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

[Drew Wiley]

8x10 will definitely help in terms of the intended size of enlargement. But there's a tradeoff, because you need fairly small f-stops to get depth of field, unless you're deliberately aiming for shallow depth of field. I'd strongly recommend TMY400 either way. FP4 will be a little bit finer grained, but realistically is an ASA 50 film if you want to utilize the straight line part of the characteristic curve. Neither FP4 or HP5 will handle high contrast as well as TMY (and I've used a lot of all these films). I find domestic horses to be a very difficult kind of subject with an 8x10, simply because they're so curious and want to walk up and see what you're doing. I've actually had better luck with both wild mustangs and regular horses shot from a distance with very long lenses and TMY. It takes some patience. Fast shutter speeds simply aren't an option with typical 8x10 photography outdoors. There's a real discipline to timing thing. But back to the film - when you mention dynamic range, don't confuse that with a concept of latitude. TMY does need to be carefully metered, but if your shadows are correctly placed, it does have a
very long range, and is quite amenable to expansion and contraction in development. You can get good shadow detail way down into maybe Zone 2 even 1 at
full 400 speed (if you happen to subscribe to Zone System technique), but trying to expose the film at 800 will just lop a step off the bottom, which is likely to
go full black in a high-contrast situation. With HP5, you might get "something" in the shadows, but the separation will basically be mushy, and not worth it.

[Drew Wiley]

I'd strongly disagree with Noel when it comes to TMax films. TMY will handle plus development quite well. But in this case, when high-contrast lighting is in question,
there would be no need. But there would be a big advantage in minus development, because you are more likely to get away with it without having to cut your ASA yet another step, like you'd have to do with either of the Ilford films in question. But regarding HP5, it seems to have a sweet spot in terms of enlargement. I realize street photographers aim for a different effect than we view camera types do; but it's distinct "watercolor" grain and edge effect only hold up to about 4X enlargement, then things start becoming mushy. But the bigger problem is with the curve shape. HP5 has quite a bit of toe to it, so shadows simply don't separate
very crisply in high contrast situations. It's a wonderful film for some things, but I'd question it's use in this application. And FP4 would be just too slow, and sometimes has a problem handling the extremes as well. When TMY is excessively enlarged, as in this case, the grain remains fairly crisp, and there is still a good
impression of detail - all developer and focus related, of course - but all things being equal, will give a much crisper final image. I just can't visualize doing horses
with a slow film unless I was shooting small format and a very shallow field (which I have certainly done many times, but it's a completely different ballgame).

[BenJT]

Drew, are you saying that fp5 performs best when exposed at 50? Also, does fp4 and hp5 lack something in the highlight range? I'm pretty new to ilford films, recently switched from tri-x 400 and acros to hp5 and fp4, to support ilford. I know that hp5 is not a fine grain film, but I wasn't aware of it being more prone to blown highlights (read that earlier on in the thread). Also, and this is probably a dumb question and shows my lack of technical knowledge, does black and white neg film have less highlight range then CN films like portra? I've always thought black and white films had the same ability to take a lot of over exposure and still hold onto the highlights. I guess I thought the ilford films would be less finicky then this thread makes them sound.

[Drew Wiley]

No. Did I make a typo? It is FP4 which I would generally recommend being exposed at 50. With HP5, most people will use either full speed (400) or maybe 320.
Everything needs to be fine-tuned according to your personal development style, of course, just as with all film work. But I can certainly state that both from experience and formal lab testing, that you can get more contrast range onto TMY400 than onto either of the Ilford films, that is, if you factor in clearly visible
tonal gradations. TMY is a bit fussier in terms of getting the initial exposure correct, however. Color neg films differ one from another too, but certainly aren't capable of crisply handling the same kind of contrast range as most black and white films, which can be developed all kinds of ways to tweak contrast, without worrying about what will happen to color rendition per se. But I think you're making all this a bit too complicated. Take your best guess (and I've at least attempted to skew that in favor of TMY400), and then just experiment with a single film and development and printing method until you're comfortable with that.
When you're working subjects like horses, you'll need all that exposure business to become subconscious and second nature, so you're attention will be on the
subject. But due to the cost of 8x10 film, you might want to experiment with the same film in a smaller format, making smaller prints, first.

[BenJT]

Thanks drew. I'm definitely making it more complicated then it is, but its probably because in the end I want to wet print and have never done so, but will at the end of this month. I'm sure seeing prints finally will help me see it all clearer.

[Drew Wiley]

I know printing big is popular these days, but there are some logistical hurdles that are perhaps best learned a step at a time. But each step does have its rewards, and as your confidence builds, you will have a better idea of where you want to go. Or of course, once you have learned the hands-on basics and have the relevant negatives, you could simply sub out the really big prints, and their mounting, to an appropriately equipped commercial lab. But even in that kind of scenario, it really
helps to have enough darkroom skill yourself to communicate exactly what you want. Often I just enjoy looking thru an 8x10, and seeing how it renders the world
on that opalescent ground glass. I do that more often than actually exposing film. View cameras are a lot of fun, and as a side benefit, can keep you in shape too!

[neillat]

Thanks all for sharing your deep experience, I appreciate you doing this. I would make a comment about subject and tools. You will never produce anything interesting doing it the way others have always done it. I do shoot a lot of commercial and magazine work, and I get very bored with what the industry is pumping out. It's a magazine culture that is simply too easy and boring, at least for me. Commenting on people's style and how they achieve it, is tricky... my advice to anyone beginning or trying to learn something new is... DO IT, you will learn far more, than not doing it.

I did end up buying some TMY400, and will give it a go for this project. shooting horses is extremely difficult with this format, it takes time and a LOT of patience (often reshooting)

[Mark Barendt]

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?

Just for giggles let's say we have developed just as Ilford suggests for FP4 to get the curve they show.



The normal print range is roughly between the red lines.

So; What are the implications of the lack of a shoulder?

[Drew Wiley]

Just for giggles, let's just imagine that the real world doesn't consist of just one standardized illuminance range, and that films are not always developed to the same
level of contrast. So what are the implications of the "normal print range" involving something beyond those little red lines?

[Mark Barendt]

Forgive the roughness of the drawing, it's freehanded on a small screen.

This shows expansion and contraction.

Same basic idea applies to HP5.

The longer the straight line the more you can over expose without hitting the shoulder.

With FP4 there's probably room for another 3-stops maybe 4 with a normal scene before you start bumping the shoulder in a way that matters. HP5 more yet.