I used FP3 in 1960 and won a photographic competition. I was 15 years old. The camera was a Zenit C. My first camera. I still use FP4 now in my Zenith EM. I am 72 years old now. I left my employer in 1963 because he wouldn't use Kodak Tri X. But that's another story.
Very cool I also recently bought a zenit em and am planning on shooting some fp4 in it. Hopefully I can capture some of that great swirly bokeh in black and white.
In the old days (as in the 70s and 80s) If you bought new cameras or lenses camera shops in the uk pretty much always gave you a roll of fp4 to test it with.
FP-4 is perhaps my favorite 4x5 sheet film. It responds to colored contrast filters very well and predictably, and if you (like I am) a Zone System follower, it responds beautifully to expansions and contractions without drama. T-grain (or Delta grain) films in large format sizes can be a bit fussy for exposure and development, and frankly, at $7+ a sheet, fussy isn't a favorite thing in sheet film for me. If I were planning on that, I'd shoot Kodak Super XX Pan and process it in a PYRO developer-shoot a half-dozen sheets of film and play with the processing on each image. That'd be $60 an image IF I got the PYRO right. Brett Weston didn't always and neither did his father. FP-4 in 4x5 makes lovely 20x24 wall prints with some cropping- all but grainless-razor sharp-wonderful tonality.
Thanks for sharing your passion and enthusiasm for 'an older technology'. I've never used FP4+, but I do like the sharpness and tight grain of the Delta stocks (ISO 100/400). I'm thinking of just shooting B&W -- I like to be engaged in the entire process.
fp4 and xp2 are my go to film stocks. i usually shoot fp4 around 400-800 iso and over process past push processing. you can pull some lovely, crunchy, graphic images out of it.
Eric, I lived in Tucson for about 8 years in the ‘90s and shot a lot of b&w using a Contax G1 with a fast 2/45mm Zeiss lens. Fell in love with Ilford Delta 100 and 400, particularly the 100. A great film you might consider doing a review of that film, esp. since it is still available today. /Ralph Wallace
I missed these. Your explanation are amazing: From background, to comparing the film stock to other films, To examples. This is why I missed your review videos. I learned so much from your videos on Ektar, Portra, explaining what is the difference between Ektar to Velvia, etc. Man, Get back on doing these on a regular basis as you did before!!!! Every week you are not making 1-2 videos, you are wasting your gift as someone who can really explain things! If there is anything you need for doing it, please let us know. As to FP+: I am very happy to know that it’s a forgiving film. I, like you, love BW and I love old, grainy look. I bought a few rolls of FP+ in London a few months ago, But was afraid it would be impractical because of it’s 125 ASA so it just sits in the freezer. I’ll take it out now and try it. What you’ve said about supporting Ilford is also true: We must support the companies who support us. And Ilford has been always, And is still, there. Especially in B&W. While I love Kodak’s films, I really can’t ignore the fact that Kodak and Fuji are practically shooting their film business in the leg. We should reward Ilford. I didn’t think of it that way until now, But now I understand it. So thanks for pointing that. I would love to see some more film stock reviews: I believe you didn’t yet reviewed the consumer ones such as Gold, Superia. Acros, Berger, Rollei (80, Rpx), Agfa apx I would also love to see your experience with what kind of development gave you what look. For example: mention it on the photos you show in the video, and maybe explain which one gives what look you mentioned when explaining (contrasty, mid tones, etc). Keep it coming, Eric! By thr way, My Portra version of Matt’s shot :-) www.dropbox.com/s/dk3c3c5cx4t7lnm/Photo%2013-01-2018%2C%2012%2030%2011.jpg?dl=0
I've found FP4+ to be a challenge in dialing in the right processing for the look I want - I've been using HC-110 recently and found that using lower dilutions (B) and standard agitation techniques to make some very contrasty and hard to print negatives. I've found after some tests that using HC-110 dilution E and using minimal agitation flattens them out enough for my preference. Still a gorgeous stock, and I plan on continuing to use it - thanks for the feature Erik!
Great video about my favorite film. If I can get away with 125 ISO, I pick this one, otherwise HP5+. Oddly, I never tried pushing FP4, so I'll give that a go! Subscribed of course :-)
FP4+ is probably gonna be the next black and white I order. I tend to shoot in conditions where 100 speed is good, and knowing I can always push it if need be is great too.
