Pushing Ilford FP4+

[lauffray]

I'm looking for examples of what FP4+ looks like when pushed. I have a small stash of film I got from a friend but I very rarely shoot ISO125 so I'm thinking of pushing it to a more useable (for me) 400. My developer of choice is Microphen which does very well with pushing.

I know I will lose shadow detail and get more grain, I'm more concerned about blown highlights and if the negative can still be decently printed ?

Also, to be clear, from EI125 to 400, it's slightly less than a two stop push, correct ?

 

[mnemosyne]

I'm looking for examples of what FP4+ looks like when pushed. I have a small stash of film I got from a friend but I very rarely shoot ISO125 so I'm thinking of pushing it to a more useable (for me) 400. My developer of choice is Microphen which does very well with pushing.

I know I will lose shadow detail and get more grain, I'm more concerned about blown highlights and if the negative can still be decently printed ?

Also, to be clear, from EI125 to 400, it's slightly less than a two stop push, correct ?

A two stop push with a medium speed film as FP4+ is something different than a two stop push with a ISO400 film like HP5+. On the other hand, as long as you shoot rather flat scenes with very limited brightness range, you might even get useable results. For subjects with normal or high contrast range, you will look at blown highlights and blocked shadows for sure. Whether such a negative can be decently printed or not will depend on the importance of those shadows/highlights for your picture and your definition of "decent". In your position I would try to figure out a way to put this film to its intended use instead of trying to force it to do a job which it is not fit for.

 

[cliveh]

Why not use 400 ISO film?

 

[pdeeh]

Why not use 400 ISO film?

It's all there in the OP clive ...

I have a small stash of [FP4+] I got from a friend but I very rarely shoot ISO125 so I'm thinking of pushing it to a more useable (for me) 400.

 

[Vaughn]

I meter it at 125, but I over-expose (for stronger shadow detail and recipocity effect) and then over-develop for Platinum and for carbon printing. I guess that would be the equivilent of 'pushing' it, then kicking it in the rear. The highlights hold up well, tho the processes I use can take advantage of it. My negs would have a hard time with silver gelatin.

Info probably of no use to you.

 

[M Carter]

FP4 is pretty forgiving. I'd say the only real answer is for you to do a test. Your gear and process and chemistry and experience and the phase of the moon that day will all come into play... everything else is fairly anecdotal.

If the film is 35 and you want to maximize testing, make a few tabs of painter's tape - cut some 1/8" x 1/4" strips and fold them so you have a 1/8" "tab" that will stick up when you apply the tape. Shoot a bracket of the kind of scene you shoot, then advance and shoot a blank frame (lens cap on). Open the camera back in a darkroom or changing bag, and stick a tab in the middle of the blank frame, right on the back of the film (I stick the tabs on the camera prism to find them in the dark). Shoot another bracket, blank frame, tab again. When the roll is shot, you can feel the tabs in the dark, they go right through the cassette. Cut the film in those spots, process one and store the rest in a film can. This will give you 4 or 5 or 6 tries at developing times - if your brackets are 320, 400, 500, whatever, you can see the effects of differing dev times per ISO, and only use one roll of film (you can reuse most one-shot devs if you mixed enough for a full roll). You could even get by with half a roll if you're set on trying 400 and maybe 320 or 600?

If it's medium format, you can try just shooting two brackets and guesstimating the cuts, or just shoot the whole roll at 400... but cut once and develop for an idea of where to cut next.

 

[Mick Fagan]

I have used FP4+ a fair amount in the past in 135 format, currently I am using it in 4x5” sheet film.

You can quite easily get a good 200 or 250 exposed negative suitable for printing, going that little bit further to 320 or 400 will depend upon your subject and the weather conditions.

If the conditions are bright sunlight and your subject is a portrait, then I would suggest you use another film for that particular shoot under those conditions. I generally have found I lose highlights under those conditions and burning in for a nice print is a bit hit and miss, not to mention tedious.

If however, the conditions are cloudy bright (or even cloudy dark) and a portrait, then pushing FP4+ a stop, is probably a very good thing as your portraits should have a sparkle to them. Usually fairly straight printing to boot.

I use D76 1+1 for two reasons. One, I compared it to Microphen developed negatives, there was a slight difference, but I wasn’t ever sure it was just the different developer. Two, I mix up D76 from raw chemicals ensuring I always have fresh developer, and, as a bonus, it is generally the cheapest way to obtain any developer.

I have pushed FP4+ higher, including to 1000 ASA, it is doable and sometimes terrific at those speeds. But to me, there is always a diminishing rate of return the higher you go. I almost always, when I do push FP4+, only push it to 250.

I f you go here, then visit my gallery to see the full frame negative and read the explanations, you will see an FP4+ negative exposed at 200 ASA to give me a kick and some exposure speed.
You will see the difference between the full frame straight contact and the cropped and enlarged and manipulated print. Note the possibility of obtaining a nice tonal range in flat lighting, by pushing the film almost a stop.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This is the straight full frame unmanipulated negative.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


Mick.

 

[lauffray]

Thanks for the input everyone !

