Ilford FP4 Metering For Zone IV

I

Ian-Barber

Admin
Registered User
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,706
I have always used FomaPan films for the 5x4 but the other week, I purchased a box of Ilford FP4 to try. Ok, so I have only exposed a few sheets but after revisiting the scans, there are some small areas I have noticed which have gone to pure black with no detail although I could have sworn I placed those values on zone 3.

Not having a densitometer, I am unable to actually measure the density on the concerned area of the negative but on a light table, they do look pretty thin.

Thoughts:

1) Maybe I didn't quite hit the deepest shadows when spot metering the scene.
2) Maybe I haven't rated the film properly, I actually rate it at ISO 80
3) Maybe I should be thinking of moving the shadows further up the scale​

My thoughts on number 3) Maybe I should be thinking of moving the shadows further up the scale is after looking at the FP4 data sheet supplied by Ilford.

The toe of the curve appears to quite long and if I was to say, meter the low values for zone 4 rather than zone 3 then would't this give me more of a safety net and possibly more separation. Ok, the high values would creep further up but with a developer such as PyroCat, I don't really see this as a concern.

Screen Shot 2017-12-23 at 09.48.49.jpg

Interested in your thoughts
 
Ian, Bruce Barnbaum advocates placing important shadows on Zone IV:



Mike
 
A neg scan and some development details would help.

You can use your scanner as a Densitometer, I have a Stouffer step wedge they are very cheap. I gaven't done it yet but there's articles online on how to do it. I have a densitometer I was given but it's gone faulty just when I was going to use it.

On a long APUG weekend about a decade ago three of us sat discussing meters and how we used them, we all metered the same scene and came within a 1/3 of a stop of each other (after allowing for different film speeds). I sued a CApital (Sligor) Spotmeter, also a Gossen Luna Pro incident light meter, the other two used a Sekonic and in camera meter.

I'd be inclined to do a double check with an incident meter

Ian
 
Last edited:
A couple of thoughts:

1. I can't imagine that using an EI of 80 developed in Pyrocat-HD would provide good, strong shadows. Silly question...was the meter set for 80?

2. Are you sure your meter is accurate? I use a calibrated Pentax Digital Spot meter and I remember long ago how varied meters could be under different lighting conditions over various luminosity levels within a scene.

As already linked to above, Mr. Barnbaum advocates placing shadows on Zone IV. I would never consider myself worthy of arguing with his advice, but what he is effectively doing is dropping the film speed. Regardless, if that's where you want shadows, then by all means place them on Zone VI. Personally, I like deep, dark shadows with some visible texture ala Zone III.
 
Alan9940 said:
I can't imagine that using an EI of 80 developed in Pyrocat-HD would provide good, strong shadows. Silly question...was the meter set for 80?
Click to expand...

You have me wondering now Alan as I have just looked at the meter and it was set to 125. I am going to conduct a few more tests ver the next few days and see how they compare
 
Alan you say "1. I can't imagine that using an EI of 80 developed in Pyrocat-HD would provide good, strong shadows. Silly question...was the meter set for 80?"

Have you missed a word out as that doesn't make sense. I cant imagine that shooting FP4 at 80EI would not give good shadow detail with Pyrocat because my experience is Pyrocat gives close to or full box speed with all the Ilford films I use.

I've not really used FP4 for about 30 years but always shot it at 80 EI and HP5 at 320 EI, hoever I get box speed from HP5 in Pyrocat HD and I'm very fussy about having good shadow details. I have two boxes of FP4 so expect excellent results.

Ian
 
Ian,

Yes, sorry, I meant to say wouldn't as you pointed out. I'm not the best proof reader. Thank you for the correction.

That said, I have been using Pyrocat-HD for many years and, to date, none of the film stocks I use have revealed true box speed based on densitometer measurements. Generally, my personal EI comes in at 1/3 less than box speed with Pyrocat. I will admit that a small variance such as that could be due to the inaccuracies of shutters, etc, but I figure a bit more exposure certainly can't hurt anything! ;)
 
Alan9940 said:
That said, I have been using Pyrocat-HD for many years and, to date, none of the film stocks I use have revealed true box speed based on densitometer measurements. Generally, my personal EI comes in at 1/3 less than box speed with Pyrocat
Click to expand...

Thats interesting Alan, without doing any true testing, I was going to rate my next one at 64 but reading what you have put that could be to low
 
Ian, the only films I've needed to use at half box speed apart from Foma have been Tmax 100 & 400 both of which couldn't pass the ASA speed test until Kodak had the test method changed.

Like Alan I tend to shoot at 1/3 to 2/3 of a stop less than box speed depending on the contrast if there's no deep shadows with HP5 I shoot at box speed as I'd be working hand held.

