Is this typical of FP4+?

murrelet · 04-23-2017, 10:47 PM

I shot my first roll of Ilford FP4+ and got the scans back from the lab a few days ago. To be honest, I was not impressed when I opened up the files. To my eye, the scans were dull and washed out. See the "before" photos on the left. Is this the "look" of FP4+?

I imported them into Lightroom, let auto tone do it's thing, and they came out closer to my preference for black-and-white photos. See the "after" photos on the right.

The lab is Citizens Photo in Portland, Oregon. They've done multiple rolls of HP5+ for me and they've always came out great, without needing anything done on my part other sharpening.

Attached Images

rob1234 · 04-24-2017, 09:23 AM

What do the negs look like? As always with scans (i.e. raws), there's a lot of scope for processing to taste.

**jpzk** · 04-24-2017, 09:25 AM

Better contrast, "real" blacks" .... I really like the "after" looks !

35mmfilmfan · 04-24-2017, 10:37 AM

To me, the 'before' shots seem far more detailed, with a smoother gradation of tones - the 'after' shots, although more contrasty, lose fine detail at the expense of being more 'punchy'. After all, not all shots contain deep blacks and Persil whites.

murrelet · 04-24-2017, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by rob1234

What do the negs look like? As always with scans (i.e. raws), there's a lot of scope for processing to taste.

I haven't picked up the negatives yet. When I do, I'll have a look at them under the light table at the lab.

For context, I'm trying to figure out a "go-to" 100-ish speed BW film. FP4+ was the first candidate. I assumed it was going to be a for-sure winner since I really like HP5+. I'm mid-roll with Delta. TMax is up after that. On the bright side, I really like the grain (or lack of) of the FP4+.

rob1234 · 04-24-2017, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by murrelet

I haven't picked up the negatives yet. When I do, I'll have a look at them under the light table at the lab.

For context, I'm trying to figure out a "go-to" 100-ish speed BW film. FP4+ was the first candidate. I assumed it was going to be a for-sure winner since I really like HP5+. I'm mid-roll with Delta. TMax is up after that. On the bright side, I really like the grain (or lack of) of the FP4+.

Have you tried Fuji Acros 100? I've always really liked that.

I know it's frowned upon(!) but I've also had good results with XP2 (and easy to find cheap and fast processing)...

**ChrisPlatt** · 04-24-2017, 03:08 PM

I haven't used FP4+ in years; it may have been FP4 when I tried it.
I only shot a few rolls. All were a bit muddy and lacking contrast.
I was surprised at the poor results compared to my reliable HP5.

Chris

Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 04-25-2017 at 12:41 PM.

murrelet · 04-24-2017, 04:13 PM

Originally posted by rob1234

Have you tried Fuji Acros 100? I've always really liked that.

I know it's frowned upon(!) but I've also had good results with XP2 (and easy to find cheap and fast processing)...

Acros is on my list but the shop didn't have any in stock. I peruse the Fuji forums every now and then since I have an X70. The Acros film simulation in the newer Fuji cameras seem to be all the rage. Eager to try some of the real stuff.

---------- Post added 04-24-17 at 04:14 PM ----------

Originally posted by 35mmfilmfan

To me, the 'before' shots seem far more detailed, with a smoother gradation of tones - the 'after' shots, although more contrasty, lose fine detail at the expense of being more 'punchy'. After all, not all shots contain deep blacks and Persil whites.

Thanks for that perspective. Maybe I need to broaden my tastes a bit.

**TomB_tx** · 04-24-2017, 04:55 PM

FP4+ is an unusual emulsion with extended tonal range that was popular in medium format. I also noticed it seemed flat, but I liked it better after shifting to Rodinal for development. I much prefer the look of PanF (ISO 50), which reminds me of my old favorite PanatomicX. Recently I've had good results from Delta 100, which I much prefer to Tmax. Ilford DD-X gives me the best results with the Delta films.

tuco · 04-25-2017, 02:35 PM

I wouldn't expect lab scans to have a contrast curve adjusted to your taste. They are done with automagic settings.

Lab development is like out of camera JPEGs in digital. If you want more expression and control, you process them in a RAW/Image editor. Similarly, it's not much different with BW film. You develop it yourself so you can do more than average development (eg highlight compression/expansion, pushing, etc) and you scan them yourself so you can adjust the contrast curve to your taste. Its a lot of work and more suited to larger formats where you typically shoot fewer frames.

FP4+ in Rodinal 1+100 stand development. It doesn't look muddy to me.

tuco · 04-25-2017, 04:00 PM

I had a X100 too. Sometimes there were highlights that could be recovered and shadows that could be pulled up when SOOC wasn't up for the task.

