Your ISO for FP4 & HP5

[BerthaDeCool]

FP4 in 5x7 format tested out to 160 ISO in Rodinal 50:1 for 15min @ 68ºF.
Your mileage may vary.

I've only just started in 5x7 having moved away from 4x5 and 120 in order to contact print (no ability to have full enlarger darkroom).
Have not tested HP5 as yet but plan to try Bergger Panchro 400 and TXP320 as well.

 

[DonW]

It depends on the subject matter and lighting conditions but for normal stuff I generally use box speed.

 

[tezzasmall]

I use HP5+ in both 35mm and 120 90%+ of the time. I have always rated it at box speed and mostly develop it in Rodinal.

More recently I've been trying developing in D76 / ID11, home measured and mixed, as I used to like the results I got when using it at college.

Terry S

 

[AnselMortensen]

5x7 HP5+ @ 320, Rodinal 1:25

 

[ic-racer]

I use Ilford films as a calibration standard for my sensitometer and to compare other films, for example Delta 100 = ISO 100.

When making negatives, my equipment exposes Delta 100 best when I set my calibrated Sekonic meter to an exposure index of 50 or so. With rollfilms, each camera with a built-in meter would have a specific exposure index, seeing as how built-in meters are not always going to be giving the same reading, and are not always so easy to calibrate as the Sekonic meter. The Sekonic meter is super-easy to calibrate.

 

[Horatio]

I rate HP5 at box speed and get good results in Rodinal 1:50. Trying FP4 now at box speed.

 

[Neil Grant]

...by all means try FP 4 and HP 5 at box speed, try + 1 stop as well - then you'll learn something. Basically if your subject contains a lot of dark tones or textures and fissures and maybe unevenly lit too, a more heavily exposed neg would be the 'aim point'. FP 4 at 64 ASA, rarely use HP 5.

 

[runswithsizzers]

"Box speed is also subject to marketing department input."

I see this theory come up in a lot of discussions about film ISO numbers. Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge to support the accusation? That is, what evidence is there that some specific film company's engineers falsified data, or manipulated the testing procedure, or that their data was ignored, resulting in an exaggerated ISO number being printed on the box?

But to answer the OPs question:
I exposed a 35mm roll of FP4+ at EI 100 and got good results in stock D-76 (8:30 @20*C). But that was only one roll.

I've had more experience shooting HP5+ in 120 exposed at EI 250, as instructed by the professor in a medium format photography class. We developed in Rodinal (Agfa/Compard R09 One Shot) at 1+50 for 12:00 @ 20*C.

 

[Pieter12]

"Box speed is also subject to marketing department input."

I see this theory come up in a lot of discussions about film ISO numbers. Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge to support the accusation? That is, what evidence is there that some specific film company's engineers falsified data, or manipulated the testing procedure, or that their data was ignored, resulting in an exaggerated ISO number being printed on the box?

If you read all the posts on the speeds people rate the film at, you can see that there is a range of usable ISO for these films. The marketing department usually wants a higher number on the box to compete with other manufacturers.

 

[runswithsizzers]

If you read all the posts on the speeds people rate the film at, you can see that there is a range of usable ISO for these films. The marketing department usually wants a higher number on the box to compete with other manufacturers.

Yes, I understand why the marketing department *wants* a competive ISO number, and why they *might* try to influence the company to exaggerate the box ISO speed. My question was, does anyone know of any actual case where the engineering department did the testing and said, "This film should be rated at ISO 125" but the corporate bosses said, "Screw that, we are selling it as ISO 250."

Or, is there any known situation similar to Volkswagon, who apparently told their diesel engineers, "Make whatever changes in the testing procedure that are necessary to produce the air quality numbers we want" ?

"ISO" stands for "International Standards Organization" and that means there is a standardized procedure for determining a film's ISO. As it is described in the Wikipedia entry for "Film Speed" <found here, and scroll down to "Determining film speed"> the process does not appear to be subject to the whims of the marketing department. So how can a film company get away with arbitrarily picking any ISO number they want?

 

[Pieter12]

Yes, I understand why the marketing department *wants* a competive ISO number, and why they *might* try to influence the company to exaggerate the box ISO speed. My question was, does anyone know of any actual case where the engineering department did the testing and said, "This film should be rated at ISO 125" but the corporate bosses said, "Screw that, we are selling it as ISO 250."

Or, is there any known situation similar to Volkswagon, who apparently told their diesel engineers, "Make whatever changes in the testing procedure that are necessary to produce the air quality numbers we want" ?

"ISO" stands for "International Standards Organization" and that means there is a standardized procedure for determining a film's ISO. As it is described in the Wikipedia entry for "Film Speed" <found here, and scroll down to "Determining film speed"> the process does not appear to be subject to the whims of the marketing department. So how can a film company get away with arbitrarily picking any ISO number they want?

