Ilford FP4+

[Mr.Prime]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm trying to get a better feel for this film and how to get the best out of it in terms of exposure.

I joined a thread about Ilford PanF, 

This resulted in my taking some shots at different exposures and it taught me something about using this film. I recently repeated the exercise with Ilford FP4+ and I was quite surprised to find that the exposure for good results was just as finicky. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that FP4+ would be more forgiving than PanF+ but this was not how it looks to me.

I didn't follow box speed, I exposed for EI50 and reduced development to 9 minutes in D76 1+1.

Attached image shows exposures at 1/125th f11, f8, f5.6, f4, f2.8

To my eyes the best exposure is somewhere between f5.6 and f8, with f5.6 retaining better shadow detail.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Pyrogallol]

I have been using Ilford FP4 since 1972. If you are starting out with it stick to the maker’s recommenced speed and development. Though these days I rate it at 100 ISO, only because at one time I also used Delta 100 and left my exposure meter on 100. I use Rodinal or Perceptol or Tanol now. Years ago I would have used ID11 or D76 at 1:1.

 

I have been using Pan F recently, a 30mt bulk roll, and think it is more tricky to get right.

Edited May 8, 2022 by Pyrogallol

[250swb]

5 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

 

Attached image shows exposures at 1/125th f11, f8, f5.6, f4, f2.8

To my eyes the best exposure is somewhere between f5.6 and f8, with f5.6 retaining better shadow detail.

I'm not sure what you are saying, what is your light meter telling you, is it accurate, are you pointing it at the right things? FP4+ is one of the most benign films you could use, old school laid back and responds to many developers with equal flexibility. I wouldn't underexpose it although the difference between 125 and 150 ISO is negligible at best.

Edited May 8, 2022 by 250swb

[Mr.Prime]

I’m saying that to my eyes this strip of film doesn’t look nearly as good when under or over exposed by 1 stop, that it gives up too much. I was expecting +/- 1 stop to be less obvious and therefore, more forgiving.

[ejg1890]

19 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I didn't follow box speed, I exposed for EI50 and reduced development to 9 minutes in D76 1+1.

Attached image shows exposures at 1/125th f11, f8, f5.6, f4, f2.8

To my eyes the best exposure is somewhere between f5.6 and f8, with f5.6 retaining better shadow detail.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

So the ISO was at 50 rather than box speed, but what was the correct exposure reading from a meter reading? I thought f8 was the best based on the small photos but not sure where that stood with the correct meter reading of the scene at the time. Do you have that information to share?  Thanks.

[Ornello]

23 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I'm trying to get a better feel for this film and how to get the best out of it in terms of exposure.

I joined a thread about Ilford PanF, 

This resulted in my taking some shots at different exposures and it taught me something about using this film. I recently repeated the exercise with Ilford FP4+ and I was quite surprised to find that the exposure for good results was just as finicky. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that FP4+ would be more forgiving than PanF+ but this was not how it looks to me.

I didn't follow box speed, I exposed for EI50 and reduced development to 9 minutes in D76 1+1.

Attached image shows exposures at 1/125th f11, f8, f5.6, f4, f2.8

To my eyes the best exposure is somewhere between f5.6 and f8, with f5.6 retaining better shadow detail.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Yethir! 

 

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I’m saying that to my eyes this strip of film doesn’t look nearly as good when under or over exposed by 1 stop, that it gives up too much. I was expecting +/- 1 stop to be less obvious and therefore, more forgiving.

Bear in mind that the heavier negatives will print better with a little more exposure at printing. The thinner ones will not.

[Pyrogallol]

Looking back at the original posting and the copy of the prints, it is not really possible to give an opinion on the exposures without holding the actual negatives.

[Mr.Prime]

4 hours ago, ejg1890 said:

So the ISO was at 50 rather than box speed, but what was the correct exposure reading from a meter reading? I thought f8 was the best based on the small photos but not sure where that stood with the correct meter reading of the scene at the time. Do you have that information to share?  Thanks.

I metered off the grass for EI50 to obtain the exposure which was close to f5.6 but I don't remember the exact number. I agree, looking at the images the best exposure is somewhere between f5.6 and f8 and I think the meter was close enough. I don't have any concerns about the metering.

