Tips for FP4
Old 07-14-2015   #1
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
 
Lauffray's Avatar
 
Lauffray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 31
Posts: 1,434
Tips for FP4

I just got a few rolls of FP4 to test out and I have some questions for you guys, seeing as the last time I shot anything under ISO400 was uhm a long time ago !

- FP4 is rated ISO125, is there any gain in exposing it at 100 ? The aim is to simplify exposure calculations.
- If yes, how much should I compensate developing time for, if at all ? I mean a third of a stop seems a little insignificant

- I'm thinking about developing it in Rodinal, for the high acutance and to bring out that very fine grain just a little bit. Is there any gain to developing in Rodinal or am I best to go with an Ilford developer ? Any developer recommendations that would give me the result I'm looking for ?
__________________

WebsiteFlickrInsta
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #2
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 67
Posts: 2,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauffray View Post
I mean a third of a stop seems a little insignificant
Yes, too insignificant to worry about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauffray View Post
- I'm thinking about developing it in Rodinal, for the high acutance and to bring out that very fine grain just a little bit. Is there any gain to developing in Rodinal or am I best to go with an Ilford developer ? Any developer recommendations that would give me the result I'm looking for ?
In my experience Rodinal and Ilford films are not a great combo, they get too grainy for me. I can recommend Xtol as an excellent developer for FP4+. If you want to 'bring out the grain' then personally I'd try HP5+ instead or FP4+.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #3
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 41
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauffray View Post
I'm thinking about developing it in Rodinal, for the high acutance and to bring out that very fine grain just a little bit. Is there any gain to developing in Rodinal or am I best to go with an Ilford developer ?
This was either Delta100 or FP4 in Rodinal.
__________________
www.endzeit.de
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #4
Dan Daniel
Registered User
 
Dan Daniel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,523
For me the thing that makes FP4 worth using is a certain creaminess in the midtones. Using Rodinal works against this, makes things a bit sparkly. I'm fine using HC-110 with FP4.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #5
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto's Avatar
 
Chriscrawfordphoto is offline
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Age: 43
Posts: 8,889
FP4 has great tonality in Rodinal but it does look gritty. My favorite developer for FP4 is PMK. D-76 1+1 gives beautiful results, too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #6
jbielikowski
call me Jan
 
jbielikowski's Avatar
 
jbielikowski is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 959
I've used FP4 some time ago and fellow rff'er suggested to develop it in D-76 1+3, very pleasant indeed, most of pictures in this set was done this way.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #7
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,670
I dislike FP4 in Rodinal. Grain is awful to me.
I like FP4 in HC-110. Midtones come out for me.

That's my preference. Also, I expose FP4 at ISO 100. I think most people do.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #8
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
 
Lauffray's Avatar
 
Lauffray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 31
Posts: 1,434
What's the Ilford equivalent to HC110 ?
__________________

WebsiteFlickrInsta
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #9
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Daniel View Post
For me the thing that makes FP4 worth using is a certain creaminess in the midtones. Using Rodinal works against this, makes things a bit sparkly. I'm fine using HC-110 with FP4.

HC110 is my choice with FP4 also. I find with my agitation that I need to cut development times to keep contrast down. You'll need to experiment to see what works for you. In HC110 tonality, acutance and grain are excellent.

I think Ilfords equivalent of HC110 is HC. It's quite a bit more expensive. A few years ago HC110 was in short supply so I gave Freestyle's L110 which is the same as HC110. It's less viscous and easier to measure plus much more economical.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #10
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Don't know how you feel about homebrew developers, but FP4+ works pretty well in Caffenol C-H(RS). This was shot with an Olympus XA4, BTW.

__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #11
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Don't know how you feel about homebrew developers, but FP4+ works pretty well in Caffenol C-H(RS). This was shot with an Olympus XA4, BTW.


