I did not add more time and I am wondering if I should develop the film more or you think I will get some good results as is.
image appropriated without permission
Fp4 and hp5 have the same reciprocity
In my experience, both of these exposures would require
alot of compensation with FP4 [I've never used panf for night work].
Additionally, at the higher exposure times, some underdevelopment
might be helpful, N-1 or more...
I use a chart developed by Gordon Hutchins, and this has worked on
many an occasion. His recommended exposures for fp4 are:
meter => suggested
2s => 3s
3s => 4s
4s => 6s
6s => 12s
8s => 18s
15s => 42s
30s => 100s
1m => 4m
2m => 10m
4m => 24m
Thanks very much. I'm not offended. I just don't want the info stuck on the internet without proper context and without credit to the folks whose work I used to derive the results. Better to refer people to the original, and you have that info now. I know it's hard to find older posts here. APUG is in serious need of a much better search facility.Duly noted and deleted... The AA pics were just for a friend to convince him to do the app... I couldn't find the original post but I knew I had the PDF somewhere... Sorry to offend
Thanks John I am using a 6x9 Mamiya. I am going to try the Neopan Acros now after using the FP4. As I said earlier I was surprised that I got a legitimate negative without any time change. Now, since I used the times from the chart above I am wondering if I should develop it a bit less from the 11 minute it calls.
Yeah I got some Acros and according to the specs there is no need for time compensation up to 120 seconds. I will try it soon. Again, it was interesting to see that the results on the FP4 were good at 8-15 seconds with not change in time at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?