Ilford Quality

[Ken Lee]

Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...

What is the difference between the old and the new versions ?

[Richard Wasserman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...

What is the difference between the old and the new versions ?


Lenny, I'd like to know too. I am finishing up a LARGE supply of 4x5 FP-4+ I bought a few years ago when it looked as if Ilford was having longevity problems. Will I like the current FP-4+, is it dramatically different? This is my favorite film.
__________________

[Bobf]

Note the "+" or lack of it. FP4 (without the +) was the previous incarnation. FP4+ was re-jigged (I don't know why) from FP4 in 1990 (ref: http://www.ilfordphoto.com/aboutus/page.asp?n=139). There is unlikely to be much FP4 (without the +) lying about 18 years later.

Bob.

[Ole Tjugen]

No?

I've got FP3 and HP2 in the freezer - on glass plates.

[Bobf]

Ole: I swear you must have just about any film ever produced in your freezer(s)... Along with one of just about every camera ever made to use them with on your shelves and cupboards! Amazes me you find the time to dig holes in the North Sea...

[Lenny Eiger]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenny Eiger View Post
Yes, FP4+ has been consistent, but it isn't the same as the old FP4, which was far and away a better film. I wish they would bring it back...
What is the difference between the old and the new versions ?
__________________

Let me preface my comments by saying I am not a film engineer. I can only speak from my own results. Further, I am getting close to the end of my process, but I am not at the end. Whatever I say, you must test for yourselves. I will say that my conclusions have been echoed by many of the notables in film and development - I called them on the phone and they were good enough to talk to me, albeit off the record.

As Kirk has stated, I'm not that great at representing myself (tho' he was kind enough to see the message thru it, thanks), so let me say that I am quite open to discussing this, these are only my opinions and I am not trying to diss anyone, or to be "the" expert on this. This is how I understand it...

I believe this all happened as a result of a higher contrast look seeming to take over. Kodak and Nikon and all have been pushing a commercial look. Ansel also printed in a very high contrast manner and many followed him.

There appear to be 4 levels of contrast out there, using gross generalization. The first is a soft, PH Emerson look (or the photoSecession), the second a darkroom print, perhaps styled after Walker Evans, a high contrast look, personified by Ansel and a hybrid - a higher contrast version of platinum, also achievable by inkjet, with some effort. My b&w style - for my own work - is in the last category.

If you want to print in a high contrast print, you need some range, but you don't need a lot of shades of gray. If a film manufacturer made the decision that everyone wanted only the high contrast style, they could easily take out most of the silver in the film. Ilford denies vociferously that they haven't done this - and I have no idea whether they have or haven't. I'm not going to call anyone a liar. Regardless, even if it had more silver, they have a top end and a bottom but the midtones are smashed together.

Any film out there can separate a 21 step tablet, quite nicely. How about a 2100 step tablet? The effect I see looks like steps 1582, 1583 and 1584 (on our 2100 step tablet) all return the same value. It's like you're playing a piano and every other key is hitting the same string, so you have only 44 real tones to work with instead of 88. I don't know how to quantify this - except by printing out a large sheet of every tone I can make on a b&w print and then photographing it. I haven't done it. I'm trying to solve it...

They think they have the perfect film, they are proud of the results of their efforts. I think the higher contrast crowd is likely pretty happy as well. However, everyone I speak to in the other 3 categories is unhappy.

I am getting nearer to what I want, with an 8x10, a modern lens and I am trying some filters - jury's out on that. Efke 25 is still the closest to old FP4, which I really like, but its slow and still not as good (except for the 2003 batch). All film I have tested exhibits this issue - lest Ilforad think I am after them. The TGrained films are some of the worst. That said, I am not perfect - there could be sosme combination that gets around this - Sandy has expressed he is very happy...

That's what I know so far...

Lenny

[Andrew O'Neill]

Is FP-4+ the same great film it's always been?

Yes.

