Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Monochrome Work > Monochrome Film

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 17th June 2010, 12:56 PM
PaulG's Avatar
PaulG PaulG is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 332
Default Reliable reciprocity data for Ilford FP4+

Having taken the plunge and acquired a suitably veteran 5x7 Sinar Norma, I now face the question of which film to use. At least I don't have to do too much research as the commonly available options are Ilford HP5+ or FP4+. I'm drawn to FP4+, simply because of the look of contact prints made from this film in this format. (I'll be contact printing, rather than enlarging.) Price is not a factor in the decision because both films cost pretty much the same. What might be a deciding factor is availability of reciprocity data for FP4+, since I'm likely to be facing relatively long exposure times.

I have used the data from the Howard Bond article (Photo Techniques, 2003) on reciprocity for Delta 100, TriX and HP5+ and found it to be quite reliable. Unfortunately Mr Bond didn't test FP4+

I'm not inclined to believe Ilford since all their reciprocity graphs look the same, irrespective of the film, so can anyone point me in the direction of data that is likely to be reliable for calculating compensation for reciprocity failure with this film?

Yours hopefully...
__________________
************************************************** *************************
More photos live here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arm_a_dillo/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 17th June 2010, 06:18 PM
Les McLean's Avatar
Les McLean Les McLean is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Northumberland
Posts: 383
Default

Hi Paul

I've used this reciprosity chart for years and its never failed.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	reciprosity chart.jpg
Views:	1072
Size:	74.5 KB
ID:	739  
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 17th June 2010, 08:05 PM
PaulG's Avatar
PaulG PaulG is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 332
Default

Thanks Les. I shall have a play and see how I get on.
__________________
************************************************** *************************
More photos live here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arm_a_dillo/
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 27th July 2010, 09:57 AM
Tom Kershaw Tom Kershaw is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 542
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les McLean View Post
Hi Paul

I've used this reciprosity chart for years and its never failed.
Les,

I've not seen that table before, where did it come from?

Tom
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 27th July 2010, 01:03 PM
Les McLean's Avatar
Les McLean Les McLean is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Northumberland
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw View Post
Les,

I've not seen that table before, where did it come from?

Tom
Tom, I got it from a friend in America many years ago and have found it to be very accurate. I vaugely remember him saying that he had got it from John Sexton.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29th July 2010, 01:42 AM
lee l lee l is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 20
Default

Les,

I know this isn't a table that originated with you, but do you have any take on the TMX and TMY times? Both films have the same corrected times for both 15 and 30 second metered times, just in different unit combinations, seconds only from 15 seconds and minutes + seconds from the 30 second metered exposure.

Just curious about the apparent 'mistake'.

Lee

Edit: Just graphed the numbers and ran some regressions. It appears that the values are correct as adjustments from the 30 second metered exposure. They appear anomalous when taken as the adjusted exposures for a 15 second metered exposure.

Last edited by lee l; 29th July 2010 at 02:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 31st July 2010, 07:24 PM
Jacques's Avatar
Jacques Jacques is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 180
Default

Reciprocity table’s comparison
Just for fun I’ve compared the table provided by Les McLean and the table included in the Book of Pyro from Gordon Hutchings. The numbers for FP4+ & PanF, HP5+ and Delta are exactly the same. According to Hutchings Ilford films do not gain contrast during long exposures so do not need adjusted development times. He does not provide a table for Kodak films.

Then I’ve compared the tables from Hutchings with the table provided by Ralph Lambrecht on his web site http://www.darkroomagic.com/DarkroomMagic/Camera.html. According to Ralph the column conventional is for films like FP4+, HP5+ and Tri-X. Some of the numbers are the same but for example Hutchings gives 60s with a 15s meter reading for FP4+ and 45s for HP5+. Ralph gives 45s for both films and according to him the exposure of 45s raises the contrast N+1. When the meter reads 60s, Ralph gives 4m 50s for conventional films and Hutchings gives 10m for FP4+ and 8m for HP5+.

Then I’ve compared the numbers from Hutchings with the table provided by Howard Bond in the article Black-and-White Reciprocity Departure Revisited (2003) http://www.willwilson.com/articles/0...ciprocity2.pdf. For HP5+ and a reading of 2s, Hutchings gives 3s, Bond gives 2s, with a reading of 4s, Hutchings gives 7s, Bond gives 5s, with a reading of 8s Hutchings gives 17s, Bond 10s. When we go to 1m, Hutchings gives 8m, Bond 2m 36s which is a big difference. According to the article, HP5+ does not need development time’s adjustment.

Now if I compared Hutchings table for Tri-X with Bond’s table, the difference are immense. The same is true with Lambrecht table and Bond table.

If I compared Hutching table with Bruce Barnbaum table for Tri-X, again the numbers are quite different. With a reading of 5s, Barnbaum gives 8s and he specifies a raise in contrast of N+1/2 compared to 20s for Hutchings table. For 1m, Barnbaum gives 3m with a raise in contrast of N+1 and Hutchings gives 9m a really big difference. Numbers for Tri-X from Barnbaum and Bond are almost identical but Barnbaum mentions the raise in contrast (N+1, N+2…) and Bond does not.

I guess I could go on and on with other tables. Which one is the best I don’t know and I cannot judge because I don’t have my own table. For Tri-X I use both tables from Bond and Barnbaum with good results and for FP4+ and HP5+ I use the table from Hutchings which is the same as provided by Les McLean.

Jacques
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 7th October 2010, 03:27 AM
Martin Aislabie's Avatar
Martin Aislabie Martin Aislabie is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Posts: 2,081
Default

I have spent the last few days using Les's chart for HP5 and the data it yeilds is good

Looking at the developed negatives the times it suggests are perhaps a touch generous - but better a little more than a little less.

It was a new experience for me to break out the timer I normally use for toning prints, open the shutter, start the timer and then walk away for 12 minutes

Martin
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 7th October 2010, 10:08 AM
Tony Marlow Tony Marlow is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,282
Default

I have tried Les's times around the 1 to 25secs and it it seems to work fine.

Tony
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 15th October 2010, 08:06 PM
FrankS FrankS is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Valley Stream, NY, USA
Posts: 29
Default

I was about to suggest Fuji Acros 100 because of this film's excellent reciprocity departure characteristics. I've used it for long exposures in roll film formats and found that Fuji's own data for this film is an exceptionally good starting point. The vast majority of the long exposure shots I've made using these data have given me negatives of excellent quality. Sadly, at least here in the US, one cannot get this film in 5x7 sheet sizes. But if you ever find yourself in need of 4x5 film, you owe it to yourself to give this one a try.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FP4+ and Ilfosol 3 Alansworld Monochrome Film 11 22nd April 2010 05:24 PM
Old HP4 and FP4 StanW Ask Les 0 6th November 2009 08:38 PM
HP5 Reciprocity Failure Victor Krag Photography in general 0 15th February 2009 08:34 PM
Reciprocity? Mike Meal Monochrome Film 8 8th January 2009 05:30 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.