Read further in the same Wikipedia article, under the heading, "Marketing anamolies"

 

[warden]

Hello

I've been lurking for a while - this is my first post. I'm new to this (hovering around the stage of making contact prints with an led torch shone against the bathroom ceiling), but have learnt a lot from reading all of your posts (so thankyou

For those of you that shoot ilford film (I read something on here about sticking to one camera, one film and one developer for a year - and then consider whats next that stuck with me, so thats my plan).....

Just a simple question - what ISO do you rate either FP4+ (box speed 125) and/or HP5 (box speed 400) in your personal workflow (all the way to print, not so interested in how people with a hybrid workflow rate it)

If there are enough replies to give enough data to show some kind of statistical difference, then I'll munge the data; summarise; and post back to the group.

Jim

Welcome!

If you're unsure about how to rate the film I'd start by following Ilford's instructions exactly, i.e. box speed with one of their recommended developers, and see if the negatives meet your standards.

 

[destroya]

fp4 120 at 64
hp5 4x5 at 200
both developed in pyro-m

john

 

[Jos Segers]

FP4+ at 64 or 80, depending on the subject and lighting conditions. Developed in Pyrogallol.

 

[subsole]

FP4+ :
ISO 125 XTOL 1+1, ADOX Atomal 1+1
ISO 64 PMK
ISO 100 SPUR HRX

HP5+:
ISO 400 XTOL 1+1, ADOX Atomal 1+1, SPUR HRX
ISO 250 PMK

 

[jwd722]

HP5+
box speed
D76 1+0
JOBO, usually 4 rolls 120 or 2 rolls 135

 

[JimEA]

OP here - Thanks everyone for your replies - really helpful here's the summary....

For both FP4 7 HP5, Just over half of you shoot at box speed - those not at box speed are mainly going lower (folk who mentioned multiple speeds just had their 'vote' spread equally over all of them)

FP4
64 - 24%
80 - 6%
100 - 10%
125 - 54%
200 - 6%

HP5
160 - 4%
200 - 9%
250 - 15%
320 - 11%
400 - 53%
500 - 1%
800 - 6%
1600 - 1%

I've also learned that tension between marketing numbers and engineering numbers exists in the film industry as much as any other

For now I'l be joining the majority and sticking to box speed until I have more of a clue what I'm doing. Thanks for all of your developer advice. On this one I'm going off piste. I bought a litre of fotospeed FD10 (before I'd had the good sense to check out this forum) and in the spirit of 1 Camera / 1 Film (well 2) / 1 Developer, I'm going to stick with it - if, by the time there's none left, I don't think I'm getting consistent results then maybe I'll reconsider.

Thanks All - Jim

 

[W_Taylor76]

Box speed in DD-X

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Depends on how I plan to develop the film. If I am shooting in the shade, or under an overcast sky, it's usually 160 for FP4-Plus and 500 for HP5-Plus, developed in 17M4. 17M4 is a variation of Ansco 17M, with 2.5x the sodium metaborate. If I am shooting under sunny condition, with direct sunlight, it is usually 40 to 80 for FP4-Plus and 125 to 250 for HP5-Plus, developed in D-23.

 

[DREW WILEY]

FP4 @ 50 if both deep shadows and high contrast are involved, in order to get better shadow gradation; but 100 works OK in mild contrast situations. HP5 at box speed 400, and I just don't use it for very high contrast with deep shade, since TMY400 performs far better for those cases. I prefer to develop all these films in PMK pyro. And I only shoot HP5 in 8x10; it's just too grainy for me in smaller formats, whereas TMY proves itself way more versatile again. I shoot FP4 mainly in 4x5, but sometimes in 8x10 too if conditions are not windy.

 

[Oldwino]

HP5 metered at 200, but developed for 800 in Xtol replenished. Gives me the “snap” that is missing when I shoot and develop at box speed. Otherwise, I find HP5 to be too low in contrast.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I'm always late to the party!

I re-discovered HP5 (had dropped it for Tri-X) when I took a chance at shot it at 1600. It's glorious. Grainy, contrasty, but still enough mids. HC-110.

 

[removed account4]

it depends

 

[Agulliver]

FP4+ usually at 125 but occasionally at 64

HP5+ it depends on the subject. It is so versatile I've shot it at anything from 200 to 3200 but most commonly at 400.

 

[pentaxuser]

it depends

I like the answer. Imagine the scene. Two gents with bowler hats and pin striped suits have just asked you the thread's questions while having their lunches on a bench by the Thames Embankment. You reply as above. All three of you are silent for a moment while glancing at the familiar but much love scene of Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. The two gents exchange glances which is the equivalent of a discussion and the senior one,( not discernible,of course, to the casual observer) says: "Have you ever considered the Civil Service?. There is the small matter of a British passport of course" The other turns to his colleague and reply languidly, "Shouldn't be a problem Claude"

PS in these scenarios everyone is called Claude. Stereo-typing is such comfort

pentaxuser