[ejg1890]

1 minute ago, Mr.Prime said:

I metered off the grass for EI50 to obtain the exposure which was close to f5.6 but I don't remember the exact number. I agree, looking at the images the best exposure is somewhere between f5.6 and f8 and I think the meter was close enough. I don't have any concerns about the metering.

Thanks. The reason I asked is to determine if the film renders best at metered exposure, over or under exposure and by how much.  

[Mr.Prime]

19 minutes ago, Pyrogallol said:

Looking back at the original posting and the copy of the prints, it is not really possible to give an opinion on the exposures without holding the actual negatives.

What I posted were not copies of prints but scans of the negatives using an Epson flat bed scanner. I no longer maintain a wet darkroom for printing. I have found differences between the results from the Epson flat bed and the Plustek scanners and generally make final scans with the Plustek but the flat bed allows me to grab a scan of a set of frames taken with different exposures and create a single image file, so it's very convenient. Subjectively, holding the negatives in my hand tells a similar story to the scan I posted.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Mr.Prime]

Again, what I feel I'm learning from these test images is that I have to be more careful with my exposures because I will lose (scanned) image quality if I don't get it right and that FP4+ as I've used it here is not going to give me the best results if I'm more than a stop out. 

It's a bit unfortunate that I had combined this variable exposure test along with the use of EI50 but I was also hoping to further tame the contrast when used in bright sunny conditions. I'll perhaps return to box speed for the next roll of FP4+ (and longer development times to match) and do another set of test frames with different exposures.

Edited May 9, 2022 by Mr.Prime

[Ornello]

57 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

Again, what I feel I'm learning from these test images is that I have to be more careful with my exposures because I will lose (scanned) image quality if I don't get it right and that FP4+ as I've used it here is not going to give me the best results if I'm more than a stop out. 

It's a bit unfortunate that I had combined this variable exposure test along with the use of EI50 but I was also hoping to further tame the contrast when used in bright sunny conditions. I'll perhaps return to box speed for the next roll of FP4+ (and longer development times to match) and do another set of test frames with different exposures.

Just use XP2. Scanning conventional B&W films gives poor quality and exaggerates grain.

[250swb]

4 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

Again, what I feel I'm learning from these test images is that I have to be more careful with my exposures because I will lose (scanned) image quality if I don't get it right and that FP4+ as I've used it here is not going to give me the best results if I'm more than a stop out. 

Perhaps instead of testing just to see the effects of under or over exposure use a meter (or pay attention to the meter) to determine a datum point that can be cross referenced? From this datum point you can test different exposures and ISO using facts, try different development times using facts, and calibrate your whole routine with the films of your choice using facts. The test you are doing is nebulous at best. 

[Mr.Prime]

I think the value of calibration would be to establish the ideal exposure for a given meter (I use my iphone mostly), development and scanner etc. This is not really what I wanted to post about although it does no harm for me to do this calibration when I have a nearly finished roll of film to spend on it.

What I had intended to cover in my post was part of my journey in understanding how to get better results when I'm using FP4+ in terms of the level of attention I should be paying to correct exposure. I have read much about the generous exposure latitude of this film but I've found that in use my approach to exposure has been perhaps too lackadaisical. I have read that 'sunny 16' was a good starting point, that it's possible to use a camera without a meter and use your 'experience' to estimate exposure with good results. This approach being supported by the wide exposure latitude of traditional negative film. Note: I've not had to learn this approach before as in the past I used an SLR but after buying my M3 and M4 it's been necessary to learn about metering.  My rough 'test' shows me that I don't have a lot of wiggle room, for good results I need to be far more accurate with my exposure than I had anticipated - recognizing of course that this maybe scene dependent.

[Ornello]

44 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

I think the value of calibration would be to establish the ideal exposure for a given meter (I use my iphone mostly), development and scanner etc. This is not really what I wanted to post about although it does no harm for me to do this calibration when I have a nearly finished roll of film to spend on it.

