Where does FP4+ fall in for you?

[KidA]

I use quite a bit of FP4 sheet film in the lab for large format masking
purposes

Newbie question...what is masking?

 

[Vaughn]

Must ...resist...answering...a...question...I know...so...little...about.

Ahhhh. Good. That was close!

 

[ColColt]

ColColt is this Nubble Light house?

I don't recall the name for sure. I'm sure it's been photographed a zillion times, however.

 

[Roger Cole]

I find FP4 gorgeous and sweet to print.

Me too. I can't explain why. I just love the results and find it the easiest film to print of all those I use. Nothing special here: D76 1+1 in a Jobo.

 

[MrBrowning]

I don't recall the name for sure. I'm sure it's been photographed a zillion times, however.

Well if it is then I go there probably 6 times a year.

Anyways back to the topic lol.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I find FP4 gorgeous and sweet to print.

Like @Bob Carnie (in post #11) and @markbarendt the Ilford FP4+ yields some mighty fine prints.
I process in 777 in medium to high contrast and ADOX FX-39 in medium to low contrast, and get fine detail, really sharp prints, with beautiful fine grain.

There's something about FP4+ and how the 'weight' of the tones are convincing to my eye. Another film that's a lot like it is TMax 400. Confusingly similar to FP4+ which is high praise indeed.

I also see @Vaughn using it for alt process, and unlike Ilford HP5+ which does not expand very well at all, FP4+ just keeps building contrast like crazy with extended development. Some films are simply better at this than others. FP4+ is amazing at it, and that is sometimes useful for standard b&w work too, not just alt process.

 

[DREW WILEY]

KidA - there are quite a few threads no doubt on masking. It a suite of related techniques where sheet of film is specially exposed in register with the original film shot, specially developed, then attached in register again when enlarging in order to modify or control certain characteristics of the
final print. It is especially valuable in color printing in order to modify contrast, but a useful skill set in black and white printing as well. Any suitable
masking film needs to be dimensionally stable (polyester base), have a relatively long straight characteristic curve, have predictable panchromatic response to a range of colored filters at modestly long exposures, be amenable to low-contrast developers, and have reliable quality-control batch to batch. FP4 meets these demands.

 

[Old_Dick]

ColColt is this Nubble Light house?

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

Yes it is.

 

[MrBrowning]

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

Yes it is.

I thought so. It's one of my favorite lighthouses to visit when I'm out that way.

 

[bsdunek]

I find FP4 gorgeous and sweet to print.

+2

 

[Arcturus]

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.

I wasn't saying that there was anything wrong with FP4+ it works just fine, I just wasn't sure what properties it had that made it stand out from other films. It's finer grain that HP5+ but not that much so (IMO). I'd say its grain is similar to TMY-2. TMX, along with other similar 100 ISO films are essentially grain free, so I wouldn't necessarily shoot FP4+ for finer grain. TMX has even finer grain than Panf, but Panf has a very steep curve that makes low contrast scenes, like indoors/architectural shots print perfectly at grade 2 with a nice range of tones. So while not the finest grained, Panf has other properties that make it unique. FP4+ on the other hand I'm not sure how it's "better" or what sets it apart from other 100 speed films. I'm guessing it just comes down to personal processes and not so much quantifiable differences. Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear people talking about FP4+ having a long straight line for exposure, but the data sheet shows a pronounced shoulder, more so than any other film Ilford offers. Wouldn't this mean you would have to be more precise with exposure to keep the highlights from flattening out on the shoulder? I ask because soon I'm going to buy a bunch of medium speed film for use during an extended time overseas. Normally I'd use TMX, but I was considering switching to FP4+ because I just like to switch things up a bit. So I was looking for some unique properties I could take advantage of and expand my experience on.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I find FP4+ sublime. It's tonality wonderful. Not better just really nice. And I wouldn't want it finer grained or it would lose its edge effect and perceived sharpness. I also happen to not find Pan F+ that contrasty myself but it's how I expose and develop it I guess. I'd recommend you keep experimenting to dial it into your liking or at least get away from what you're currently doing with it so as to experience it's wider potential more. Who knows you might like it even less?

 

[DREW WILEY]

No conventional film is "grain free". Just depends on how you develop it, how much you enlarge it, and at what contrast level. And visual grain is not
necessarily a bad thing. Just depends what look you are after. Edge acutance and size of grain aren't automatically interrelated. Just sometimes. You
can have your cake and eat if too. But Arcturus, you have to learn how to compare those film curves with respect to their log scale. For example, Pan F has a very short straight line with a pronounced S-curve, while FP4 has a long straight line once it launches off the toe. Delta 100 has a longer more sweeping toe, and HP5 something in between. Ilford does not manufacture any film where the line continues realtively straight way down deep into the shadows like TMax films. Thus FP4 is a mid-range film in both speed and exposure characteristics, which makes it highly versatile. With TMax products, exposure has to be a bit more religious; but they are capable of handling extreme contrast better, and TMY400 is very sharp stuff for its
speed. It is possible to overexpose FP4 onto the shoulder in high contrast scenes, though masking or modern high-quality papers makes it easier to retrieve some of this extra information without resorting to mushy minus development. I consider FP4 to be an excellent beginner film, but it just keeps on giving.