I shoot FP4+ as my primary film stock. In fact I buy it in bulk and roll it myself. I agree with everything you said, its a wonderful film! A lot of people shoot HP5 or Tri-X but I love the unique look of FP4+.
Great and much needed video on a film that I feel kind of lives in the shadow of its sibling HP5. I've shot FP4 on a few occasions and I find it has, as you say a look and feel specific to it and one that I really like. Certainly this coming year I definitely plan on exploring this film more. I tend to get very contrasty results with it but thats also due to the circumstances that I shoot it under but I really like the richness I get. Definitely would recommend it to anyone!
Appreciate you including my photo! I started with Delta 100 and it was a real struggle to keep details in the highlights and shadows. FP4 is very forgiving in that if you are starting out, this is a great option. I have successfully used D76 and Divided Pyrocat HD with this. If you are looking to feature another film stock, Delta 100 would be great. BTW, I sent you an email a couple of weeks ago. Wondering if you ever got it. Thanks!
Love the video Erik!! Great to see your content. Never shot FP4, def worth checking out!!! Loved the video though :) What if for the next film stock review you review one of the more consumer grade films out there, like Ultramax. I personally have had great result with it. Just a suggestion. Regardless, love your work!!!!
Great video, Erik, as always. FP4+ has been my favorite for years. 75% of my shooting is on FP4+, followed by Pan-F, HP5, and Acros 100. FP4+ does very well with semi-stand development in Rodinal. You can push AND pull a couple stops up or down on the same roll and still get excellent results.
Several decades ago we had Kodak Plus-X, Agfa 100 and FP-4+, each slightly different but with overall similar tonality, grain, etc. Now we have FP-4+. (I don't count Acros, which is very nice, because Fuji seems to have marked it for death and it is more of a T-grain class film.) I fine FP-4+ to be easy control for contrast with excellent (smooth) tonality missing in the T-grain options. I've moved to mostly HP-5+ for my slower medium format lenses with larger film format. I find it to be a bit higher contrast than FP-4+, but otherwise closely sharing the virtues of the slower film. If there's gong to be a last film maker standing, thankfully it will be Ilford.
I was using FP4 for years, and it was my favourite film stock if developed in Ilford's own Microphen or Perceptol developers. If I want to shoot B&W agin, FP4 will naturally be my first choice. However, if you want to shoot digital, Erik, I urge you to try out Fuji X cameras, using their in-camera B&W simulations. After I purchased my XT1, my love for photography was reborn...
My bread and butter film is the RPX 100 exposed @100 up to 400 and developed in D76 stock. Because it‘s cheap and predictable. My subjects are mostly street and documentary. I considered leaving my homezone and try another film. The look is great and maybe I could combine it with my style.
First of all, I really like your videos! Great work! I mostly shoot digital, but I do like to shoot film from time to time as well. I started to process my black and white film myself and from the films I tried, I like HP4+ a lot. I also like Fuji Acros 100 and Agfa APX 100. I also tried Tri-X, but though I like the look of Tri-X, this film is driving me nuts because it curls so much. I do not know if I'm doing wrong or if it's just the way it is. Any hints?
Got a large poster on my wall that I made from expired FP4 (1997) that I shot in my Rolleicord, really I ,really like FP4 and the original Tri-X 400, never tried pushing FP4 though.
Hi Erik. Great video as always! FP4+ is my favorite for shooting 4x5. Its tonality is just beyond perfect...love it, can't live without it :D ... But for shooting 35mm, i basically never shot FP4+, because it is definitely too slow for that purpose (imho). Are you gonna do another Viewer Submission video? Maybe i have to send some FP4 4x5 shots in ;) ... Cheers from Germany, David :)
Erik, notice he mentioned that with reasonable results it can be pushed to 6400. No, I never went that high, however with its capabilities I would not say it is too slow.
I really enjoy FP4 for that old school look. Similar to Tri-X actually but maybe toned down a touch... Now, as for pushing.. I don't think you'll get anything but a halftone image at 6400 as you mentioned. Maybe you were thinking about the HP5? I've pushed FP4 to 800 and it was definitely there although the contrast was super heavy. Heavier than Tri-X at 3200. It may have been down to my developing (I was still learning then).