 

[MrBrowning]

Check Filmdev.org for some examples at different EI's. Here is FP4+ @ 400 http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=FP4++400

 

[Dali]

Not specific to FP4+... but in general, it would be interesting to know which developer can REALLY push a film (1 stop, 2 stops, more?) apart from 2 bath developers like Diafine which gives a low contrast. What is usually consider as "pushing" is under-exposing + over-developing which is not my cup of tea...

 

[markbarendt]

I'm with Mick in that I think EI250 is pretty much the working limit.

I'm with Dali in that I don't find pushing benefits me.

lauffray you can't really change the sensitivity of a film, as you say detail is lost whenever you reduce exposure.

Pushing development changes the slope of the film curve but it doesn't define the print. Pushed film or not: the printing process is where the highlights are won or lost.

 

[LAG]

Excuse me Mick Fagan

I suppose that the OP lauffray (like me as well) won't be able to see your attached examples not being subscribers.

One the other hand, talking about developers, D-76 is a perfect option just like the OP choice is (Microphen). Let's say (in short words) because that D-76 is a "multiple-uses" reducing agent. But the two reasons above, being not sure or just because is fresh or just because is a chepest way are out of being a persuasive decision (please, sorry I am being so frank)

... but in general, it would be interesting to know which developer can REALLY push a film (1 stop, 2 stops, more?) ...

It depends on several factors, but with one single aim: compensate. So, those developers with low alkalinity would be much better option for that purpose (although you can achive this compensating effect with other feasible ways and developers)

(It's hard for me to say some technical words, but I hope you will understand me, or hope that others will do to come and explain it in plain-language)

Being said so, back to the OP point. Everyone can push their films for fun or for experimenting with (which means challenging the exposure latitude, as we all of us Know), but in olden times, people used this to compensate low-light situations (or in lower degree to get some kind of effects, but fun was mostly our of the question) specially when you could not "switch" to other sources of light supply ... and then Tri-X came along.

Excuse me lauffray, push the film the way you want, crank it up +++! and when finished that small stash to experiment with, I am sure you'll find some other better options

Why not use 400 ISO film?

It's all there in the OP clive ...

Thanks pdeeh for making me smile

P.S. Spellcheck

 

[lauffray]

Thanks again, for this trip I'm too short on time to test shoot/develop some, but I'll give it a try when I come back. Bought some HP5+ in the meantime even though I have tons of film at home

 

[Mick Fagan]

Excuse me Mick Fagan

I suppose that the OP lauffray (like me as well) won't be able to see your attached examples not being subscribers.

One the other hand, talking about developers, D-76 is a perfect option just like the OP choice is (Microphen). Let's say (in short words) because that D-76 is a "multiple-uses" reducing agent. But the two reasons above, being not sure or just because is fresh or just because is a cheapest way are out of being a persuasive decision (please, sorry I am being so frank)

LAG, I don't normally do this, but will this time. Below are two attachments, one is the full contact print of the sheet of film, the other is cropped and printed as I wished.

For what it is worth, this is FP4+ that was exposed at 200 ASA. I would have to check my developing notes, or film exposing notes to be sure, but I almost always expose FP4+ at either 100 ASA or 200 ASA. The reason for pushing it to 200 ASA was to give the film highlights a kick (make them a bit brighter) which would allow me to print as I wish to print.

The aim was to have the brightest point of the image on her face, which it is. Basically the brightest point of the print is the bridge of her nose and nearby area. I allowed her thumbnail to also be bright but with detail, which is quite obvious on the actual print. Having her thumbnail also quite bright, seemed to be the correct balance.

I shot and printed this on an extremely hot day on Christmas Eve 2007, spending Christmas day in the darkroom making prints so that the young lass in the picture could take some prints home to Germany; she was leaving a couple of days after the session.

The following notes are from the questions and replies from the gallery.

Please note on the contact print, the blandness of the sky, which was cloudy and the reason for the push processing decision; the contact is a straight print.

Quote from the gallery notes:

I did this on Christmas eve and spent Christmas day in the darkroom developing the film and contact sheets. Today (26th) I spent some time doing an 8x10 then I decided to do a 12x16 print, something I rarely do, usually I wait and contemplate.

Suzanne, you are correct the skin tones are glowing in the print, the blacks are far better than on the scan. I had a couple of variations to scan in the 8x10 prints, I chose the print that scanned the skin tones that best matched the 12x16 manipulated print.

I held the right eye and cheek for a 1/4 of a stop, the right hand is burnt in 1/4 of a stop, the right thumbnail is burnt in another 1/4 of a stop on top of the hand burning. This was really difficult to do on the 8x10.

The surrounding background and the vertical edges of the dark green blanket are burnt in 3/8 of a stop. The rest of the print is base exposure.

It is heavily cropped as I wished to use the 150 lens without much bellows draw, thereby eliminating the need to use an even lower shutter speed. I wished to use f22 for depth of field, life is always a trade-off.

Unquote:

This is the cropped finished print.

Mick.

Ps:- with regard to using D76 over a known push type of developer. My experience is that there are gains to be made, but the gains are not that much greater (or different) from using D76 as a push developer.

I can make most developers as I have over the years gathered the appropriate chemistry bit by bit. So if I have the recipe, I can generally make the developer.