Is FP4 plus the "Tri-X" of medium speed B&W films?

[alanrockwood]

I've never used FP4 Plus film. However, from reading what people write about it would it be fair to say that it holds an analogous position to Tri-X, but for the medium speed film regime rather than the high speed film regime? By this I mean that it seems to be a very forgiving/versatile traditional-type film that gives high quality results that are appreciated by a large number of people.

What d'ya think?

 

[NB23]

I’d definitely say fomapan 100. That thing is flexible!

 

[markbau]

FP4 has been around for so long I would agree, if there was such a thing as a standard medium speed film, FP4 would be it!

 

[BradS]

My main films are Kodak Tri-X and Ilford FP4+ - they're both excellent.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Why good film can’t be unique, why nothing special, overpriced trix is keep on tossed around?

 

[Ian Grant]

It's worth pointing out Tri-X has been around for around 80 years, it started life as a sheet film just before WWII, it's been through a number of generations over that period of time. Tri-X, Super-XX, Pan-X and Ortho-X were an entirely new series of films designed to try and catch up with the quality of Ilford's Fine Grain Panchromatic (FP) and Hypersensitive PanchromaticPanchromatic (HP) which had been released a year or two earlier.

However Ilford had already upgraded and launched FP2 and HP2 around the same time as Kodak's launch, they upgraded again to FP3 and HP3 in 1941. Tri-X went out of production during WWII most likely as a key component was no longer available from Germany.

FP4 Plates were released in 1960 and in 35mm and 120 in 1968. The last upgrade to FP4+ was in 1990, I cut my teeth on ex-Government/Military surplus FP3 and have shot a lot of FP4 it's a great film. So is Delta 100 which I use these days.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

I would suggest that Plus-X was the Tri-X of medium speed films, but as Plus-X is no more....

 

[swchris]

I still have a 5-roll box of 120 Plus-X in my freezer. Bought when the discontinuation notice was published.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Blimy you learn something new every day.................. really

Yes indeed, in fact within the last week or so it celebrated its 'birthday'.

I didn't bake a cake but did buy a half dozen rolls in honour of the occasion. On the main topic, FP4+ is a wonderful film and not a bad choice if you had to have only one the rest of your life. The more I shoot it the more I like it -- but then again, Ilford is just great all-round.

 

[Oren Grad]

I would suggest that Plus-X was the Tri-X of medium speed films, but as Plus-X is no more....

+1 about +X

 

[Vaughn]

It is my go-to in sheet film, but Tri-X does not come to my mind at all when working with FP4+..

 

[BrianShaw]

I treat HP5+ as my fast speed Tri-X

 

[BrianShaw]

HP5 and FP3 are my bulk load

Fp3? Your still using it?

 

[Vaughn]

Kodak Copy Film is my go-to film when I need to put a couple booster rockets under the contrast!

I have a partial 50 sheet box of 8x10 left. (the print below had all sorts of glare when I photographed it, so it is only an approximation of the actual image)

 

[Mackinaw]

At least for 4x5, FP4 was my standard medium speed B&W film, but I now much prefer ADOX CHS 100.

Jim B.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. Curves are different.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I would suggest that Plus-X was the Tri-X of medium speed films, but as Plus-X is no more....

I agree with Matt on this one. I still have a few rolls of Plus-X Pan in my refrigerator, used some last summer.

I would surmise that Kentmere 100 is a better (or closer) film to Tri-X than Ilford FP4+.

Ilford FP4+ is a brilliant film, period. That said it can be a little forgiving, but really it needs to be given correct exposure and developing. It isn't really like Tri-X, if you know what I mean, Tri-X has grain and just looks sharp. Whereas FP4+ is a finer grain looking film with really nice even tonality and can look incredibly sharp, which it is, but I wouldn't compare it to Tri-X.

Hard to define really.

Mick.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tri-X has grain and just looks sharp. Whereas FP4+ is a finer grain looking film with really nice even tonality and can look incredibly sharp, which it is, but I wouldn't compare it to Tri-X.

I'm somewhat of a Tri-X novice, but have have used a few rolls recently and was surprised by how much grain there was printed on 20"x16" paper from a Mamiya 7ii negative. The film looks great hanging to dry though, strong contrast etc. which is probably helpful in slightly overcast conditions in the Scottish hills.