 

[Vaughn]

Thomas -- it was suggested by Terry King (RIP, http://www.rps.org/news/2015/april/terry-king-obit ) to develop FP4 in Ilford Universal PQ Developer. He said one could get the density range required for platinum/palladium printing with excellent seperation in the mid-tones. I do not know exactly what that all means, but I use no contrast agent (just the Ferric oxalate and the two metal salts) and I find the prints to be quite rich. And it is an easy developer to work with. I developed some 11x14 in Pyro, but my working space is limited and alsos are my living spaces -- so until I get the darkroom set-up, I think I will go back to the less toxic Ilford Universal PQ. I also use it for negatives processed for carbon printing.

But in the end, I think I have pulled off carbon good prints from a large array of films. Koday Copy Film, TMY (TMX blocks UV), Tri-X, Acros. Success rate has been low with the Bergger200...I got a bunch of 8x10, so I'll figure it out. Alas for the days when one could by FP4 repackaged by Freestyle! I think the majority of my early 8x10 work was on Arista!

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas -- it was suggested by Terry King (RIP, http://www.rps.org/news/2015/april/terry-king-obit ) to develop FP4 in Ilford Universal PQ Developer. He said one could get the density range required for platinum/palladium printing with excellent seperation in the mid-tones. I do not know exactly what that all means, but I use no contrast agent (just the Ferric oxalate and the two metal salts) and I find the prints to be quite rich. And it is an easy developer to work with. I developed some 11x14 in Pyro, but my working space is limited and alsos are my living spaces -- so until I get the darkroom set-up, I think I will go back to the less toxic Ilford Universal PQ. I also use it for negatives processed for carbon printing.

But in the end, I think I have pulled off carbon good prints from a large array of films. Koday Copy Film, TMY (TMX blocks UV), Tri-X, Acros. Success rate has been low with the Bergger200...I got a bunch of 8x10, so I'll figure it out. Alas for the days when one could by FP4 repackaged by Freestyle! I think the majority of my early 8x10 work was on Arista!

Interesting. I didn't actually know Terry had passed away, which saddens me. He was a force of nature.

I am not at all involved with alternative processes, but have been around it enough to have a clue of what's required. The Ilford Universal PQ sounds like something to store in memory until the time comes.

My own use of Ilford Fp4+ has been for 35mm, 120, and pinhole work (6x6). I have used it with a lot of different developers, such as PMK Pyro, Pyrocat-HD/MC, Rodinal, Replenished Xtol, Edwal 12, Harvey's 777, and lately ADOX FX-39. There have probably been other developers too that I can't remember, but I just find the film to work supremely well for silver gelatin printing. Great sharpness (or perceived sharpness as @Richard S. (rich815) mentions above), wonderful ability to expand contrast for low light shooting. I love the results it gives me, and the print quality is a bit more rich (as you describe it) than my prints from my staple HP5+ (which is not as flexible as FP4+ I find, but gives me two stops of speed).

Here's an example of FP4+ in replenished Xtol, printed on Ilford MG paper and toned. Very rich tonality.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

That's a beautiful portrait Thomas. Really first class.

 

[David Lingham]

FP4 works for me, D76 1+1 box speed. Didn't like it with Rodinal.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

FP4 works for me, D76 1+1 box speed. Didn't like it with Rodinal.

Just curious, if you don't mind me asking, how many times did you try FP4 in Rodinal? Also, are you saying you don't like other's results from FP4 in Rodinal?

 

[TheToadMen]

Here's an example of FP4+ in replenished Xtol, printed on Ilford MG paper and toned. Very rich tonality.
View attachment 158899

What a fine portrait!! You probably made a mother very happy

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I use FP4+ a lot for my large format work and for my 2 1/4 rollfilm.

This is a platinum/palladium print using 5x7 FP4+. I developed it in Pyrocat HD, 1:1:100.

 

[TheToadMen]

This is a platinum/palladium print using 5x7 FP4+. I developed it in Pyrocat HD, 1:1:100.

Beautiful!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I find FP4 gorgeous and sweet to print.

me too;I like it as a truly traditional emulsion.HP5 is too soft for me.

 

[HiHoSilver]

'Noob that I am, Mark & Ralph both liking it makes an impression for me. 'Had 2 rolls moderately underexposed before I realized the meter battery was dying (sigh). The images of the steam trains in the gallery are all from a roll of FP4 - after a trip to the store to find a battery. Thank goodness Luna Pro SBCs take a std. 9v.

 

[markbarendt]

'Noob that I am, Mark & Ralph both liking it makes an impression for me. 'Had 2 rolls moderately underexposed before I realized the meter battery was dying (sigh). The images of the steam trains in the gallery are all from a roll of FP4 - after a trip to the store to find a battery. Thank goodness Luna Pro SBCs take a std. 9v.

I tried hard not to like it in the beginning, wanted Delta 100 to be better, no old emulsions for me, silly newby.

Delta 100 is a truly great film but FP4, well FP4 is like your best friend at age 8 that'll play in the dirt with you all day. It can almost do no wrong.

 

[michaelorr]

Wow, TFC, nice! Looks even better here than in the gallery. I use FP4+ for 4x5 and HP5+ for 8x10, owing to a smaller aperture used in 8x10 generally for me. Either one is nice as far as i am concerned, though just looking at a film, i love the brilliance of the FP4+ in 4x5. I just pulled 6 films of 4x5 out of soup 15 minutes ago and was blown away by them in the brilliance regard. Brilliant and sharp. Never had that feeling after fixing an HP5 neg.