FP4 vs HP5- when to use one over the other?

[timbo10ca]

I "tray-develop" my negatives in these Sterilite food containers. Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 for ~12 minutes at 70 degrees. I learned about affordable plastic containers from Carl Weese, who uses large ones instead of photo trays, when making Platinum/Palladium prints.

I perform development by inspection (using an Infra Red viewing device), and prefer the greater dilution because I prefer a longer development time. Because the Sterilite containers are deep rather than wide, I routinely develop up to 20 or more negatives at a time. Longer development time allows some latitude or "fudge factor". Greater dilution also saves developer - but Pyrocat HD is already so affordable, it hardly matters.

Speaking of saving money and other resources, you might find this interesting: how to make your own Dishrack Film Washer for a few bucks.

I shoot HP5+ at a speed of 200, just as I do for TMY. I shoot FP4+ at 50. Giving one extra f/stop is an old habit, left over from the 1970's, which I can't shake, but which seems to work OK.

Interesting you use the 1:1:100 dilution- Sandy King recommends 2:2:100 for HP5 to get contrast up. Obviously you like how it's working for you though- have you tried the stronger dilution? Do you find it blocks highlights more?

Re: the night vision goggles-I've been using the cheapo plastic toy ones- great for everything but FBI- too low res/dark or something. Just can't see the film. They are a huge time saver for all other stuff though. I can't afford the Vipers yet but am wondering if the monocular cups over your eye so there's no light leakage to affect the film.

[Steve Sherman]

Steve- I'm glad you chimed in, as you've really helped me in the past. I'm wondering how you feel about semistand with HP5 in Pyrocat HD- I tried some tests using your article (1.5:1:150) and time adjustments from what I found doing FP4, but I haven't printed them yet to see the results. I'm wondering if semistand is the way to go with HP5 or just stick to Sandy King's recommendation of 2:2:100 tray processing for this film. I don't think I'll worry too much about dev past N+ with it, because if I had to go that far I'd be better off using FP4. I'm thinking tray shuffle for N and semistand for N+1 and various N-. Any thoughts/input?

Thanks.

Generally speaking I would agree that the HP 5 need not be used to expand contrast rather to contain or reduce contrast in the original scene. The FP 4 as Kerik says is an ideal film to separate shadows better and expand contrast in general.

The semi-stand process is uniquely appropriate for the photographic situations I seem to get myself into, extreme lighting conditions in either direction. For those situations there is no process more conducive to controlling / altering contrast.

So it is hard to say without understanding exactly what your photographic interests are. With all that goes into the SS process it may not be appropriate for everyone's desired end results.

Hope this helps, email if you'd like to discuss further

[Drew Wiley]

Ken - I'm not quite sure what you mean by "linear". HP5 has a distinct toe, and less
of a straight-line than FP4, and much less than TMax films (at least in their
current rendition). I've done more than my fair share of densitometer readings using
step tablet tests with all these films, with quite a variety of developers, filters, etc.
But even the mfg published tech sheets will confirm this. In fact, TMax100 will
separate shadows far better than either of these Ilford films (I've used it for color
separation work, which is the most demanding of all film applications - doesn't
necessarily mean I like it for everything, however). Unfortunately, I think there tends to be a bit of confusion on a thread like this simply because all us tend to
develop and print a bit differently. Contact printers have somewhat different needs
than projection printers, and photojournalists like HP5 for its "latitude" in 35mm,
whereas large format zone-system types like myself despise the entire notion of
"latitude". I "zone"even my 35mm work. But on the bright side, what all these
seemingly conflicting bits of advice tells us is that these Ilford film are very versatile, and that there's more than one way to skin a cat!

[Ken Lee]

"I'm not quite sure what you mean by "linear". HP5 has a distinct toe, and less of a straight-line than FP4, and much less than TMax films"

Sorry for any confusion. I am referring to Sandy King's study of these films, where he plots how changes in development time, affect Contrast Index. These graphs give us a sense about how long you need to develop a film, to get a certain level of contrast, and how easily that is done. His tests were for Pyrocat HD.

TMY and HP5+ seem very well suited for contraction and expansion via development, especially when compared to Tri-X, Bergger BPF 200, and TMAX 100.

I am merely pointing out that HP5+ appears to be more easy to control, via changes in development, than FP4+.