[John Kasaian]

Let me preface my comments by saying I am not a film engineer. I can only speak from my own results. Further, I am getting close to the end of my process, but I am not at the end. Whatever I say, you must test for yourselves. I will say that my conclusions have been echoed by many of the notables in film and development - I called them on the phone and they were good enough to talk to me, albeit off the record.

As Kirk has stated, I'm not that great at representing myself (tho' he was kind enough to see the message thru it, thanks), so let me say that I am quite open to discussing this, these are only my opinions and I am not trying to diss anyone, or to be "the" expert on this. This is how I understand it...

I believe this all happened as a result of a higher contrast look seeming to take over. Kodak and Nikon and all have been pushing a commercial look. Ansel also printed in a very high contrast manner and many followed him.

There appear to be 4 levels of contrast out there, using gross generalization. The first is a soft, PH Emerson look (or the photoSecession), the second a darkroom print, perhaps styled after Walker Evans, a high contrast look, personified by Ansel and a hybrid - a higher contrast version of platinum, also achievable by inkjet, with some effort. My b&w style - for my own work - is in the last category.

If you want to print in a high contrast print, you need some range, but you don't need a lot of shades of gray. If a film manufacturer made the decision that everyone wanted only the high contrast style, they could easily take out most of the silver in the film. Ilford denies vociferously that they haven't done this - and I have no idea whether they have or haven't. I'm not going to call anyone a liar. Regardless, even if it had more silver, they have a top end and a bottom but the midtones are smashed together.

Any film out there can separate a 21 step tablet, quite nicely. How about a 2100 step tablet? The effect I see looks like steps 1582, 1583 and 1584 (on our 2100 step tablet) all return the same value. It's like you're playing a piano and every other key is hitting the same string, so you have only 44 real tones to work with instead of 88. I don't know how to quantify this - except by printing out a large sheet of every tone I can make on a b&w print and then photographing it. I haven't done it. I'm trying to solve it...

They think they have the perfect film, they are proud of the results of their efforts. I think the higher contrast crowd is likely pretty happy as well. However, everyone I speak to in the other 3 categories is unhappy.

I am getting nearer to what I want, with an 8x10, a modern lens and I am trying some filters - jury's out on that. Efke 25 is still the closest to old FP4, which I really like, but its slow and still not as good (except for the 2003 batch). All film I have tested exhibits this issue - lest Ilforad think I am after them. The TGrained films are some of the worst. That said, I am not perfect - there could be sosme combination that gets around this - Sandy has expressed he is very happy...

That's what I know so far...

Lenny

Interesting observations Lenny! I shot some FP-4 a long time ago, I think Photo Warehouse was selling some remaining stock. I wasn't at the point where I could appreciate any difference though. I am curious if you consider TXP 320 a high contrast film, or not? Or Fomapan 100?

[clay harmon]

i ran into the same size problem in the Ilford FP-4 11x14 last year. They forgot to undercut the nominal dimensions by 1/16" and delivered boxes cut exactly 11"x14", which unfortunately, will not fit into any holders. I contacted Simon Galley, and he sent a replacement box, even though the original oversize box had been purchased through the now vilified J&C photo. I can't say enough good things about how responsive Ilford has been to this problem.

I'm having a sizing problem with my FP4+ in 11x14. Simon is aware of it and is going to send me a test sheet from the new run to compare. Other than that great film!

Jim

[Jim Fitzgerald]

i ran into the same size problem in the Ilford FP-4 11x14 last year. They forgot to undercut the nominal dimensions by 1/16" and delivered boxes cut exactly 11"x14", which unfortunately, will not fit into any holders. I contacted Simon Galley, and he sent a replacement box, even though the original oversize box had been purchased through the now vilified J&C photo. I can't say enough good things about how responsive Ilford has been to this problem.

Clay, I 'm confident that my issue will be resolved. I've had to undercut my film to get it into the holders.I needed to shoot with my recently built 11x14. How could I wait? Simon told me I'd have to wait for the film to be run and then check the size? I didn't understand that but it is what it is. I know how to measure.

Jim