ILFORD FP-4 PLUS; CORRECTING FOR RECIPROCITY FAILURE

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by wskmosaic, Apr 2, 2012.

  1. wskmosaic

    wskmosaic Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maryland, ne
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Does anyone know if reciprocity failure correction computed for Ilford HP 5 Plus will apply to Ilford FP-4 Plus?

    Ilford's data sheet on these films, which declares correction factors for all its films to be equivalent, was never meant to be a precise guide, and is very old.

    In addition, does anybody know, for either of these films, what the reduction in developing time for each range of exposure increases to compensate for reciprocity failure?

    tnx

    Warren
     
  2. Oren Grad

    Oren Grad Subscriber

    Messages:
    959
    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Shooter:
    Large Format
  3. Shawn Dougherty

    Shawn Dougherty Member

    Messages:
    4,184
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    I go by the Howard Bond data for HP5+, it has worked well for me so far.
    For FP4+ I have been using the Kodak reciprocity chart for general black and white film (Not the TGRAIN CHART) and it has been working great.
    Don't forget to decrease development as well!
     
  4. dnjl

    dnjl Member

    Messages:
    376
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Location:
    Switzerland
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I use the following formula to calculate reciprocity compensation for classic Ilford films (PanF+, FP4+, HP5+):

    exposure time^1.48

    For example, a 15sec exposure after correction will result in a 55sec exposure. I found this works well.

    I don't remember where I picked this up, but thanks to whoever came up with it originally.
     
  5. wskmosaic

    wskmosaic Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maryland, ne
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Re: Recip Failure and FP-4 Plus

    Thanks for the quick and thoughtful responses.

    Oren: I have read Bond's article. I trust him implicitly and rely on that article--or as much of it as I can handle. Which is why I'm so down on the Ilford figures.

    Walter: I believe that ^1.48 is the Ilford formula precisely. I can't imagine how it can work for all the films they list it for. I'm afraid I'm not going there.

    And Shawn:
    I'll take a look at those Kodak figures, but I'm curious to know why you've never given the Bond figures a run with FP-4+. If you ever do, I'd love to hear about it. I think Bond might, too.

    tnx

    Warren
     
  6. wskmosaic

    wskmosaic Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maryland, ne
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Quick further question, Shawn:
    At what ASA do you shoot FP-4+ and what is your normal developer and development time?
    tnx
    Warren
     
  7. Shawn Dougherty

    Shawn Dougherty Member

    Messages:
    4,184
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    As far as I know Bond did not work with FP4+ or I certainly would.... If I'm missing it somewhere please point it out!


    I rate FP4+ @ ISO 64. However, I tend to error on the side of more exposure. I am developing FP4+ in Pyrocat HD at 1:.5:100 (note that B is POINT FIVE ((.5)). 8 Minutes for N. I develop 4x5 in small tubes gently rolling them in water. And I stress the importance of using N- development in various degrees for reciprocity corrected exposures.

    Edit. HERE is a link to the Kodak graph I have been using for FP4+, it is on page 3.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 3, 2012
  8. wskmosaic

    wskmosaic Member

    Messages:
    12
    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    Location:
    Maryland, ne
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    AND THANKS FOR THE KODAK GRAPH; I HAVE THEIR DATA.

    AND THANKS FOR ALL YOU HELP.


    WARREN
     
  9. silveror0

    silveror0 Member

    Messages:
    781
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    [Quote Originally Posted by Shawn Dougherty View Post
    ...
    As far as I know Bond did not work with FP4+ or I certainly would.... If I'm missing it somewhere please point it out!

    I'VE SEEN SEVERAL SETS OF DATA FOR FP-4 PLUS, AFTER MUCH SCROUNGING, SURFING AND ASKING. ONE IS AT
    http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.or...an+reciprocity , THOUGH YOU MIGHT HAVE TO LOG IN TO THE FDU FORUM TO SEE IT. IN A PINCH, AT THAT FORUM, SEARCH 'McLEAN RECIPROCITY TO COME UP WITH IT.