If I have the time, I'll upload a video on film testing this year. It's what the old-timers used to do and the results were stunning. Of course, we can get good or acceptable results otherwise. The point is getting the optimum that film will deliver with the best overall contrast and sharpness and with the least need for manipulation in the darkroom or on the monitor. The aim is to adjust zones I and IX, so that you have negatives which will deliver the whole panorama from zones 0 to 10. I may get 80 iso for FP-4, but you might get another number, depending on your camera, developer and processing techniques. One thing is almost certain: with a cubic grain film, like FP-4, the speed will be lower than that on the box. The question is by how much.
I think pushing film rated at iso125 up to 6400 would be crazy and waste of film. As far I know FP4+ can be shot between 32-1000 speed.Good video anyway!
I used FP3 in 1960 and won a photographic competition. I was 15 years old.
The camera was a Zenit C. My first camera.
I still use FP4 now in my Zenith EM. I am 72 years old now.
I left my employer in 1963 because he wouldn't use Kodak Tri X.
But that's another story.
Very cool I also recently bought a zenit em and am planning on shooting some fp4 in it. Hopefully I can capture some of that great swirly bokeh in black and white.
In the old days (as in the 70s and 80s) If you bought new cameras or lenses camera shops in the uk pretty much always gave you a roll of fp4 to test it with.
Very nice video. Thank you
I love FP4 in 120. I have some Fp4 from 1976 in 35 which looks amazing for the age.
FP4 and Tri X are my two favourite 35mm films and HP5 is my favourite 120 film. I live about 30 miles south of the Ilford factory.
I handheld shot FP4+ in Reno Nevada with my Hasselblad lots at night and on Casino floors at 3200. Lovely film.
FP-4 is perhaps my favorite 4x5 sheet film. It responds to colored contrast filters very well and predictably, and if you (like I am) a Zone System follower, it responds beautifully to expansions and contractions without drama. T-grain (or Delta grain) films in large format sizes can be a bit fussy for exposure and development, and frankly, at $7+ a sheet, fussy isn't a favorite thing in sheet film for me. If I were planning on that, I'd shoot Kodak Super XX Pan and process it in a PYRO developer-shoot a half-dozen sheets of film and play with the processing on each image. That'd be $60 an image IF I got the PYRO right. Brett Weston didn't always and neither did his father. FP-4 in 4x5 makes lovely 20x24 wall prints with some cropping- all but grainless-razor sharp-wonderful tonality.
Thanks Erik! Just sent my first FP4+ roll to lab and can't wait the results!
I love this film, too. Great video.
Thanks for sharing your passion and enthusiasm for 'an older technology'. I've never used FP4+, but I do like the sharpness and tight grain of the Delta stocks (ISO 100/400). I'm thinking of just shooting B&W -- I like to be engaged in the entire process.
Just started using FP4+ in my 4x5 and so far it looks really good, need to test different development chemicals though.
FP4+ is gorgeous! It was the first film I shot in my Pentacon Six and haven't looked back. Beautiful images everyone!
fp4 and xp2 are my go to film stocks. i usually shoot fp4 around 400-800 iso and over process past push processing. you can pull some lovely, crunchy, graphic images out of it.
I'm shooting it right know, I still need to finish the roll. I'm looking forward to see the results!
Eric, I lived in Tucson for about 8 years in the ‘90s and shot a lot of b&w using a Contax G1 with a fast 2/45mm Zeiss lens. Fell in love with Ilford Delta 100 and 400, particularly the 100. A great film you might consider doing a review of that film, esp. since it is still available today. /Ralph Wallace
FP4 is next black and white film I would like to try.
My go to film. Been shooting this solely in 120 for a year or so, it just gives beautiful results.
I missed these. Your explanation are amazing: From background, to comparing the film stock to other films, To examples. This is why I missed your review videos. I learned so much from your videos on Ektar, Portra, explaining what is the difference between Ektar to Velvia, etc.
Man, Get back on doing these on a regular basis as you did before!!!! Every week you are not making 1-2 videos, you are wasting your gift as someone who can really explain things! If there is anything you need for doing it, please let us know.
As to FP+: I am very happy to know that it’s a forgiving film. I, like you, love BW and I love old, grainy look. I bought a few rolls of FP+ in London a few months ago, But was afraid it would be impractical because of it’s 125 ASA so it just sits in the freezer. I’ll take it out now and try it.
What you’ve said about supporting Ilford is also true: We must support the companies who support us. And Ilford has been always, And is still, there. Especially in B&W. While I love Kodak’s films, I really can’t ignore the fact that Kodak and Fuji are practically shooting their film business in the leg. We should reward Ilford. I didn’t think of it that way until now, But now I understand it. So thanks for pointing that.