What I had intended to cover in my post was part of my journey in understanding how to get better results when I'm using FP4+ in terms of the level of attention I should be paying to correct exposure. I have read much about the generous exposure latitude of this film but I've found that in use my approach to exposure has been perhaps too lackadaisical. I have read that 'sunny 16' was a good starting point, that it's possible to use a camera without a meter and use your 'experience' to estimate exposure with good results. This approach being supported by the wide exposure latitude of traditional negative film. Note: I've not had to learn this approach before as in the past I used an SLR but after buying my M3 and M4 it's been necessary to learn about metering.  My rough 'test' shows me that I don't have a lot of wiggle room, for good results I need to be far more accurate with my exposure than I had anticipated - recognizing of course that this maybe scene dependent.

FP4+ has good latitude, and rating it at 50 is a good idea. You can give another stop or two of exposure and still get good results. ISO ratings are too high, as has been demonstrated many many times by those who test carefully, using negatives to make prints in a darkroom. I would not scan and expect to get anything good. If you want to use conventional film, print it in a darkroom. If you want to scan, don't use conventional film. Use XP2 or color negative film and convert to B&W. There is absolutely nothing good to be gained by scanning conventional B&W film.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ornello

[Mr.Prime]

I have no plans to set up a wet darkroom for printing, it's a skill I never fully developed. I do have memory of using a simple 'enlarger box' (not sure what they are called) which was fun. A simple metal box with spring clips to hold a piece of unexposed printing paper at one side, a small fixed lens in a divider across the middle of the box and a negative holder on the other side of the box. You had to provide your own light source, which could be anything really. Very simple as the focus was guaranteed. It wasn't my box so I don't have it but the results were very good as print sizes were small - trying to remember them but probably 4" x 6". An enlarger I did own produced larger prints of course. Anyhow, no plans (yet) to go back there. 

The nice thing about using FP4+ is that I can develop it myself. For XP2 I'd have to send it out and wait..... as well as spend more $. Since others report satisfaction scanning FP4+ I assume there are good results to be found.

[Pyrogallol]

You could just bracket your exposures until you get used to the sort of negatives you like. Trying to make tests in the real world is not reliable as the lighting changes when you are outside taking pictures, the light can change between one exposure and the next and the contrast can change with it. I’ve done it myself and then you have to make notes of what you are doing. Often, as yesterday, I am testing out different cameras and I take a range of exposures at different shutter speeds on the same aperture to see if the shutter speeds look right.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Ornello]

50 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

I have no plans to set up a wet darkroom for printing, it's a skill I never fully developed. I do have memory of using a simple 'enlarger box' (not sure what they are called) which was fun. A simple metal box with spring clips to hold a piece of unexposed printing paper at one side, a small fixed lens in a divider across the middle of the box and a negative holder on the other side of the box. You had to provide your own light source, which could be anything really. Very simple as the focus was guaranteed. It wasn't my box so I don't have it but the results were very good as print sizes were small - trying to remember them but probably 4" x 6". An enlarger I did own produced larger prints of course. Anyhow, no plans (yet) to go back there. 

The nice thing about using FP4+ is that I can develop it myself. For XP2 I'd have to send it out and wait..... as well as spend more $. Since others report satisfaction scanning FP4+ I assume there are good results to be found.

That's simply not true. I simply don't understand why people want to scan B&W film. These films are designed for optical printing in an enlarger. Color films are different. They are both 'negatives' but they are as different as plutonium is from argon. Color films (and XP2) end up as dyed images, whereas B&W films end up as metal particles of silver. Light striking these particles behaves differently than it does passing through dyes. It doesn't pass through the silver at all, but between the particles. The small aperture of the scanner device causes the grain to be exaggerated. You will not get anything remotely like what a film like FP4 is capable of in a darkroom.

If you don't want to make prints in a darkroom, there is no reason to develop your film.

 

Edited May 10, 2022 by Ornello

[Mr.Prime]

It’s not such a big deal for me, I’m quite prepared to accept that scanning is going to be different and that I’ll still enjoy do some developing myself. It’s only a hobby.

This thread is more about thoughts on the question about exposure latitude in practice when using FP4+.