Beautiful print. I'm going to have to try it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #12
BLKRCAT
99% Film
 
BLKRCAT's Avatar
 
BLKRCAT is offline
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,775
Also when getting your times for FP4+ keep in mind that there is a euro version of HC110 and a US version of hc110. Im not sure if ilfords times are based off of the euro or us versions of hc110 but I find for Dil B 9 min is WAY too much. I cut development to 5:30 and get great results.
__________________
TumblrYoutube
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2015   #13
daveywaugh
Blah
 
daveywaugh's Avatar
 
daveywaugh is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 354
I've been really happy with FP4+ rated at 100 and developed in XTOL 1:1 for 9:45.
__________________
website.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2015   #14
varchs
Registered User
 
varchs's Avatar
 
varchs is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kastoria, Greece
Posts: 264
I have just purchased a 30m bulk roll of FP4+.
I have not used FP4 for almost 5 years, and I will develop these films with Ilfosol 3 as I do with HP5. I am quite ok with Ilfosol 3. The only issue is that it is sensitive to air, and just after opening the bottle, I am splitting it to smaller pharmacy brown glass bottles to preserve it.
__________________
Zeiss Ikon ZM & Biogon 35mm/f2 | Canon EOS 3 & EF 28-105mm/f3.5-4.5 II USM | Olympus Trip 35
--
Is Photography Representation or is it Design?
--
VArchS | Architecture & Design Services
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #15
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,670
O2Pilot, that's a beautiful image you got there.

I too have used Caffenol on FP4 and it was a good combination. I tend to use HC110 instead because I'm often time constrained and don't want to mix up a batch of Caffenol. Otherwise, I would use it more often.

x-ray, Are you satisfied with the LC110? I think my current bottle of HC110 will last me a while yet, but once its gone I need to find a satisfactory replacement. I don't want to order the big bottle of HC110 (a few reasons why) so the LC110 is a candidate.

Just looked, only 2 rolls of FP4 in my freezer I guess I've been using a lot of Tmax lately instead (topic for another thread, another day).
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #16
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 71
Posts: 2,501
One of my fav films. Have lots of it in 100' rolls.

Back in the olden days, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought Ilford FP4 was similiar to Kodak's Plux-X.
__________________
I make photographs as a return ticket to a moment otherwise gone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #17
Ljós
Registered User
 
Ljós is offline
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 817
I would agree with rather not using Rodinal for HP5+, but with FP4+ it is a great and classic combination. It's been a staple of many photographers here in Germany.

I can recommend 1:50 with dev. times around 15 minutes at 20 degress Celsius. Remember, grainlessness is not everything ;-)

Do keep us posted how your pictures turned out -
Greetings, Ljós
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #18
Vics
Registered User
 
Vics's Avatar
 
Vics is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 3,289
I shot FP4+ at 80iso and developed it at the standard time in D76. Having said that, I didn't do a lot of careful metering in those days...
Student Unrest 2006 by Vic Stewart, on Flickr
__________________
Vic
Sony a200

My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #19
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 70
Posts: 4,621
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
O2Pilot, that's a beautiful image you got there.

I too have used Caffenol on FP4 and it was a good combination. I tend to use HC110 instead because I'm often time constrained and don't want to mix up a batch of Caffenol. Otherwise, I would use it more often.

x-ray, Are you satisfied with the LC110? I think my current bottle of HC110 will last me a while yet, but once its gone I need to find a satisfactory replacement. I don't want to order the big bottle of HC110 (a few reasons why) so the LC110 is a candidate.

Just looked, only 2 rolls of FP4 in my freezer I guess I've been using a lot of Tmax lately instead (topic for another thread, another day).
I started using HC110 in 1975 and have processed thousands of rolls in it so I know it inside out. I'm unable to see any difference in the final results with L110. It's lower viscosity which is easier to measure.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #20
julio1fer
Registered User
 
julio1fer's Avatar
 
julio1fer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 465
I have shot many hundreds of meters of FP4+ and developed in different developers.

Never saw any difference from shooting at 100 or 125.

It works very well with Rodinal 1:50 IMHO. My favorite dev for FP4+ is ID-11 (or D-76) 1:1 because it gives finer grain and excellent tones.

With Beutler you get awesome tones but more grain than with ID-11.