 

[Bikerider]

HP5 and FP3 are my bulk load

FP3 how old is that you have - FP3 was discontinued in the 20th century - There are 2 generations we know of since then...….. FP4 and FP4+

 

[Ian Grant]

FP3 how old is that you have - FP3 was discontinued in the 20th century - There are 2 generations we know of since then...….. FP4 and FP4+

I used to pay 40/- (shillings) so £2 for 100ft tins of FP3 in 1969/70, at the time it was just under half the price of FP4. The FP3 was ex Government/Military surplus stock, bulk 50ft rolls of Tri-X, Plus-X, Double-X and Four X were also available, again surplus stock, I used HP3.

I'm not sure what film Four X was, something like Kodak 2475 or Royal-X I'd guess, Ilford had HPS a 400 ASA/BS emulsion introduced in 1953 the same year as Royal-X, as ASA?BS speeds were revised HPS would be an 800 ASA/BS emulsion in today's terms.

When I first tried Tri-X some Kodak developer data-sheets recommended different development times and ASA settings depending on where the Tri-x had been coated/made, that was the US, Canada and the UK. This didn't apply to other listed Kodak films.

Ian

 

[Arklatexian]

I agree with Matt on this one. I still have a few rolls of Plus-X Pan in my refrigerator, used some last summer.

I would surmise that Kentmere 100 is a better (or closer) film to Tri-X than Ilford FP4+.

Ilford FP4+ is a brilliant film, period. That said it can be a little forgiving, but really it needs to be given correct exposure and developing. It isn't really like Tri-X, if you know what I mean, Tri-X has grain and just looks sharp. Whereas FP4+ is a finer grain looking film with really nice even tonality and can look incredibly sharp, which it is, but I wouldn't compare it to Tri-X.

Hard to define really.

Mick.

If FP4+ could be compared to an earlier film, I would think it would be Plus-X. In olden times Plus-X was our "medium speed". Tri-X was considered "fast" and Panatomic-X was our "slow" film. Before that, the "fast" film was Super XX. The early Tri-X sheet film was not the same emulsion as the later roll films. The closest sheet film to Tri-X roll film's emulsion was Royal Pan. The "most used" sheet film in those days was Super Panchro Press, Type "B". It was used for everything,

 

[Ian Grant]

If FP4+ could be compared to an earlier film, I would think it would be Plus-X. In olden times Plus-X was our "medium speed". Tri-X was considered "fast" and Panatomic-X was our "slow" film. Before that, the "fast" film was Super XX. The early Tri-X sheet film was not the same emulsion as the later roll films. The closest sheet film to Tri-X roll film's emulsion was Royal Pan. The "most used" sheet film in those days was Super Panchro Press, Type "B". It was used for everything,

Yes the re-introduced Tri-X roll films and later sheet would not have been the same emulsion as the original Tri-X sheet film, but at the same time neither would the late 1954 versions of Pan-X or Super-XX have been the same emulsions as the first pre-WWII 1939 versions. With Kodak films we have no way of knowing how many generations of a film like Tri-X there have been.

The Super Panchro Press sheet film in my 1940 Kodak Ltd Professional Catalogue is Panchromatic Type C, as is Tri-X, Panatomic-X and Super-XX are listed as Panchromatic Type B. Of course there may have been differences or changes between US and UK versions, My Eastman Kodak 1940 Reference Manual lists it as Type C as well.

The original Tri-X sheet film disappears sometime in 1941 it's no longer listed Kodak Ltd 1942 adverts, this is at a time when the UK Military needs fast emulsions, probably not a coincidence that Ilford upgrade to FP3 and HP3 the same year. Of course there were still some other small film manufactures other than Kodak and Ilford in 1941 here in the UK but not with the research capabilities.

Ian.

 

[BradS]

If FP4+ could be compared to an earlier film, I would think it would be Plus-X. In olden times Plus-X was our "medium speed"....

Except for the speed, Plus-X and FP4+ seem to me to be completely different. Look at the H-D curves of the two for example.

 

[Ian Grant]

If FP4+ could be compared to an earlier film, I would think it would be Plus-X.

I'd compare it to FP3 The differences were slight decrease in grain and improved acutance, and a huge improvement in emulsion hardening. FP3 and HP3 and also Plus-X and Tri-X (of that era) were softer emulsions than say Fomapan films of today, more like the last EFKE (Adox) films.

Ian

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hopefully NOT ! I wouldn't use FP4 myself if it resembled Tri-X. It is, in fact, quite different, a fine-grained highly versatile med speed film with a long straight line once you launch off the shoulder. Quite different from ole Plus X pan too, which had
a rather long toe to its characteristic curve. Far better quality control than any Foma film. The original FP4 had a rather soft emulsion, and that's why they used paper interleafing between sheets of film. That ended with the current FP4+ version.