Author Topic: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem  (Read 1516 times)

Indofunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,546
    • photog & music
I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« on: August 08, 2017, 08:08:32 PM »
As noted elsewhere in these archives, I've never really had any luck shooting FP4+, in all 2 times I've tried :D Conventional wisdom says to develop it roughly as Tri-X, which for me at box speed is HC110H for 10 minutes. When I tried this on a roll of well-expired FP4, it came out very contrasty with blown-out highlights and pretty extreme vignetting. Not a bad look, all told, but it would be nice to have it start out at a baseline of "normal" so I can tweak it from there. So then I acquired another 2 rolls, closer to being in date, but still unknown expiry. I shot one roll at box speed again and developed it as Tri-X, and still it came out contrasty and blown out. Here's an example from that roll:



Again, not a bad look, but I wanted to try to "normalize" it a bit. So with this last roll of FP4 in my possession, I did something I normally wouldn't do and changed TWO variables at once. I shot half the roll at 100 (to me, that's box speed since most of my cameras only meter at full ISO stops), and half at 200 to see if I was simply overexposing the film. Then, during development I kept the same developer, time, and dilution, but instead of agitating every minute, I agitated every 2 minutes, because the contrastiness of my previous two rolls looked kind of like over agitation.

So, the results. It looks like ISO 100 with agitation every two minutes is the winner. Shooting at ISO 200 wasn't bad, but there is a definite loss in shadow detail, which I don't think has anything to do with the agitation scheme (although, who knows).

Here we are, ISO 100 agitation every 2 minutes:



ISO 200 agitation every 2 minutes:



It still vignettes noticeably compared to the same camera with Tri-X, but I like that. Just out of curiosity, any thoughts as to why a certain film would vignette more than another on the same camera & lens?

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,510
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2017, 08:28:45 PM »
Usually a film doesn't vignette... vignetting is something related to the optics.
But you might get the "illusion" of vignetting on higher contrast films where the sky appears darker. These films compress the tonal range, so a slight underexposure can be dramatic. And if the lens vignettes just slightly, it's going to be exaggerated really badly.

You can also get vignetting when using a polarizer. This one stomped me for years until I saw the proper explanation!
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

Indofunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,546
    • photog & music
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #2 on: August 08, 2017, 11:13:59 PM »
Usually a film doesn't vignette... vignetting is something related to the optics.
But you might get the "illusion" of vignetting on higher contrast films where the sky appears darker. These films compress the tonal range, so a slight underexposure can be dramatic. And if the lens vignettes just slightly, it's going to be exaggerated really badly.

That's probably it. I noticed that FP4 darkens the sky a lot. And maybe the Canonet's lens vignettes ever so slightly and that's magnified by FP4.

Anyways, happy to have found my FP4 solution! ;D Now all I need is more FP4  :o

02Pilot

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,866
  • Malcontent
    • Filmosaur
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2017, 12:52:14 AM »
I develop FP4+ for around 15% less time than HP5+ (13 minutes vs. 15) in Caffenol; I shoot both at half box speed. Have you tried just cutting the development time?
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/

Ezzie

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,234
  • Late to the party
    • Silver Halides - Pictures in B&W
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #4 on: August 09, 2017, 05:13:21 PM »
I shoot box speed and develop in HC-110 dil-H (half of B) for 15min. Equates to 7m30s in dil-B. Comes out very nicely.
Eirik

"..All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain,.." - Roy Batty
B+W film picture blog
My DIY and Caffenol blog
The Caffenol Cookbook and bible

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,510
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #5 on: August 09, 2017, 08:22:25 PM »
Hey Ezzie! Long time no see!  :)
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

Faintandfuzzy

  • 120
  • **
  • Posts: 183
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #6 on: August 09, 2017, 10:17:12 PM »
I prefer dilution B.  While I normally use HP5 at 800 in DDX, I find FP4 works beautifully in staining developers like PMK Pyro.  The stain masks the grain a bit.  Gorgeous tonailty.

Indofunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,546
    • photog & music
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #7 on: August 10, 2017, 12:22:56 AM »
I develop FP4+ for around 15% less time than HP5+ (13 minutes vs. 15) in Caffenol; I shoot both at half box speed. Have you tried just cutting the development time?

Cutting dev time was going to be my next step if reduced agitation didn't work. Also, I don't have any more rolls of FP4  :o ;D

Indofunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,546
    • photog & music
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #8 on: August 10, 2017, 12:24:53 AM »
I shoot box speed and develop in HC-110 dil-H (half of B) for 15min. Equates to 7m30s in dil-B. Comes out very nicely.

Wow, that's 150% of my dev time :o (same developer, same dilution, same ISO). I bet if I did that the negs would be pitch black  ;D

imagesfrugales

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • coffeewaster
    • The Caffenol Blog
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #9 on: August 10, 2017, 04:30:20 AM »
Vignetting depends on the used aperture.  An auto exposing camera with fast film should use smaller apertures and vignetting can be less obvious compared to a slow film with wider apertures at the  same light condition.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2017, 04:32:45 AM by imagesfrugales »

Jeff Warden

  • Sheet Film
  • ****
  • Posts: 742
    • flickr
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #10 on: August 10, 2017, 07:16:03 PM »
It looks like ISO 100 with agitation every two minutes is the winner.

You guys are much more adventurous than me.  I just read the inside of Ilford's box and do what it says.  I'm so boring.

 ;D

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,510
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #11 on: August 10, 2017, 08:32:29 PM »
Ansel did put it the best when he said that you have to find what works for you and your gear.
If it's the Ilford recommended time, then so it is.

I haven't used FP4 in a while but found it pretty good at the Massive Database time.
But Foma400 really needs that 250 ISO setting and a time adjust.
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.

Indofunk

  • Global Moderator
  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,546
    • photog & music
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2017, 12:39:41 AM »
But Foma400 really needs that 250 ISO setting and a time adjust.

Don't wanna change subjects, but ^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT!!! (I shoot it at 200, but tomato/tomahto)

Francois

  • Self-Coat
  • *****
  • Posts: 15,510
Re: I think I've solved my FP4+ problem
« Reply #13 on: August 11, 2017, 03:00:32 PM »
 ;D ;D ;D
Francois

Film is the vinyl record of photography.