Standardizing for LF 4X5 (5X4 UK) FP4 or?

[JWMster]

At this point, I'm moving into to 4X5 and see that folks seem to shoot a lot of FP4 but I don't see a lot of other films. My beginner "learn this cheaply film" is FOMA, but as I have come to love Delta 400 in 35mm and 120 and there ain't none... I'm beginning to look at FP4 more in other formats as well....even though this violates the 1 camera, 1 lens, 1 film, 1 developer rule that seems to really work. But yes, I do use filters which is why I went to Delta 400 to give room for slowing things down with filters in a wide range of light. But with 4X5 and LF in general, I see folks doing a lot of long exposures anyway so that maybe film speed is far less important anyway. Yes, we're not doing sports and candids with a LF camera and tripod.... so the subject matter and style of shooting varies.

So what's my question? Do folks shoot 4X5 substantially differently and so the hypothesis that your need for a faster film stock just isn't the thing the way it is in other formats (no need for HP5 or Bergger 400?) where action might be more of a subject or what? Maybe I'm completely misreading what folks do.... and FP4 isn't the go-to nor Delta 100 as a substitute? (FWIW, I've not really given Delta 100 much of a shot either... and FP4 is "new to me"... but I definitely like FP4's grays and I am after soft contrast that can be worked later).

Love to hear thoughts... including "what a nube" or "what a jerk".... so let'er rip. Thanks for it all.

 

[Nokton48]

I shoot a lot of 4x5 FP4+ and FOMA as well. Both great starter films. My go-to's.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I work mainly outdoors. Subject movement and camera shake due to wind are major concerns. I shoot primarily 320Tri-X and T-Max 400. I have T-Max 100 on hand and seem to rarelyl use it. I find I need the speed to get the shutter speed up for the apertures I tend to use.

Best,

Doremus

 

[jim10219]

With 4x5, you don't usually have a lot of long lens options. At least not when comparing to equivalent focal lengths that can be found on smaller formats. Also, the widest apertures of most lenses tends to be smaller, with f/4.5-5.6 being about as wide as you'll find for most lenses. That, and it's hard to find a large format film faster than ISO 400. So generally, most of your 4x5 photographs tend to be of static objects. So you're right, film speed tends to be far less important. As is film grain, and things like diffraction limits. Instead, we tend to select film for it's contrast, spectral response, and other tonal properties.

I primarily shoot TMX for it's smooth midtones and Rollei IR 400 for it's Tri-X like contrast and ability to see IR. I also occasionally shoot TMY when I need a bit more speed, but even then, I'm usually pushing it to 800, because 400 isn't enough of a boost to matter for most cases. And there are color films I'll shoot as well.

In other words, I tend to look at film differently for 4x5 and up than I do with smaller formats. Plus the development and base material are different and that tends to make them act a bit differently than their roll film counterparts.

 

[koraks]

Do folks shoot 4X5 substantially differently

Yes. No. Maybe. Sometimes I shoot 6x6 from a tripod and then it isn't all that different in terms of materials choice from 4x5. Either way, I agree with @jim10219 above in that film speed tends to matter a little less with 4x5 than it does with smaller (or rather, handheld) formats. That is to say - with 4x5, you'll find yourself stopping down quite a bit to get decent depth of field. That means you need a lot of light, and even more so if you're doing close-ups (that bellows correction stuff adds up pretty fast). If you're a poor sod like me and the only lighting you have is a couple of flimsy consumer grade strobes, then a somewhat faster film is sometimes a necessity with the strobes maxed out and nowhere left to go but up into the higher ISOs.

So what film to choose? You're on your own there. Different strokes for different folks and all that. I personally shoot a lot of Foma 100 in 4x5. Sometimes some TMAX100. Sometimes some Foma 400. Sometimes Ektascan B/RA xray film cut down to 4x5. Those would cover probably 95% of my 4x5 negatives.
Why Foma 100? Because it's cheap and cheerful. It just works. Its relatively large grain (for a 100 film) isn't really a problem in 4x5. I like it for just about anything. It works a charm with alternative printing processes as well.
Why Foma 400? Same as 100, just a little faster in the odd situation when that matters. And it gives pretty nice tonality with human skin, I find.
Why TMAX100? Because unlike the Foma films, it has decent/good reciprocity behavior, and it's more linear. I use it whenever Foma just won't cut it. But I don't like its gloss on both sides or the fact that it blocks several stops of UV (forget about salt prints from TMX negatives).
Why xray film? Because we're all crazy sometimes. It's nice stuff to mess around with on a rainy day with little inspiration and just the desire to get some film wet.

So why would you use Delta 100, FP4+, TMY-2, or whathaveyou? For whatever reason it works for you of course! If you like FP4+ in smaller formats, you'll probably like it in 4x5 as well. There's very little not to like about FP4+ after all. And in the end, the same goes for many, if not most, films out there.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Faster film speed does matter with 4X5/5X4 just as it does in other formats. If you don't thing so then try waiting out Mother Nature on a breezy day shooting landscapes. Mother Nature has a way of winning when it comes to tree and grass motion when using slower speed film. Do not rule out HP5+. I actually prefer it over FP4+ in medium format and 4X5 when souped in Xtol-R. FP4+ is very good, but HP5+ looks much crisper to me in 4X5 and 120. Oh, and grain is no problem with HP5+ and in fact that's what gives it the extra bite FP4+ just doesn't have. At least it does with Xtol-R and my processing. I could get along just fine with HP5+ if I could use only one film. JohnW

 

[Oren Grad]

My standard sheet film is HP5 Plus. FP4 Plus is a fine film too, but I routinely use large format under conditions where there's not a lot of light and I'm on the edge of falling into extreme reciprocity corrections and/or there's a premium on stopping motion (e.g., puffs of wind in the landscape, fidgety subjects for portraits under available light). So on the whole I much prefer having the extra speed.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My main film is HP5 for 4x5 and 8x10. I do also shoot FP4. Other films that I always have with me are Seagull 8x10, Efke 25 8x10, Efke IR, HIE 4x5 (only have a few sheets left!!). I also have a couple of boxes of Adox 100, and 20. I wish Delta 400 came in sheet film sizes. I used to love shooting it. I still shoot it in 120. Everything is developed in Pyrocat-HD, except for Adox 20 (in Adotech)

 

[awty]

Hp5 if the light is nice and even, within 3 stops and Fp4 when its more.
I use a variety of different films in other formats, but for 4x5 its just hp5 and fp4. This covers most situations.
Hp5 gives a very good tonal range if the light is even, fp4 has a great amount of latitude in varied light.