FP4+ is quite a tolerant film, it will give good results with almost anything if well exposed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #21
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,106
I have some FP4 in HC-110 just recently. Come out very well balanced with classic feel in it. It is going to be my next bulk to purchase.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-22-2015   #22
kiemchacsu
Registered User
 
kiemchacsu is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Hanoi, Vietnam
Age: 38
Posts: 993
another vote for fp4+ in hc-110 (1+47)
I'm quite satisfied with the results.

Boat connects two banks by Trung Nguyen, on Flickr

Old man reading newspaper by Trung Nguyen, on Flickr
__________________
Cheers,
Trung Nguyen

RF
F
photo essays: Hanoi | Hoi An | Ha Giang | Fish Market
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #23
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,801


6x4.5 format, developed in Rodinal 1+50 for 12 min. Agitation every 4 minutes.
__________________
Have a good light,
Will


  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #24
Rayt
Registered User
 
Rayt's Avatar
 
Rayt is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,836
It is good to have a system and stick to it. For Ilford films I use DDX. For Kodak, D76. For Foma and acros, Rodinal.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #25
rfaspen
Registered User
 
rfaspen's Avatar
 
rfaspen is offline
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Corvallis, OR
Posts: 1,670
Good to hear that Freestyle's LC110 gives same results as HC110. That gives me the confidence to order some when the time comes.

I'm quite impressed by the nice images I've seen in this thread, all on FP4. I wish I could pin down my scanning technique so that my scans look as nice as my negs do. My old scanner died and the replacement behaves differently. I'm glad to see that some of you out there have figured it out (as evidenced by the images shared in this thread). I suppose in time I'll get it sorted.
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-23-2015   #26
Peter_S
Registered User
 
Peter_S is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Narvik (Norway); Tbilisi (Georgia)
Posts: 735
I have used FP4+ as my go-to-film for years. Tried around - the classic combination with ID-11 works best, either 1:1 or 1:3. and Ilford's rec. times. With 1:3 not much can go wrong.
__________________
Black Contax T3
Bessa III
Fuji XT1 + VM Ultron F/1.8 21mm + VM Nokton f/1.2 40mm
Beater Leica X1



www.ps-photo.net
On instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-24-2015   #27
LeicaFoReVer
Addicted to Rangefinders
 
LeicaFoReVer's Avatar
 
LeicaFoReVer is offline
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Turkey
Posts: 1,316
I dont agree that FP4 being grainy with Rodinal. I got pretty sharp and crisp images with that combo. I dont remember exactly but quite frankly I normally use stand development...


__________________
Leica M6 TTL x.72
Leica iiif
Leica Elmar-M 5cm f2.8 (rare early version)
Canon 50mm f/1.2 LTM
Voightlander Color Skopar PII 35mm f2.5
Contax G2 + 45mm & 28mm
Contax RX + Zeiss 50mm f1.4
Olympus OM-4 + 24mm f2.8 + 35mm f2
Fed 3 + jupiter-12
Sony NEX 7


websites:
http://www.blurb.com/user/store/aykutkaraca
http://flickriver.com/photos/2851236...r-interesting/
http://sites.google.com/site/aykutphoto/Home
http://aykutkaraca.webs.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-25-2015   #28
Per
Registered User
 
Per is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweden
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLKRCAT View Post
Also when getting your times for FP4+ keep in mind that there is a euro version of HC110 and a US version of hc110. Im not sure if ilfords times are based off of the euro or us versions of hc110 but I find for Dil B 9 min is WAY too much. I cut development to 5:30 and get great results.
I don't think so, there's just one HC-110 version available since at least five years now. And that is the previous US version.
__________________
<a href='http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=1028'>My Gallery</a>
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2016   #29
fer_fdi
Registered User
 
fer_fdi's Avatar
 
fer_fdi is offline
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Barcelona & Empordŕ, Spain
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Don't know how you feel about homebrew developers, but FP4+ works pretty well in Caffenol C-H(RS). This was shot with an Olympus XA4, BTW.