I would love to see some more film stock reviews: I believe you didn’t yet reviewed the consumer ones such as Gold, Superia. Acros, Berger, Rollei (80, Rpx), Agfa apx
I would also love to see your experience with what kind of development gave you what look. For example: mention it on the photos you show in the video, and maybe explain which one gives what look you mentioned when explaining (contrasty, mid tones, etc).
Keep it coming, Eric!
By thr way, My Portra version of Matt’s shot :-)
www.dropbox.com/s/dk3c3c5cx4t7lnm/Photo%2013-01-2018%2C%2012%2030%2011.jpg?dl=0
I’m a bit late seeing this video. But this film has become one of my favorite B&W films. I use D76 for the look I prefer.
I just endured a 90 second Wix commercial to help drive a bit more money your way - this video was worth it :)
+Higgins2001 haha well good. Thank you.
I've found FP4+ to be a challenge in dialing in the right processing for the look I want - I've been using HC-110 recently and found that using lower dilutions (B) and standard agitation techniques to make some very contrasty and hard to print negatives. I've found after some tests that using HC-110 dilution E and using minimal agitation flattens them out enough for my preference. Still a gorgeous stock, and I plan on continuing to use it - thanks for the feature Erik!
Great video about my favorite film. If I can get away with 125 ISO, I pick this one, otherwise HP5+. Oddly, I never tried pushing FP4, so I'll give that a go! Subscribed of course :-)
Great review and inspiration...
FP4+ is probably gonna be the next black and white I order. I tend to shoot in conditions where 100 speed is good, and knowing I can always push it if need be is great too.
I shoot FP4+ as my primary film stock. In fact I buy it in bulk and roll it myself. I agree with everything you said, its a wonderful film! A lot of people shoot HP5 or Tri-X but I love the unique look of FP4+.
Great and much needed video on a film that I feel kind of lives in the shadow of its sibling HP5. I've shot FP4 on a few occasions and I find it has, as you say a look and feel specific to it and one that I really like. Certainly this coming year I definitely plan on exploring this film more. I tend to get very contrasty results with it but thats also due to the circumstances that I shoot it under but I really like the richness I get. Definitely would recommend it to anyone!
+Steve Reganato thanks for the kind words, man. Excited to shoot more fp4+ in the coming year.
Appreciate you including my photo! I started with Delta 100 and it was a real struggle to keep details in the highlights and shadows. FP4 is very forgiving in that if you are starting out, this is a great option. I have successfully used D76 and Divided Pyrocat HD with this. If you are looking to feature another film stock, Delta 100 would be great. BTW, I sent you an email a couple of weeks ago. Wondering if you ever got it. Thanks!
+Spencer Pullen got it, Spencer! I'll get back to you about it shortly. Thank you!
Love the video Erik!! Great to see your content. Never shot FP4, def worth checking out!!! Loved the video though :)
What if for the next film stock review you review one of the more consumer grade films out there, like Ultramax. I personally have had great result with it. Just a suggestion. Regardless, love your work!!!!
Great video, Erik, as always. FP4+ has been my favorite for years. 75% of my shooting is on FP4+, followed by Pan-F, HP5, and Acros 100. FP4+ does very well with semi-stand development in Rodinal. You can push AND pull a couple stops up or down on the same roll and still get excellent results.
+Mike Burchard thanks man. It's a film I took a while to get around to, but immediately loved. The look is really special.
How exactly can parts of the same 35mm roll be pushed and pulled at the same time in development? That's impossible. Am I missing something?
I had never considered pushing fp4 so far but I might give it a try - all the best in 2018!
Several decades ago we had Kodak Plus-X, Agfa 100 and FP-4+, each slightly different but with overall similar tonality, grain, etc. Now we have FP-4+. (I don't count Acros, which is very nice, because Fuji seems to have marked it for death and it is more of a T-grain class film.) I fine FP-4+ to be easy control for contrast with excellent (smooth) tonality missing in the T-grain options. I've moved to mostly HP-5+ for my slower medium format lenses with larger film format. I find it to be a bit higher contrast than FP-4+, but otherwise closely sharing the virtues of the slower film. If there's gong to be a last film maker standing, thankfully it will be Ilford.
100% going to shoot this soon. Currently whittling through my hp5. Will be nice to shoot with my rb67 wide open.