    THE OTHER IS ASCRIBED TO JOHN SEXTON AND LOOKS LIKE THIS (METERED/ADJUSTED):

    2/3
    4/7
    8/19
    12/33
    16/50
    24/93
    32/145
    45/250
    60/378
    90/853
    120/1670...]


    Just in case anyone is looking for this stuff, I'm resurrecting this 3yo thread, since I'm in the process of trying to come up with FP4+ reciprocity data, I've discovered the data above is NOT attributed to John Sexton; rather it is published test data for HP5+ in Steve Simmons' book "Using the View Camera" along with the reduced development results. BTW, Steve claims this info is applicable to Ilford films in general (I question that statement).
     
  10. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,417
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
  11. Regular Rod

    Regular Rod Member

    Messages:
    671
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I use the chart that ILFORD supply but I print it with more grid lines to make it easier to read across. It has never let me down. Here's my pdf of it to print off, cut out, laminate and keep with the exposure meter.

    RR
     
  12. silveror0

    silveror0 Member

    Messages:
    781
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Sorry Rick but I can't buy that curve. Ilford has used that reciprocity curve for nearly every one of their films for many years, and I just can't believe that to be the case. But then Kodak also provided info for b/w films in general as well (seems Acros and T-grain films would almost certainly not conform to that).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2015
  13. Rick A

    Rick A Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,417
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    northern Pa.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Their product, their research.
     
  14. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,470
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    http://phototechmag.com/black-and-white-reciprocity-departure-revisited-by-howard-bond/

    That article seems to have a serious flaw. He is testing for aperture correction and plotting time correction. The entity that tie aperture to time is reciprocity! When he converts his results from aperture to time correction his equation (1 stop light = 1 stop time) is only valid if reciprocity holds true at all times! If you convert his table back to f-stop correction, then it is a valid table for what he is testing (dim-light photography at 1/4 second).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 31, 2015
  15. Ian Grant

    Ian Grant Subscriber

    Messages:
    18,032
    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    Location:
    West Midland
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    There is no way to produce an accurate Reciprocity table because the variables in light type, intensity, spectral composition, scene contrast etc are just too wide. It makes a difference if it's Daylight or Artifical light particularly Tungsten where a film has a lower EI anyway.

    It's far better to do your own personal tests in the lighting conditions you intend to work with. Failing that the Ilford chart will get you close it probably has a degree of safety factor built in.

    Ian
     
  16. silveror0

    silveror0 Member

    Messages:
    781
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Ian,
    I have to agree with you completely on that. If a manufacturer were to take on the expense of testing each film under all those variable conditions, trying to capture the highly-scattered results, they would likely just release an "enveloping curve" that encompassed all that scatter. Such a curve would amount to a HUGE "safety factor" for some films/conditions and not so huge for others, which to me seems to render the curve almost useless to a photographer. Personal tests are definitely the way to go, just as with EI testing, using one's own equipment (and $$$).

    One variable not mentioned in your list is camera/lens flare, obviously unique to each photographer's equipment, might be serious enough to influence his results considerably - Bond went to quite an effort to minimize flare in his testing and used blue floodlights for illumination to simulate that of daylight encountered in landscape work. Regarding flare, I witnessed AA using a 5x7 camera with 4x5 reducing back at one of his workshops, and when asked why he said it keeps the bellows farther away from the film to reduce camera flare. He obviously didn't have the benefit of our current multi-coated lenses, so he could only address camera flare.
     
  17. Regular Rod

    Regular Rod Member

    Messages:
    671
    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2012
    Location:
    Derbyshire
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I can only repeat that "It has never let me down"...
    :wink:
    RR
     
  18. Shawn Dougherty

    Shawn Dougherty Member

    Messages:
    4,184
    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    In my experience the most accurate info I've found (info that I've tried and has led me to good results) is the Howard Bond data... (who did not test FP4+).

    The info provided by Ilford is, as stated earlier, a big generalization which they have used for years on multiple films. Following it led me to overexposure. Testing yourself (or at least bracketing like crazy and keeping careful notes) is your best bet. Of course it can be very time consuming...