Where does FP4+ fall in for you?

[Arcturus]

I keep shooting rolls of 120 FP4+ and I still don't know what to make of it. It's only a little finer grained than HP5+/Tri-X, and perhaps slightly more contrast but lacks the contrast pop that Panf gives to overcast days or indoors. There are much finer grained and higher detail 100 speed films out there, so I don't really know where it falls in along side other films. There's nothing wrong with it, I just can't find anything that it does really well vs other films. What are its advantages and why do you use it?

 

[mrred]

If I wasn't still working through a hordish supply of PlusX, I'd be shooting it right now. The points you raise speak more of how you develop the film, than the film itself. It's baby-butt-smooth to me.

 

[Vaughn]

Expands nicely for alt processes. I particularly like it for my platinum work (developed in Ilford Universal PQ Developer.) Grain is not much of an issue in this application as I only contact print from the camera negative.

 

[mesh]

I really want to like FP4+ but have never got along with it... seems really hard to print (for me anyway) compared to other similar films. I've been developing in XTOL 1:1 (possibly not the best combination) and overall I've been unhappy with the results. I love almost every other Ilford film so go figure... I feel the same way as you Arcturus - it really doesn't have a killer benefit to me.

 

[BetterSense]

FP4 has a a long straight line and great deal of latitude compared to other films like, as you mentioned, PanF. That makes it a technically better film and a very versatile one, but obviously that quality gives it a different look than "worse" films.

I think it could be a good large format film, where grain doesn't matter, medium-speed films work fine, and the curve would work out well for zone system use and alt processes that need a lot of highlight density. I happen to not like TMX, and I use faster films in 35mm, and where I do use slower films on small formats, I want fine grain so I use acros or Delta 100.

 

[markbarendt]

I find FP4 gorgeous and sweet to print.

 

[gone]

"......but lacks the contrast pop that Panf gives to overcast days or indoors".

That was pretty much my experience too, but then I'm an old school emulsion guy that likes Tri-X type contrast w/ a yellow or even red filter. Come to think of it, maybe a red filter would help w/ it. What I DID like was Delta 100.

I'm sure there's a way to get more out of this film, but it never occurred to me to investigate that. I never liked Acros either, and it looked deadly dull and grey in my hands, but I have seen others use different developers and they got much better results than I did.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The problem with medium speed films like FP4+ is that they are neither fish nor fowl. Coarser grain than slow films and not as fast as fast films. I personally never use them preferring a slow or a fast film and not a compromise.

 

[Dennis S]

FP 4+ is a type of film that is consistent with what ever developer you want to use. My choice of developer (Pyrocat) works well for my use. I use it in all formats (35-4x5) and it always gives me what I want. The thing is you can not say anything bad about an Ilford film and justify your argument. Delta is one of the films that you can replace it with and get results you want. To me it is a take it or leave it type but the price of it in Canada puts it towards the top with my film purchases.

 

[Hatchetman]

It is quite a bit finer grained than HP5 IMO. Much nicer grain structure too. Again IMO. Nice film. Never had any problem with it in exposure or printing. You can print all the contrast you want.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I find FP4 gorgeous and sweet to print.

plus one

 

[RSalles]

For me it's a wonderful film to work with in studio, where I can fine control the scene lightning - great shadow detail and micro-contrast with a modern lens, crisp highlights which can be worked out in development, and prints nicely in Ilford Warmtone MG.

.Cheers,

Renato

 

[rbultman]

Different strokes for different folks. I absolutely love FP4+ and absolutely hate HP5+. Use what works for you.

 

[TheToadMen]

Fp4+ is a fine film and an excellent film for my Caffenol-C-M homebrew developer!

(Bronica SQ-B, 40 mm, Ilford FP4+ in Caffenol-C-M ~ shot at an old farm in Holland)

 

[Echoes]

It's been my main film for almost a year and I looove the way it looks for portraits.
What developer are you guys using? I use XTOL

 

[Wayne]

FP4+ falls into that sport where I want more contrast or need less speed than HP5+ gives and/or I want less contrast and/or smaller negative sizes than 8x10 x-ray film. It also has has a tonality of its own.

 

[ColColt]

When it comes to medium speed film, FP-4 is about as good as it gets. I've found long ago Rodinal 1:75 does marvelous with this film. ID11 does well also. This on FP-4 with Rodinal(120).

120FP4ab by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[cliveh]

For B&W 35mm, I use nothing else and think that rated at box speed it lends itself to most daylight applications at 1/125 and given aperture.

 

[Arcturus]

It's been my main film for almost a year and I looove the way it looks for portraits.
What developer are you guys using? I use XTOL

D76 for everything, 1:1 or straight, box speed.

 

[ritternathan]

I fell in love with FP4+ in 35mm when I used Xtol 1+3. I could shoot it in full sun and easily print the negatives. No grain up to 8x10. Now I have also come to love it in 4x5, usually with Pyrocat--not so much in 120.

 

[pmargolis]

I've been using FP4 in 35mm and 120 at an EI of 100 pretty regularly, since the demise of Plus-X. I mostly shoot the stuff outdoors in bright light when the film can be used handheld, although I've occasionally done night photography with flash. It develops nicely -- for me -- in Rodinal 1:50, HC110 Dilution B. (1:63) and D76 1:1. I would recommend giving it another try...

 

[KidA]

FP4 is one of my favourites; probably my favourite. It has really pleasing qualities. I wish there were more films that would behave like it does. I used to use a lot of PanF, but I find it's speed really slows me down a lot of the time. PanF has less grain, we all know that, so if you're looking for absolutely less grain, then it's better than FP4 for sure. However, I find the grain in FP4 to be even more pleasing than PanF. I used to think I preferred less grain, and that's why PanF was my go to slow film for a while, and I do still use it for those times I want practically no grain. Now, FP4 has filled in the space of: decent speed for many situations, great tonality and curves (better than PanF) and wonderful grain structure. Also, I really don't think it lacks 'pop' at all, perhaps it's your subject matter and exposure that's throwing you off? I find the contrast to be very nice. The pop you're referring to with PanF is probably the quick shadow cut-off, which can be tough to print if not exposed properly. I find FP4 very forgiving and a beauty to print. it's quite a difference in terms of amount of grain compared to HP5 and Tri-x. What's your development procedure?

Btw, I totally understand if it seems that a film just doesn't work for you. I've been there with a few films, but it's mostly due to my heavy interest in grain structure. But if you do like the traditional grain structure of FP4, I would definitely say keep trying it and you will probably learn to love it. You're right about other similar speed emulsions having finer grain. It's definitely not the best choice for least amount of grain. Try Neopan 100, Tmax 100, or Delta 100 instead, if that's the case.

 

[cramej]

It falls into the film that I will possibly go back to using after I exhaust my stock of Acros. Or maybe alongside acros.

 

[MrBrowning]

When it comes to medium speed film, FP-4 is about as good as it gets. I've found long ago Rodinal 1:75 does marvelous with this film. ID11 does well also. This on FP-4 with Rodinal(120).

ColColt is this Nubble Light house?

 

[DREW WILEY]

FP4 is a reliable workhorse. It is significantly finer grained than either HP5 or Tri-X, given that relatively gross comparison, and has a longer straight line. Some newer films at the same effective speed are obviously even finer. I use quite a bit of FP4 sheet film in the lab for large format masking
purposes, but have shot plenty of it too. A bit slow for windy days, but it's amenable to quite a range of developers. When it comes to roll film, I do prefer the even finer grain and special orthopan sensitivity of ACROS. I rate both at 50.