Ian
 
Ian, out of interest, whats your opinion of the Tmax 100 and 400 in sheet format
 
I really liked Tmax sheet film but didn't like the speed loss I preferred Agfapan AP100/APX100 but they were discontinued quite a few years ago, Tmax 100 had been my backup film.

After a break of over 20 years I switched back to Ilford films while living and travellingabroad, Kodak B&W film 120 & LF was just too hard to find but you can always find Ilford films, I'm talking about capital cities like Santiago and Lima.

I'll stick with Ilford and Faoma as my backup, Ilford make and sell more B&W film than all the other companies combined and all their films are excellent.

Ian
 
Ian B,

I really don't think rating Foma 100 at 64 would cause any issues. Like Ian G, I will go 1/3 stop down to 64 if shooting in a high contrast situation; like mid-day sun out here in the desert southwest of the USA.

Different topic, but sorta related... For years, I've always heard that Foma 100 and Arista EDU.Ultra 100 are one in the same film. I happen to have both on hand in 5x4 so I decided to do a test. I exposed one sheet of each film to the same sunlit, clear blue sky scene, in the same camera, with the same lens, at my verified EI 80 for Foma 100. Both sheets developed the same in the same tank, stop, fix, wash. They are hanging to dry as I type this, but I could see in the wash tray that the Arista film revealed slightly less contrast. Speed looked to be about the same. I will contact print both on the same sheet of paper, using my tested minimum exposure time for max black of the paper, and then I'll know for sure. Not saying one is better or worse than the other, but they don't appear to be exactly the same emulsion; at least, based on my working methods.

This might all be explained away by manufacturing variations, but the Arista batch I have would require slightly longer development time to reach my high value goal for the type of paper I print on. Interesting. Anybody care to toss in their theory as to why the difference?
 
Thanks Alan, I shall be interested in the results.

I really don't think rating Foma 100 at 64 would cause any issues. Like Ian G, I will go 1/3 stop down to 64 if shooting in a high contrast situation; like mid-day sun out here in the desert southwest of the USA.
Click to expand...

I never realised you were in Arizona, just shows how much notice I take :)
I enjoyed my visit through Arizona a few years back as I drove through Kingman
 
Alan, Ian B is talking about FP4 not Fomapan 100 :D

However when I do shoot Fmapan 100 (EDU 100) it's always at 50EI. Ian what deve;opment times did you use for FP4 ?

Ian
 
Last edited:
Ian G, yes I know. I was simply relating my testing experience with Fomapan 100 because I've not formerly tested the Ilford film. One day, I will get a box of FP4+ and run it through my testing.
 
Ian Grant said:
Alan, Ian B is talking about FP4 not Fomapan 100 :D

However when I do shoot Fmapan 100 (EDU 100) it's always at 50EI. Ian what deve;opment times did you use for FP4 ?

Ian
Click to expand...

For FP4 in Pyrocat, I have only tried the times in Steve Sherman's EMA video which was just under 30 minutes. For XTOL replenished I would have to pick a time from this chart.

I would probably start at 7 minutes and see what happens

Screen Shot 2017-12-26 at 16.27.18.jpg
 
Ilford recommend 8½ minutes in Xtol full strength, replenished 9 maybe more like 9½ minute would be a better starting point. The MDC isn't particularly reliable.

I'd beware using techniques like EMA until you've fully mastered processing normally. Other issue occur with very dilute development due to exhaustion and not enough volume, causing thin weak negatives.

Ian
 
Ian Grant said:
I'd beware using techniques like EMA until you've fully mastered processing normally. Other issue occur with very dilute development due to exhaustion and not enough volume, causing thin weak negatives.

Ian
Click to expand...

I, too, recently started experimenting with Steve's EMA technique. After years of developing film with Pyrocat-HD and minimal/semi-stand techniques I feel very comfortable with EMA. However, I will stress Ian's very important point about weak negatives. When I first started with EMA, I was using a 2 inch tube which didn't allow enough actual developer to be present, due to smaller total solution volume, which lead to thin negatives. Today, I am using 3" tubes with a total solution volume of 525ml for a single sheet of film which has worked out great.
 
Alan9940 said:
I, too, recently started experimenting with Steve's EMA technique. After years of developing film with Pyrocat-HD and minimal/semi-stand techniques I feel very comfortable with EMA. However, I will stress Ian's very important point about weak negatives. When I first started with EMA, I was using a 2 inch tube which didn't allow enough actual developer to be present, due to smaller total solution volume, which lead to thin negatives. Today, I am using 3" tubes with a total solution volume of 525ml for a single sheet of film which has worked out great.
Click to expand...


This is something I discussed with Steve Sherman a few years ago it's the same with any highly dilute developer being used for stand or semi-stand development, there has to be a minimum quantity of the developing agent(s) present.

Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top