Tell me about FP4 +

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello ! 

I’m interested to get members opinions on FP4 

I’m mainly a tri-x shooter (sometimes interchanging HP5).  My uses are street and some street portraiture.  
 

Sometimes I think the Tr-X Grain is a little chunky for portraits, so I tried the usual more modern stocks - Delta , Tmax to increase sharpness.   I find them far too clean for my tastes and too different to Tri-X to maintain a consistent look. 
 

Please let me know what you use HP4 for and whether it might perhaps pair up well with Tri-X ?

I’m trying a roll currently also 

Thanks ! 

[stray cat]

Great, great film. In my opinion, the equivalent of Tri-X when you want 125 ISO. I have negatives from 40+ years ago taken on its predecessor (FP4) and they are still a dream to scan (or, if it were possible, print). It's been around so long and is suitable for everyone from beginners to the most advanced. I noted yesterday, looking at some Magnum contact sheets, that it was the stock Trent Parke used for his street and underwater photos.

I've never understood the problem some people have with grain. More than a fact of life with certain films, I've always found it to add character and presence to photographs. Use Rodinal to accentuate, or something like XTOL to tame a little. Digital serves very well the cause of those who don't like grain, but for those of us who do like to see grain and the other things that give film its character - well, film is the only game in town. And, yes, I know that "film emulation" technology exists, but - well, I'll leave it at that.

Currently my black and white films are FP4+ and HP5+, bought in 30 meter rolls and hand rolled onto cassettes. This is the most economical way I've found to do it using emulsions I have a strong attraction to. Tri-X, I'm afraid, has priced itself out of reach. HP5+ is just as good a film, with some slight differences that give it its own character.

So, in answer to your question, in my opinion FP4+ pairs up perfectly with Tri-X (or HP5+).

[david strachan]

It's my goto b&w filmstock and it's earlier manifestations stood me well too.

I'm not so keen on grain in images (sorry Phil ), so always use film around 100 ISO.

Tried a lot of different films in my dark room and FP4 was the chosen one, usually developed in D76. Nowadays there's always  a 36 roll of FP4, in either my Barnack, or my M6.

...

[adan]

7 hours ago, grahamc said:

I’m interested to get members opinions on FP4(+)

A film with very good latitude.

FP4+ plus a lot of other old-school cubic-grain medium-speed films (many now R.I.P.) have a dirty little secret. They are not a smooth emulsion of only "ISO 125 grains" - but a mixture of ISO 400 grains and ISO 50 grains (and others in between).

This provides the latitude.

In a high-contrast scene with dark shadows and bright sun-lit highlights, exposed at 125, the ISO 400 grains respond to light in the deepest shadows, but block up in the highlights. BUT the lower-ISO grains, underexposed in the shadows, keep adding density to the negative in the highlights, even when the ISO 400 grains are all fully exposed ("blown" in digital parlance). You get highlights that "just keep on ticking."

With slightly higher "net grain" than the "pure-ISO100" Delta/TMax films, but with higher tolerance for exposure mistakes, or wide scene brightness ranges, and small processing imperfections.

----------------

Backstory 1908-1995: Both Kodak and Ilford produced, among other things, roll films for medium-format "box cameras" that had only a couple of apertures and one shutter speed ("Instantaneous" = roughly 1/60th second). Those needed films with amazing latitude to work under a variety of lighting (and processing) with such minimalist exposure controls.

https://www.brownie-camera.com/

Kodak produced (well, purchased the rights to, and then produced) a film called Verichrome* and then Verichrome Pan. llford (1930) produced a similar high-latitude film called Selo Panchromatic and then Selochrome*. They literally had two layered emulsions of different effective speeds (Ilford promoted the Selo lines as "multi-coated").

http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index.php/2018/12/17/classic-film-review-kodak-verichrome-pan/

Verichrome Pan was made until 1995 (never in 35mm so far as I know, but in 126 and 110 "Instamatic" formats). Ilford Selochrome was made until 1968-ish.

The Ilford FP films (and perhaps Kodak Plus-X, R.I.P.) were a "simplified" single-emulsion version of that idea.

In some ways they are all like the "dual-photosite" SuperCCD SR sensors Fuji made, where within each pixel there are two sensels of different sizes with different light responses, that are added together to get the final brightness of the pixel.

https://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/6851251325/slide4.jpeg

I've often wished Verichrome Pan was still available for my 120 cameras - but FP4+ is about as close as it gets.

________________
*the "chrome" in the names of these B&W films referred not to a color capability (like Kodachrome or Ektachrome or Fujichrome), but simply to the "orthochromatic" or "panchromatic" color sensitivity.

Edited August 24, 2022 by adan

[Matlock]

3 hours ago, adan said:

 

I've often wished Verichrome Pan was still available for my 120 cameras - but FP4+ is about as close as it gets.

 

I still have two rolls of 620 Verichrome Pan and one roll of 116 Verichrome Pan in my freezer. I developed one 116 a short while ago (I have a 116 Kodak camera) and it was not too bad considering it was only 56 years out of date.

