Grain in FP4 v. Tri-X

[jljohn]

For a little while I have been shooting primarily Tri-X 400 at 320 and developing it in D-76 1:1 (Normal). I recently decided to add FP4 Plus to the mix for a finer grain slower option. I've shot a few rolls at 100, developed in D-76 1:1 (Normal), and I am finding that there is just about the same amount of grain in FP4 as in Tri-X. Is this other's experience as well? Is FP4 really no less grainy than Tri-X, or am I doing something wrong with this film?

 

[Rob-F]

Did you mean to say that FP-4 is a faster option than Tri-X? You shot it at 100, so of course you know it has a slower ISO than Tri-X. Tri-X has become a very fine grain film, enough so that I can shoot it and not worry about needing a slower film for most prints. However I have not noticed it being any finer grain than FP-4. FP-4 is almost too fine-grain in my case; I have trouble finding the grain to focus on in my grain magnifier.

 

[jljohn]

Thanks Rob, I fixed my statement (I meant slower--I just wasn't thinking). Funny, I can see the grain with ease in the FP4 negs on the light table with a 4x loupe!

 

[oftheherd]

Surely something is amiss. I can not believe when used as intended, FP4 would not be much finer grained than Tri-X. But if you are using the same developer and developing techniques, I don't known why you would not find that to be true. It will be interesting if someone can shed some light (no pun intended) on this.

 

[drewbarb]

The appearance of grain in film has as much to do with how the film is handled and processed as it does with the formulation of the emulsion. Any film can be made to show more or less grain, depending upon a variety of factors including the temperature the film is stored at, the age of the stock, the speed you expose at, the developer and dilution used, dev time and temperature, even the agitation you use. If you are handling your FP4 the same way as your Tri-X, it's quite possible to get similar grain.

 

[wlewisiii]

If you are used to Tri-X at 320, why did you not try Plus-X for your lower ISO option? I find it a finer grained and toned film than FP4+ in 35mm, especially in D-76.

 

[Ljós]

Jeremy,
I agree with your observations. In my opinion the "new" Tri-x has finer grain than the predecessor, which also means that the difference (grainwise) between Ilford Hp5 and Tri-x has become more pronounced, and the gap between Tri-x and Fp4 become smaller. Films like Fuji Acros, Tmax 100 etc. will give finer grain than Fp4. Or you could try out the new Tmax 400 (TMY2), which is the finest grained 400 speed BW film to date (leaving chromogenic films like XP2 out of the debate). A great compromise betweeyn speed and grain.

Ultimately you will have to decide based on the "entire" pictorial result. I am on a TMY2 fling right now, after having used HP5 exclusively for a number of years. But I have been printing a bit lately, and made some very nice prints from the grainier-than-TMY2-negatives. I like them a lot. I might return to HP5 ;-)

 

[jljohn]

I've not yet tried plus-x. So far I've tried Acros and FP4 in the 100 speed category. I may just try Plus-x next, but it sure seems expensive ($6 per roll at B&H).

 

[kxl]

I've not yet tried plus-x. So far I've tried Acros and FP4 in the 100 speed category. I may just try Plus-x next, but it sure seems expensive ($6 per roll at B&H).

Arista Premium 100 is the same as Plus-X. Arista Premium 400 is the same as Tr-X. Both from Freestyle.

 

[Monokrome]

For a little while I have been shooting primarily Tri-X 400 at 320 and developing it in D-76 1:1 (Normal). I recently decided to add FP4 Plus to the mix for a finer grain slower option. I've shot a few rolls at 100, developed in D-76 1:1 (Normal), and I am finding that there is just about the same amount of grain in FP4 as in Tri-X. Is this other's experience as well? Is FP4 really no less grainy than Tri-X, or am I doing something wrong with this film?

I think it would be worthwhile doing a rough personal speed test to check if you are exposing more than is necessary. Over exposure can cause grain to become more prominent. Try it at ISO 125 and bracket your exposures half or one stop each side of your meter reading. If you see no worthwhile difference, stick with Tri-X.

 

[xwhatsit]

I use Microphen (stock) and D76 1:1, and find FP4+ (at 125ISO) to be significantly and obviously finer grained than Tri-X at 400ISO. I haven't tried Tri-X at 320, though.

It's not reticulation or anything is it? Not that FP4+ is particularly fragile.

 

[maclaine]

I had a similar experience when I shot a roll with it. I generally don't shoot black and white film slower than 400, but wanted to try this to see if I could get some finer grain happening for general daytime pictures. I developed it in HC-110, which I know does less to tame the grain than D-76 does, but I was still shocked to see how grainy my images were. It was not any less significant than what I usually see with Tri-X. I've seen a couple other threads about this on various photo sites with people saying they had similar results or that the person was crazy and they must have developed it wrong. I haven't tested another roll to see if I can duplicate it, but I do know that the time and temperature when I developed these shots was very well controlled.

 

[jljohn]

Yep--the grain I am seeing in your three photos (the first one in particular) looks very similar to what I am seeing in my negs. I think the scans have enhanced it a bit but we're in the same ballpark.

I had a similar experience when I shot a roll with it. I generally don't shoot black and white film slower than 400, but wanted to try this to see if I could get some finer grain happening for general daytime pictures. I developed it in HC-110, which I know does less to tame the grain than D-76 does, but I was still shocked to see how grainy my images were. It was not any less significant than what I usually see with Tri-X. I've seen a couple other threads about this on various photo sites with people saying they had similar results or that the person was crazy and they must have developed it wrong. I haven't tested another roll to see if I can duplicate it, but I do know that the time and temperature when I developed these shots was very well controlled.