wonderful!
love Caffenol! hope to try soon and develop a couple of rolls that way
__________________
~
Fer
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2016   #30
crsantin
Registered User
 
crsantin is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 66
I tend to shoot FP4 at 200 and develop with Ilfosol 3. Development time is recommended at 4:15 if shooting at 125. So either I go to 5:00 at 200 or I use warmer water and stick to 4:15. This tends to create more contrast and grain, but I really dont mind. I really like FP4. In winter months I switch to HP5 and push it to 800 or 1600. In summer months I like Pan F and Rollei Retro 80s, but FP4 is probably my go to black and white film for now.
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2016   #31
jbhthescots
Registered User
 
jbhthescots's Avatar
 
jbhthescots is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 367
FP4+ has become my go-to favourite film. I have lots of experience with it - I would also recommend either Xtol or HC-110 for best results. You can check them all out on my blog by clicking the link underneath my name. Good luck,
__________________
JOHN B. HENDERSON
Blog: http://jbhthescots.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 03-27-2016   #32
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Thanks for all the positive comments on my photo.

I'm quite happy that the intensity of sunlight has returned to a level sufficient for me to start using FP4+ as my regular film. I've got a roll in one of my Barnacks right now, in fact. It really is a wonderful emulsion.
__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2016   #33
ColColt
Registered User
 
ColColt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: East TN
Posts: 75
To me FP-4 and Rodinal was a marriage in heaven. I've used it at ASA 64 on contrasty days and Rodinal at 1:100 or ASA 100 with Rodinal at 1:75 and had great results. I've been using that combination since the '80's and don't plan on changing now.

Some examples...

FP-4(120)

120FP4ab by David Fincher, on Flickr

with 35mm

Nikon F2 and 50mm lens at f4 by David Fincher, on Flickr
Downtown014a by David Fincher, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2016   #34
02Pilot
Malcontent
 
02Pilot is offline
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: NY, USA
Posts: 1,288
Wow, that first shot looks awfully familiar. I was just there a couple weeks ago shooting my own roll of FP4+ (developed in Caffenol).

__________________
-------------------------------------------------------
Any man who can see what he wants to get on film will usually find some way to get it;
and a man who thinks his equipment is going to see for him is not going to get much of anything.

-Hunter S. Thompson
-
http://filmosaur.wordpress.com/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2016   #35
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,322
I use DD-X with results.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-03-2016   #36
ColColt
Registered User
 
ColColt is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: East TN
Posts: 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by 02Pilot View Post
Wow, that first shot looks awfully familiar. I was just there a couple weeks ago shooting my own roll of FP4+ (developed in Caffenol).

I see it hasn't changed after all these years. I should have cropped out the telephone poles. Her car was in the way of any in camera cropping. You can see the shadow of her front bumper.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-04-2016   #37
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by rfaspen View Post
I too have used Caffenol on FP4 and it was a good combination.
I second that. At the moment thinking of switching back from Rollei RPX 100 (Kentmere 100) to FP4...

Old Chevy by Georg Erley, auf Flickr
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-04-2016   #38
mfogiel
Registered User
 
mfogiel's Avatar
 
mfogiel is offline
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Monaco
Posts: 4,658
I am not a big fan of this film, however the best results I got from it was shooting at EI 64 and developing in Acurol N 1+90 for about 20 mins with semi stand agitation.

MF20145807 by marek fogiel, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-04-2016   #39
music_healing
Registered User
 
music_healing is offline
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,239
FP4 is my favorite (beside Neopan 400)

mostly use it with Perceptol or Microphen

This one on Perceptol stock

All About Springs by William Jusuf, on Flickr

These are on Microphen

Urban life Detail by William Jusuf, on Flickr

Walk The Bride by William Jusuf, on Flickr

Just order 3 bulks more

Sincerely
William Jusuf
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-14-2016   #40
Johnmcd
Registered User
 
Johnmcd's Avatar
 
Johnmcd is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Central Coast, NSW - Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 1,710
FP4 in Foma LQN 1:14 11 min.











Cheers - John
__________________
Fuji GF670, Mamiya 7, 7II 50, 80, 150
Bronica SQA 50, 65, 80 & 150
Contax G1 45 & 90

Zeiss Ikon ZM, Leica R8 50, 60
Leica M3, M4
21, 35, 50, Ind 61, Jup 9
OM2/1 plus 24, 28, 50, 50, 100, 70-150, 300
www.johnmcd.zenfolio.com/

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:29.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.