**ChrisPlatt** · 04-25-2017, 04:32 PM

Glad you're getting good results (as always) with your Ilford FP4+ tuco. For medium/slow speed
film I relied on Plus-X which gave me good results using Microdol-X, my standard developer then.
I also liked the look of AGFA APX100 developed in Rodinal. I'm not sure what film I'd choose now.

I prefer a film that gives me a fairly contrasty negative in HC110 now, using standard development;
one that when properly exposed allows me to make a good straight print using grade 2 or 3 paper.

FWIW my favorite digital camera is my Fuji X100 because the SOOC JPEGs are just so good...

Chris

murrelet · 04-26-2017, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by tuco

Lab development is like out of camera JPEGs in digital. If you want more expression and control, you process them in a RAW/Image editor. Similarly, it's not much different with BW film.

Do you mean to imply that scans from color films don't require as much postprocessing (generally speaking)? That matches my experience so far.

Love the lemonade shot, BTW

**ChrisPlatt** · 04-26-2017, 02:16 PM

FWIW lately I'm looking for the ideal medium speed 35mm BW negative film.
Eastman 5222 seems to be the best acceptable compromise for my taste.

Chris

stevebrot · 04-26-2017, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by murrelet

For context, I'm trying to figure out a "go-to" 100-ish speed BW film.

Originally posted by rob1234

Have you tried Fuji Acros 100?

Acros is an excellent film and has the added benefit of little loss of reciprocity on long exposures. My only caution would be that Acros has limited red and mildly increased blue sensitivity when compared to other panchromatic films. Fuji attaches the label "orthopanchromatic" and what it means in general shooting is that blue skies tend to render lighter than one might desire. As a result, I generally shoot Acros with a yellow filter when doing landscapes.

Originally posted by murrelet

Acros is on my list but the shop didn't have any in stock.

I believe that Pro Photo downtown usually has Acros 100 in stock, but be prepared for a premium price wherever you find it.

Steve

04-23-2017, 10:47 PM	#1
murrelet Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 506	Is this typical of FP4+? I shot my first roll of Ilford FP4+ and got the scans back from the lab a few days ago. To be honest, I was not impressed when I opened up the files. To my eye, the scans were dull and washed out. See the "before" photos on the left. Is this the "look" of FP4+? I imported them into Lightroom, let auto tone do it's thing, and they came out closer to my preference for black-and-white photos. See the "after" photos on the right. The lab is Citizens Photo in Portland, Oregon. They've done multiple rolls of HP5+ for me and they've always came out great, without needing anything done on my part other sharpening. Attached Images

04-25-2017, 02:35 PM	#10
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,025	I wouldn't expect lab scans to have a contrast curve adjusted to your taste. They are done with automagic settings. Lab development is like out of camera JPEGs in digital. If you want more expression and control, you process them in a RAW/Image editor. Similarly, it's not much different with BW film. You develop it yourself so you can do more than average development (eg highlight compression/expansion, pushing, etc) and you scan them yourself so you can adjust the contrast curve to your taste. Its a lot of work and more suited to larger formats where you typically shoot fewer frames. FP4+ in Rodinal 1+100 stand development. It doesn't look muddy to me. Last edited by tuco; 04-25-2017 at 02:44 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
DA 50-200mm f/4.5-5.6 ED WR Typical Behavior?	fullmental	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	4	07-30-2015 04:43 PM
All About Film: Ilford FP4+	K David	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	8	03-09-2015 10:27 AM
Black & White Cornwall, a Pentax 67, and two rolls of FP4+	rob1234	Post Your Photos!	1	07-04-2013 02:45 PM
Comparing the typical Pentax shooter to the typical Canikon...	ChooseAName	Pentax DSLR Discussion	59	09-03-2012 04:35 PM
oops, mistake on fp4 iso	dj_saunter	Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom	3	04-21-2011 09:08 AM

04-24-2017, 09:23 AM	#2
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760	What do the negs look like? As always with scans (i.e. raws), there's a lot of scope for processing to taste.

04-24-2017, 09:25 AM	#3
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Better contrast, "real" blacks" .... I really like the "after" looks !

04-24-2017, 10:37 AM	#4
35mmfilmfan Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2016 Location: Norfolk, UK Posts: 4,327	To me, the 'before' shots seem far more detailed, with a smoother gradation of tones - the 'after' shots, although more contrasty, lose fine detail at the expense of being more 'punchy'. After all, not all shots contain deep blacks and Persil whites.

04-24-2017, 10:40 AM	#5
murrelet Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 506 Original Poster	Originally posted by rob1234 What do the negs look like? As always with scans (i.e. raws), there's a lot of scope for processing to taste. I haven't picked up the negatives yet. When I do, I'll have a look at them under the light table at the lab. For context, I'm trying to figure out a "go-to" 100-ish speed BW film. FP4+ was the first candidate. I assumed it was going to be a for-sure winner since I really like HP5+. I'm mid-roll with Delta. TMax is up after that. On the bright side, I really like the grain (or lack of) of the FP4+.

