Topic: Advice from an FP4 user please ....

[Nigel]

I suspect I know the answer to this question, but just in case.

I mixed up my first ever batch of Xtol today and developed the only exposed roll of film I had which was 120 FP4. Now this isn't really an ideal trial as i don't generally use FP4 and it was shot in my Holga so there's almost zero chance of the exposure being correct, having said that the negatives don't look too bad. However the film numbers are quite thin [the scan below doesn't mean a lot as I had to tweek the levels in Photoshop] I'm really just checking on the off chance this is typical of FP4? If not, which I suspect is the case, then it looks like there's an issue with my developer mix or time.

If you're a regular FP4 user I'd appreciate any feedback.

thanks
Nigel

[Ordinal]

I admit that I'm not a regular user, but I seem to remember the FP4 (in 120) I've developed looking a bit thin when eyeballed, including the numbers. This was using LC29 and Ilford's recommended times, too, which you'd think would be accurate. Scanned fine though as you are aware.

[LT]

Looks fine to me Nigel. You can barely read my frame numbers when I use fp4, these look really clear to me. The real-world tests are shadow and highlight details. I tend to stick with the old adage that says your negs should be thin enough to read a newspaper text through the highlight density, and no denser. Works for me.

In these days of neg scanning, the art of proper development is getting lost. Scanning allows all kinds of poor processing to still turn out a good tonal range. Whereas, it is infinitesimally more critical if you printing properly.

[Nigel]

Thanks both. That is encouraging. I not heard of the newspaper tip Leon that's a good one, thanks, I'm going to try that.

[Francois]

Reading through the highlights is a sort of primitive densitometer trick.
Even Kodak recommended it. You develop for different densities depending if you're going to use a diffusion or condensing enlarger. If you scan, that would be a diffusion "head"

Here's a sample from the Kodak book I always refer to.
Hope the compression won't screw-up the density range too much 
I can always re-post if need be

[Photo_Utopia]

Don't worry Nigel, edge marking vary from batch to batch on each emulsion let alone between manufacturers.
I guess the bulb in the edge marking machine needed changing that day 
Regards
Mark Antony

[mickld]

Reading newsprint through a negative is a good rule of thumb for me to try.  Not knowing anyone locally who is using film, I don't really know what a good negative should look like. I'll have to dig out some old negs and see 'readable' they are.

[Francois]

Sometimes the difference is not obvious. Even on the original Kodak publication, the difference is slight.