[grahamc]

High praise indeed , thanks Gents ! 
 

I’m really looking forward to trying this 

Very interesting background @adanthanks for setting that out. 
 

@stray cat - Interesting about Trent Parke. 125 tri-x would be a dream !
 

@david strachan I do like grain but have seen it decrease noticeably since I started using D76 at home my grain has noticeably reduced versus my labs (unknown) developer. 
 

Really keen to try this now thanks 

Edited August 24, 2022 by grahamc

[grahamc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I like it I think I’ll be following you with the bulk loaders@stray cat

[oldwino]

3 hours ago, grahamc said:

125 tri-x would be a dream !
 

Double-X is still around...shoots nicely at 200.

[oldwino]

I am still working my way through a bulk roll of Delta 100, which I like well enough (in Rodinal no less!). But some FP4 is on the horizon, I think, as I hope it will be a good match for HP5...

[Ouroboros]

FP4+, like it's predecessor, is a good reliable emulsion with no vices.  Also good for trying out different developers, I used it for several years with Acculux and eventually settled on DDX a few years ago.  

[hansvons]

21 hours ago, grahamc said:

I'm interested to get members opinions on FP4 

I think it's a classic emulsion. Old school. Not far from Pan F, only faster with a slightly finer grain. I'd shoot it at ISO 80 and maybe pull it a tad in XTOL.

People looked at images differently back in the day when film was the natural medium, and the only question was whether you used a 35mm camera or 6x6 in terms of "quality". Grainy pictures were a natural byproduct of mediocre technology; people took that as a given. But to me, as someone breathing the 2022 air, I find that time moved on and, with digital, perception somewhat changed.

Around 15 years ago, we started looking at BW images with very different eyes because grain became a defining feature for everyone who couldn't let go of film, only to offset themselves from digital. Today, we sell ourselves grain as a feature; we celebrate it. But, in a way, it remained a bug to the mainstream if it's all over the place and recognised as "noise."

I find that Ilford's Delta and Kodak's TMax offer 35mm stock whose grain isn't distracting but pleasing to the eye, and even at ISO 400 delivers results that a less educated audience accepts as "nice" and not "noisy". It works well with XTOL in terms of sharpness, contrast and fine grain. 

Because Delta 400 is less costly in Europe than Kodak TMax, it's my go-to stock for versatility in terms of speed and fine grain when shot a ISO 200 and pulled a tad. The same can be said of Delta 100/TMax 100, only its grain is even more delicate, borderline medium format.

Of course, your mileage may vary considerably because images are naturally in the eye of the beholder.

 

 

 

 

[Chuck Albertson]

I can't add anything to Andy's post (learned a lot from it I didn't know, in fact). I shoot FP4+ in 35mm and 120 around Seattle during our increasingly-lengthy dry season, and elsewhere when I go someplace sunny. Really nice for high-contrast subjects, developed in Rodinal or Xtol depending on how much grain I want to look at.

I usually save Delta 100 for studio shooting, or anyplace I can control the light a bit.

I grew up shooting Verichrome Pan in my Brownie Starflash in the '60s, and it seemed to make photography easy. I also have a roll of it in 120; 2003 expiry, so I really should get around to shooting it.

[grahamc]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:24 PM, adan said:

I've often wished Verichrome Pan was still available for my 120 cameras - but FP4+ is about as close as it gets.

Fantastic 😁

[grahamc]

On 8/25/2022 at 1:29 AM, oldwino said:

as I hope it will be a good match for HP5...

Great.  That’s good to hear 

[Pyrogallol]

Buy your FP4 now. A year ago I was buying 30 metres for about £65, I just checked four suppliers and it is now almost £100.

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Buy your FP4 now. A year ago I was buying 30 metres for about £65, I just checked four suppliers and it is now almost £100.

£88.50 from Speed Graphic, £87 from Mathers.

[grahamc]

9 hours ago, Pyrogallol said:

Buy your FP4 now. A year ago I was buying 30 metres for about £65, I just checked four suppliers and it is now almost £100.

I'm late to the party, again ! 

[Pyrogallol]

9 hours ago, 250swb said:

£88.50 from Speed Graphic, £87 from Mathers.

I looked at

Silverprint £97.39

AG £98.77

Firstcall £107.79

E Bay from £84.85 to £93.90

All more than the £60+ they cost about a year ago.

I normally use Silverprint and wait for a 10% off weekend.

I just bought some Fomapan 100 which I have been using over the past year and found it to be very similar to FP4.

https://silverprint.co.uk/products/v11131?variant=37772077826232

Edited August 27, 2022 by Pyrogallol

[Ouroboros]

FP4+  is £8 per roll at Analogue Wonderland  and £61.70 for 10 rolls at SpeedGraphic.  I've just ordered some.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[grahamc]

here we would be paying AUD $12 / roll which is 7 pounds 

Best you can do for Tri-X is $16.60 per roll (in a 10 pack) , and HP5 $11/roll (individuals) 

Edited August 27, 2022 by grahamc