04-24-2017, 01:21 PM	#6
rob1234 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Wiltshire/Hampshire Photos: Albums Posts: 1,760	Originally posted by murrelet I haven't picked up the negatives yet. When I do, I'll have a look at them under the light table at the lab. For context, I'm trying to figure out a "go-to" 100-ish speed BW film. FP4+ was the first candidate. I assumed it was going to be a for-sure winner since I really like HP5+. I'm mid-roll with Delta. TMax is up after that. On the bright side, I really like the grain (or lack of) of the FP4+. Have you tried Fuji Acros 100? I've always really liked that. I know it's frowned upon(!) but I've also had good results with XP2 (and easy to find cheap and fast processing)...

04-24-2017, 03:08 PM	#7
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	I haven't used FP4+ in years; it may have been FP4 when I tried it. I only shot a few rolls. All were a bit muddy and lacking contrast. I was surprised at the poor results compared to my reliable HP5. Chris Last edited by ChrisPlatt; 04-25-2017 at 12:41 PM.

04-24-2017, 04:13 PM	#8
murrelet Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 506 Original Poster	Originally posted by rob1234 Have you tried Fuji Acros 100? I've always really liked that. I know it's frowned upon(!) but I've also had good results with XP2 (and easy to find cheap and fast processing)... Acros is on my list but the shop didn't have any in stock. I peruse the Fuji forums every now and then since I have an X70. The Acros film simulation in the newer Fuji cameras seem to be all the rage. Eager to try some of the real stuff. ---------- Post added 04-24-17 at 04:14 PM ---------- Originally posted by 35mmfilmfan To me, the 'before' shots seem far more detailed, with a smoother gradation of tones - the 'after' shots, although more contrasty, lose fine detail at the expense of being more 'punchy'. After all, not all shots contain deep blacks and Persil whites. Thanks for that perspective. Maybe I need to broaden my tastes a bit.

04-24-2017, 04:55 PM	#9
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	FP4+ is an unusual emulsion with extended tonal range that was popular in medium format. I also noticed it seemed flat, but I liked it better after shifting to Rodinal for development. I much prefer the look of PanF (ISO 50), which reminds me of my old favorite PanatomicX. Recently I've had good results from Delta 100, which I much prefer to Tmax. Ilford DD-X gives me the best results with the Delta films.

04-25-2017, 04:00 PM	#11
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,025	I had a X100 too. Sometimes there were highlights that could be recovered and shadows that could be pulled up when SOOC wasn't up for the task.

04-25-2017, 04:32 PM	#12
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	Glad you're getting good results (as always) with your Ilford FP4+ tuco. For medium/slow speed film I relied on Plus-X which gave me good results using Microdol-X, my standard developer then. I also liked the look of AGFA APX100 developed in Rodinal. I'm not sure what film I'd choose now. I prefer a film that gives me a fairly contrasty negative in HC110 now, using standard development; one that when properly exposed allows me to make a good straight print using grade 2 or 3 paper. FWIW my favorite digital camera is my Fuji X100 because the SOOC JPEGs are just so good... Chris

04-26-2017, 11:10 AM	#13
murrelet Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Portland, OR, USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 506 Original Poster	Originally posted by tuco Lab development is like out of camera JPEGs in digital. If you want more expression and control, you process them in a RAW/Image editor. Similarly, it's not much different with BW film. Do you mean to imply that scans from color films don't require as much postprocessing (generally speaking)? That matches my experience so far. Love the lemonade shot, BTW

04-26-2017, 02:16 PM	#14
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,692	FWIW lately I'm looking for the ideal medium speed 35mm BW negative film. Eastman 5222 seems to be the best acceptable compromise for my taste. Chris

04-26-2017, 02:44 PM	#15
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by murrelet For context, I'm trying to figure out a "go-to" 100-ish speed BW film. Originally posted by rob1234 Have you tried Fuji Acros 100? Acros is an excellent film and has the added benefit of little loss of reciprocity on long exposures. My only caution would be that Acros has limited red and mildly increased blue sensitivity when compared to other panchromatic films. Fuji attaches the label "orthopanchromatic" and what it means in general shooting is that blue skies tend to render lighter than one might desire. As a result, I generally shoot Acros with a yellow filter when doing landscapes. Originally posted by murrelet Acros is on my list but the shop didn't have any in stock. I believe that Pro Photo downtown usually has Acros 100 in stock, but be prepared for a premium price wherever you find it. Steve