[Ken Lee]

Interesting you use the 1:1:100 dilution- Sandy King recommends 2:2:100 for HP5 to get contrast up. Obviously you like how it's working for you though- have you tried the stronger dilution? Do you find it blocks highlights more?

I have never tested the higher dilution. Sandy King's tests show that either dilution is capable of giving good control over contrast. One of the virtues of staining developers like Pyrocat HD, is less block of highlights to begin with.

My guess is that the recommendation of 2:2:100 will give greater contrast, in a more reasonable time. Not everyone likes a 12 minute time, but my feeling is that the whole process takes so long, a few extra minutes during the critical phase, is well worth it.

I can't afford the Vipers yet but am wondering if the monocular cups over your eye so there's no light leakage to affect the film.

I've never had a problem. In my humble opinion, the use of IR viewing device is one of the greatest improvements to come along since... the thermometer.

[timbo10ca]

Ken - I'm not quite sure what you mean by "linear". HP5 has a distinct toe, and less
of a straight-line than FP4

Looking at the curves on the fact sheets at the Ilford site, I'd say that the HP5 has a longer straighter line with no shoulder. Am I reading this wrong? What are the implications of the lack of a shoulder?

[Ken Lee]

For our purposes, having no shoulder in the Characteristic Curve, is great. It means we can capture a longer scale of brightness on the film, with greater fidelity and a more natural feeling of luminosity.

The fact sheet for HP5+ is at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2006216115141521.pdf

The fact sheet for FP4+ is at http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...6115141521.pdf

If these charts are accurate, they suggest that HP5+ does not block high values: greater exposure just leads to greater density, in a linear or proportional manner.

In this regard, HP5+ is similar to TMY and TMX, whose spec sheet can be found at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4016/f4016.pdf

FP4+, however, has a shoulder. Exposure beyond this point, does not lead to greater detail, but blocked high values instead.

[Jim Noel]

I've been mainly using FP4 since I started processing my own film a few years ago. I've always been happy with it, but am wanting to add HP5 to my repetoire. Other than its faster speed, what other situations would I want to use it over FP4? I've heard that HP5 is a low contrast film so doesn't really like low contrast N+ dev type situations and FP4 is contrasty so better for N+ and less suitable to N- situations. Have others observed this? It seems less convenient as it's the low contrast/darker lighting you'd want a faster speed film for. I also notice that the HP5 curve doesn't have a shoulder- does this mean that past a point of + processing, you'd just get blocking and no seperation compared to FP4? How would I use these 2 different curves to greatest benefit? Lastly, how does the grain compare? I would be contact printing and enlarging to 16x20 max from 4x5 and 5x7 negs. I also hope to eventually start doing diginegs for Ziatype. I guess I'm just wondering if I need to keep the FP4 around for any reason....

Thanks,
Tim

The characteristics you mention are typical of all traditional films. Faster films do not expand well but they contract well. Slower films expand well but contract less.
I use HP5+ for female portraits and scenes in which I want only normal or lower contrast and FP4+ for scenes requiring greater contrast and portraits of older men.

I also use FP4+ for all of the several alternative processes upon which I print.

[timbo10ca]

The characteristics you mention are typical of all traditional films. Faster films do not expand well but they contract well. Slower films expand well but contract less.
I use HP5+ for female portraits and scenes in which I want only normal or lower contrast and FP4+ for scenes requiring greater contrast and portraits of older men.

I also use FP4+ for all of the several alternative processes upon which I print.

Great- this is kinda the ideas I was thinking of. The thing that really kicked me into trying HP5 at this point now is ironically my work in Ziatype. I have been urged by an excellent Ziatypist to use HP5 in HC-110 to a contrast range of 1.5 to 1.8 then print on Crane's Kid Finish. I had been using FP4 in Pyrocat HD on Platine and Weston Diploma Parchment and having real problems with highlight separation. Apparently this combo (although good for traditional Pt/Pd) is poor for Ziatype......

[Ken Lee]

"The characteristics you mention are typical of all traditional films. Faster films do not expand well but they contract well."

How does this square with what Sandy King has shared ? According to his tests - in the visible spectrum particularly - even Tri-X is capable of expansion and contraction via development: not as nicely as TMY or HP-5+, but it's certainly doable. FP4+ appears a bit harder to control than HP5+, but not drastically.

Am I overlooking something ? Perhaps Pyrocat HD gives different results than classic non-staining developers like D-76, HC-110, etc ?