I was using FP4 for years, and it was my favourite film stock if developed in Ilford's own Microphen or Perceptol developers. If I want to shoot B&W agin, FP4 will naturally be my first choice.
However, if you want to shoot digital, Erik, I urge you to try out Fuji X cameras, using their in-camera B&W simulations.
After I purchased my XT1, my love for photography was reborn...
My bread and butter film is the RPX 100 exposed @100 up to 400 and developed in D76 stock. Because it‘s cheap and predictable. My subjects are mostly street and documentary. I considered leaving my homezone and try another film. The look is great and maybe I could combine it with my style.
How about an FP4+ vs T-Max 100
This has to be one of my preferred films. Good video Erik
First of all, I really like your videos! Great work!
I mostly shoot digital, but I do like to shoot film from time to time as well. I started to process my black and white film myself and from the films I tried, I like HP4+ a lot. I also like Fuji Acros 100 and Agfa APX 100. I also tried Tri-X, but though I like the look of Tri-X, this film is driving me nuts because it curls so much. I do not know if I'm doing wrong or if it's just the way it is. Any hints?
I’ve never shot that stock but it looks fantastic! Need to get me some.
another one on my list
Got a large poster on my wall that I made from expired FP4 (1997) that I shot in my Rolleicord, really I ,really like FP4 and the original Tri-X 400, never tried pushing FP4 though.
Hi Erik. Great video as always! FP4+ is my favorite for shooting 4x5. Its tonality is just beyond perfect...love it, can't live without it :D ... But for shooting 35mm, i basically never shot FP4+, because it is definitely too slow for that purpose (imho). Are you gonna do another Viewer Submission video? Maybe i have to send some FP4 4x5 shots in ;) ... Cheers from Germany, David :)
Erik, notice he mentioned that with reasonable results it can be pushed to 6400. No, I never went that high, however with its capabilities I would not say it is too slow.
I really enjoy FP4 for that old school look. Similar to Tri-X actually but maybe toned down a touch... Now, as for pushing.. I don't think you'll get anything but a halftone image at 6400 as you mentioned. Maybe you were thinking about the HP5? I've pushed FP4 to 800 and it was definitely there although the contrast was super heavy. Heavier than Tri-X at 3200. It may have been down to my developing (I was still learning then).
+Wojciech Siewior emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/ilford-film-reviews/ilford-fp4-plus-35mm-120-format-and-sheet-film
For me, HP5 (or TriX) always works better with my style and way of shooting
Hi. thanks for this video! what developer did you use for this one?
+Kester Michael these are a mix of home developed in d76 and developed by a lab in Albany, NY.
Erik Wahlstrom ok thanks Erik.
on normal dev. time, should i overexpose by 1 stop? Or should i stick to the "correct" exposure?
Man I wish you could review Fuji Provia 400X, but this film is hard to find and expensive since Fuji killed it off.
+Sun and D-970 yeah I've looked for it and haven't found it for a price I'm willing to pay.
That would be the one film I’d bring back if I had that power.
The real speed of this film is about 80 iso and the development time is a little longer than that recommended.
+Igaluit I've never metered or developed at that speed and have always had good results.
If I have the time, I'll upload a video on film testing this year. It's what the old-timers used to do and the results were stunning. Of course, we can get good or acceptable results otherwise. The point is getting the optimum that film will deliver with the best overall contrast and sharpness and with the least need for manipulation in the darkroom or on the monitor. The aim is to adjust zones I and IX, so that you have negatives which will deliver the whole panorama from zones 0 to 10. I may get 80 iso for FP-4, but you might get another number, depending on your camera, developer and processing techniques. One thing is almost certain: with a cubic grain film, like FP-4, the speed will be lower than that on the box. The question is by how much.
I prefer B&W film from ilford rather than Kodak. especially the HP5+
#fp4party on Twitter!! :)
+Edward Conde haha tag me, I guess.
I think pushing film rated at iso125 up to 6400 would be crazy and waste of film. As far I know FP4+ can be shot between 32-1000 speed.Good video anyway!
+Jan W emulsive.org/reviews/film-reviews/ilford-film-reviews/ilford-fp4-plus-35mm-120-format-and-sheet-film
+Jan W emulsive had good luck with 35mm at 6400.
As much as I tried to like fp4+ I couldn’t. Hate the grain structure and the overall look of the images. Looks much better on 120 but still ugly.