for applying a known exposure to the film calibrated to the desired units? Is it done by photographing a chart under known/measured lighting conditions, or some other way?

By using a sensitometer

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bill, were you being cynical? where do you live? Once the morning fog dissipates, lighting ratios in the redwoods can routinely be around 12 stops. Even in overcast, the range can be significant. So unless shooting with fog or rain present like a natural softbox, I only shoot films with very long straight line characteristic curves like both TMax emulsions or, in the past, Bergger 200 and Super-XX 200 (The pseudo-200 Foma/Arista 200 is very limited in deep woods due to its terrible recip characteristics).
FP4 just doesn't have enough range, and HP5 has even less, for these kinds of extreme ratio scenarios. Another extinct film which had a very long range nice for the redwoods was Efke 25; I sometimes shot it in roll film version.

 

[Vaughn]

But issues that every study of film characteristics should include.

Besides, you're shooting in the depths of redwood groves, where there isn't much Subject Luminance Range to begin with.

It is surprising how much contrast there is under the redwoods even with a light overcast. It is common to read 4 or 5 stops, with perhaps some darker and some brighter areas too small to read. Or that is one of the things I look for. Pools of light created by a fallen redwood or an opening above a creek is wonderful to work in.

But the nicest overcast light is only around for four or five hours in the middle of the day, leading to the very civilized hours of 10am to 2pm. This is also around the time that breezes up and down creeks die down for those long exposures.

One of my main reasons to explore carbon printing was its ability to handle sunlight coming thru the redwoods while keeping all the other values alive. Composing and working with light like that is a fun challenge. Photographing with a light overcast is pretty relaxing…the light changes very slowly and naps are sometimes possible during exposures.

PS I have eight rolls of 120 film, (FP4+ and Acros) to develop and what I have on hand is HC110. I will be developing them for direct pt/pd printing and perhaps carbon, so they will be getting extra development to boost contrast.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was halfway up our Mt Tam one day when I reached a little meadow in the redwoods. The fog was just beginning to break up. Then I heard voices in the sky above, clear enough to make any Medieval monk convinced of a supernatural experience. Then as the sky cleared just a little more, I spotted two hang gliders directly overhead.

Around here, the fog along the coast in summer persists till around noon, and then it moves away and siphons through the Golden Gate to the opposite side of the Bay, and banks up against our East Bay hills.
So as I head back home, my own place is all socked in with fog.

That's why I like to carry the most versatile sheet film possible, due to potentially encountering very different lighting conditions on the same day, or even during the same hour at different elevations on the same hill. Often the true drippy cloud forest up on top will retain the fog longer, which makes those places and their natural softbox lighting particularly magical and appealing. That wetness also preserved the summit areas from the big Pt Reyes fire a few years ago.

 

[cirwin2010]

Jumping into the party late here. Ilford FP4+ has been a struggle for me. I can definitely attest that the Ilford recommended development times for HC-110 at box speed are not appropriate for "normal" contrast. The one and only time I've tried that resulted in an overcast sky going nearly completely back on the negative. Absolutely unrecoverable.

I've tried shooting and developing this film at ISO 100 and 80 in HC-110 dilution B per times in the Massive Dev Chart. The results were somewhat better in terms of highlight control, but still not suitable for Grade 2 filtration on a condenser enlarger.

The most success I've had with this film for controlling contrast was shooting and developing it at ISO 64 in Xt-3 (Xtol) 1+1 for 8.5 minutes. This brought the film mostly under control in high contrast, bright sunlight. But it is still not nearly as easy to print as HP5 in tricky lighting scenarios. HP5 has a bit of a toe and shoulder in its contrast curve so it may lack some speration in shadows and highlights, but at least I know I got the shot when I use it.

To me, this film just doesn't have a place in my arsenal. It just does not have the grain size/resolution advantage over 400 speed films to be worth using when compared to Acros or Tmax 100/400. FP4+ is likely at its best when utilizing the Zone system with N+/N-, but that may not always be suitable for roll film. I definitely see this being a suitable film for alternative process prints and some of my overcooked 4x5 sheets have worked for kallitypes.

Now with that all being said, I have several rolls of 120 FP4+ in my freezer that I don't know what to do with. I have Rodinal and XT-3 (Xtol) stocked. Anyone have any recommendations on what I should try before I just shoot and develop in XT-3 at ISO 64 for 8.5 minutes and hope for the best?



My typical development routine:
-Tank development
-Start timer once all solution has been poured into the tank
-agitate for 15 seconds after sealing tank
-agitate for 10 seconds once every minute until time is up

 

[Craig]

I use FP4 in sheet film expose at 100 and develop it in a jobo for 8 min @20°C in Xtol and the negs come out perfectly.

For typical daylight exposures it usually ends up around 250 F8. I use my Nikon to meter in matrix mode and I use whatever it says, unless I'm taking a picture of something completely snow covered.

FP4 isn't the smallest grain compared to Acros or T Max, but it does have a very nice tonality. I generally find it an easy film to work with, moreso than HP5 actually.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Your impression is odd, Cirwin. FP4 is generally the film I recommend to darkroom beginners due to its predictable ease. So did the popular local camera store when they still held darkroom classes (pre-pandemic). Its about as
"middle of the road" a film as you can get. I first developed it in Perceptol 1:1, but moved on to PMK pyro.

 

[skahde]

I also never got into liking FP4+ as much as tried again and again over the last, well, decades. Interestingly I made some of the most cherished photographs with it because it was in my camera quite often but most negatives have issues with respect to different technical aspects. I will give it another try for sure! It was one of the first films, may it be the last film I expose and finally master! I'm determined.

 

[cirwin2010]

Your impression is odd, Cirwin. FP4 is generally the film I recommend to darkroom beginners due to its predictable ease. So did the popular local camera store when they still held darkroom classes (pre-pandemic). Its about as
"middle of the road" a film as you can get. I first developed it in Perceptol 1:1, but moved on to PMK pyro.

I don't disagree. What you outlined was what I thought I understood about the film as well (part of the reason I bought a bunch of rolls a while back). But my experience just hasn't lined up with the conventional wisdom. Heck, I've gotten along with Pan F better than FP4.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, just go with what works for you. But still, something just doesn't add up. FP4 has far better dynamic range than PanF, and is much more malleable in development too. I use a variety of films; but some people shoot only FP4 and have never switched. I mostly use sheet film and 120 roll film.

 

[djdister]

I shoot FP4 in sheet and 120 roll film and develop in either HC110 or Ilfotec HC. I was getting overly contrasty negs until I relaxed the agitation quite a bit, to slightly less than the manufacturer's recommendation.