Your ISO for FP4 & HP5

[JimEA]

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

 

[Tom Kershaw]

FP4 Plus at 100 because I use an external light meter and 100 makes for straightforward settings. HP5 is an odd film in that it can give different results depending on the speed - anywhere from 200 to 800 should work fine, depending on developer and required shadow detail. If you've not decided on a developer then DD-X should work well for both those films.

 

[BrianShaw]

Box speeds

DD-X

 

[Sirius Glass]

Box Speed

Replenished XTOL

 

[Bormental]

Box Speed for both. D76 and Xtol.

 

[Pieter12]

HP5+ 160, FP4+ 80.

 

[NB23]

HP5 at 400 or pushed, in ilfotec-hc for the classic look or ilfosol-3 for high acutance.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have always used box speed for both but as has been said HP5+ is very versatile in terms of speed. In fact unless you were to move to D3200 and expose it at 3200 then I do wonder if, at 1600, HP5+ might not fit the bill as well as D3200 and its the cheaper film by far. However I digress.

By the way and for the second digression now but a relevant one this time here goes. In normal light conditions you can test for your own speed for both these films. By own speed I mean your personal EI which may deviate from box speed in order to give you the best possible negs for printing.

Anyway I have said enough and digressed far enough but personal film speed testing is something you may want to consider

pentaxuser

 

[mitch brown]

fp4+ @200 Hp5+ @800 in xtol 1:2 5:30 @75F

 

[JPD]

By the way and for the second digression now but a relevant one this time here goes. In normal light conditions you can test for your own speed for both these films. By own speed I mean your personal EI which may deviate from box speed in order to give you the best possible negs for printing.

Anyway I have said enough and digressed far enough but personal film speed testing is something you may want to consider

Yes, and sometimes the speed is "personal" for the lightmeter as well. I was happy with how my Capital spot meter measured reflective light from a greycard, but then I got a Gossen Sixtomat Digital that gives me one stop faster readings. It messed things up, so now I expose the black and white films one stop more than the meter suggests, and maybe that's box speed or pull by one stop. I need to do a test with slide film to determine what's correct.

 

[Vaughn]

FP4+ in sheets at ASA 100. Only because it is a nice round number and the difference for me is not significant...and never hurts to give a little more exposure. I do not use much HP5+, but I do like the nice round 400 as the ASA.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio Jim.
The ISO (box) speed is measured under somewhat standardized circumstances, which were designed to give good results with commercial lab processing.
The data you are likely to get here from people sharing their own personal Exposure Indices (EI) is actually data about the preferences and techniques and meters of those respondents, and not really about the films themselves.
The results of your survey may be interesting, but they may be less than helpful!
I don't use much Ilford film, but when I have I was happy with box speed.

 

[Pieter12]

Welcome to Photrio Jim.
The ISO (box) speed is measured under somewhat standardized circumstances, which were designed to give good results with commercial lab processing.
The data you are likely to get here from people sharing their own personal Exposure Indices (EI) is actually data about the preferences and techniques and meters of those respondents, and not really about the films themselves.
The results of your survey may be interesting, but they may be less than helpful!
I don't use much Ilford film, but when I have I was happy with box speed.

Box speed is also subject to marketing department input.

 

[Pentode]

FP4+ - box speed
HP5+ - sometimes 800 or 1600, rarely 200 but usually box speed
D-76 1:1

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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

FP4+@ISO125
HP5@ISO320
but YMMV

 

[takilmaboxer]

FP4 in 120, 100 at 8 minutes, 200 at 10 minutes, D76 68 F.
HP5, 250 at 8 minutes, but handles higher speed (like 500) well; I like shadow detail.

 

[foc]

In B&W, I always shoot at box speed unless the subject and conditions require the film speed to be increased and the development to be pushed.
Developed in Ilfosol 3, at 1+14 according to Ilford times.

 

[cliveh]

FP4+ at box speed.

 

[ignatiu5]

HP5+ mostly at EI320, developed in XTOL replenished. 800 if I'm pushing, and very rarely 1600.
I've not personally had the greatest luck with FP4+, so I don't shoot it anymore, opting for Delta 100 instead.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

My EI for normal subject brightness:
HP5 EI 250
FP4 EI 64

By the way, my EI's are for Silver gelatin, and also for a hybrid workflow. No difference. Why would there be??

 

[mmerig]

FP4 Plus at around 64 ISO, developed in ID:11 1:1, normal time. Filters during printing are usually around 1.5 to 2.5.
I don't use HP5 plus as much, but I usually use 200 ISO and process with the same chemistry as FP4 Plus.
If the lighting is very contrasty, I bracket, but I mostly use sheet film and in remote areas, so I am often hesitant due to cost and weight.

 

[StepheKoontz]

My EI for normal subject brightness:
HP5 EI 250
FP4 EI 64

By the way, my EI's are for Silver gelatin, and also for a hybrid workflow. No difference. Why would there be??

Ditto here using a very light yellow filter (1/2 stop). I don't spot meter so I rate a bit lower to retain shadow detail. There is enough exposure latitude where a little overexposure isn't bad and the yellow filter tends to hurt shadow detail some.

 

[Vaughn]

Box speed is also subject to marketing department input.

The greater influence will be the accuracy of one's meter and how one uses it.

 

[summicron1]

I always shoot box speed and always use d-76 diluted 1:1 -- if you are smart you will do the same at least for the first year or so. Don't have to use d76, although it is one of the best all-around developers going. The point is to always use the same film, rating and processing method -- this eliminates variables from your system so that when something goes ka-flooey (and it will) you can find the odd thing that was wrong fairly easily. It also allows you to get very very good with whatever combination you use.

You should stick to the same camera, too -- every camera has its quirks. Learning them helps eliminate more vaiables so you can use those variables when you need to for creating purposes.


Mary Ellen Mark (look her up) ALWAYS used tri-x for this very reason.

 

[BrianShaw]

The greater influence will be the accuracy of one's meter and how one uses it.

Indubitably