What should I expect from Ilford FP4 PLUS?

[Steve Ruddy]

I'm wondering mostly about grain and sharpness. I'm assuming the contrast can be adjusted in LR so no need to develop for it? Anyway this test shot was developed in Kodak D-76 full strength. Does it look good for that film type or can I get better and how? I guess I was expecting sharper and finer grain. The focus seems forward a bit so the Rolleiflex T is being serviced now. The image was shot wide open @ f3.5 as well.

Here is the full size image 6994x6994 for closer inspection. Click to zoom full size or copy to inspect in your software.

http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/forum_images/Rollei011-2.jpg

BTW I'm no longer printing in the darkroom so now everything gets scanned with an Epson v6oo. I probably need to either get a better scanner or somehow modify or make a new negative holder to get the best of what the v600 can deliver.

 

[davidnewtonguitars]

I'm shooting FP4 and devp. in D76 both stock & 1:1.
I don't know which developer is best for FP4 specifically, maybe IlfotecDDX.
On sunny days you can get brighter whites & deeper blacks, on overcast days it looks a lot like yours here. I think it has a wider range of tones than faster, grainier films like HP5.

 

[ptpdprinter]

You won't find out anything about grain and sharpness with a v600. It can't resolve the grain.

 

[jawarden]

"Here is the full size image 6994x6994 for closer inspection. Click to zoom full size or copy to inspect in your software."

Hi Steve,

I think something is not right with your scan. At full scale there are strange artifacts - perhaps scanner interpolation or maybe over sharpening? The problem is apparent even in the out of focus background, which should be creamy and smooth but isn't. It looks odd, so you might review scanner settings and/or try a lower resolution. It's very unlikely that the problem is with the grain of the film itself.

As for sharpness of the image, that will be accomplished by stopping down the lens a bit where your lens will be at its best. Your lens is high quality so that stuffed bear will be plenty sharp at f5.6.

Here's an example for grain comparison. This image is also FP4 medium format, and it was scanned at a somewhat smaller pixel size than your image (about 4,400 x 3,500) on a V700.

And the crop from the left side of the image is 100% size, showing detail (the plane) but basically no grain. I'm guessing our scanners are pretty similar but somehow yours is adding grit to the image.

 

[Steve Ruddy]

You won't find out anything about grain and sharpness with a v600. It can't resolve the grain.

Here is a crop, aren't those flecks grain?

 

[Steve Ruddy]

"Here is the full size image 6994x6994 for closer inspection. Click to zoom full size or copy to inspect in your software."

Hi Steve,

I think something is not right with your scan. At full scale there are strange artifacts - perhaps scanner interpolation or maybe over sharpening? The problem is apparent even in the out of focus background, which should be creamy and smooth but isn't. It looks odd, so you might review scanner settings and/or try a lower resolution. It's very unlikely that the problem is with the grain of the film itself.

As for sharpness of the image, that will be accomplished by stopping down the lens a bit where your lens will be at its best. Your lens is high quality so that bear will be plenty sharp at f5.6.

Thanks! any chance you can take my image and mark up the artifacts so I can see what your referring too?

Here is a download link of original scan no edits.http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/forum_images/Rollei011full.tif

 

[Corran]

Grain Aliasing

 

[jawarden]

Thanks! any chance you can take my image and mark up the artifacts so I can see what your referring too?

Here is the original scan no edits I can supply a download link if save as doesn't work http://www.coralreefecosystems.com/forum_images/Rollei011full.tif

I added a comparison scan to my above post Steve, which will help hopefully. Basically your scan is very gritty and should not be. It should be as smooth as your negative. The flecks on your images aren't grain; they're much larger than the grain on the film.

 

[Shac]

They remind me almost of of jpg "jaggies". Whatever they are they are definitely not grain.
Did you allow sharpening during the scan? Any post processing?

 

[sepiareverb]

DD-X is pretty darn nice for FP4+.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

FP-4 is a gorgeous film, and one that works well in just about any developer. I have used it in D-76, Rodinal, and PMK with great results. PMK is my favorite, but if you don't want to mess with that developer (a particularly difficult developer to use, not recommended for beginners), then D-76 1+1 is great as well.

FP-4 in D-76 1+1

FP-4 in PMK

FP-4 in Rodinal 1+50

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I'm wondering mostly about grain and sharpness. I'm assuming the contrast can be adjusted in LR so no need to develop for it? Anyway this test shot was developed in Kodak D-76 full strength. Does it look good for that film type or can I get better and how?

BTW I'm no longer printing in the darkroom so now everything gets scanned with an Epson v6oo. I probably need to either get a better scanner or somehow modify or make a new negative holder to get the best of what the v600 can deliver.

D-76 is fine for Ilford FP-4, see my example in my post above. Your image has very flat, muddy tonality, though. That is not because of how you developed it; it is because of scanning.

Film scanners do NOT give you a finished image right from the scanner. A lot of guys online claim to be 'purists' and beat their chests about never 'manipulating' the scan. That's bull****. ALL scans MUST be edited to bring out the tonality in the image.

This is because a film scanner has a much wider dynamic range than a black and white negative. This allows it to capture the very wide density range of a color slide, but it produces very flat scans of negatives (this is true of color negs, too). Even color slides do usually require a little tweaking. You must increase contrast, especially midtone contrast, quite a lot to get to the beautiful tonality hiding in that flat scan.

I took your file and edited it in Photoshop. A web-resolution version attached to this post. Keep in mind that this is a backlit scene, so the high contrast is normal and expected from this sort of lighting!

I was going to attach a web-resolution version in PSD format that has the adjustment layers I used, so that you can open it in Photoshop and see what, exactly, I did to it in my editing!

Unfortunately, RFF does not allow attaching PSD files. So, PM me your email address if you want to see it.

 

[Steve Ruddy]

I added a comparison scan to my above post Steve, which will help hopefully. Basically your scan is very gritty and should not be. It should be as smooth as your negative. The flecks on your images aren't grain; they're much larger than the grain on the film.

OK I think I will abandon my scanner and use my digital camera. I'm hearing that will be the way to capture the best quality. I was hoping for 50+mb that my scanner was doing but if the digital camera will do much better with only 30mb file I'll go with it. At least it will be a raw capture and converted in 32 bit LR software. I'm going to build a box with a white plastic panel and use my macro twin lite flash. Thanks for pointing out my issues. I'll post a few new images with the camera scan asap.

 

[Steve Ruddy]

They remind me almost of of jpg "jaggies". Whatever they are they are definitely not grain.
Did you allow sharpening during the scan? Any post processing?

Yes I did some scan sharpening. My settings were 16 bit greyscale, 3200 dpi and unsharp mask medium. I have decided to try my digital camera next as even if I take the sharpening off I probably won't get the best quality.

 

[xia_ke]

For a straight scan, that looks fine to me. As Chris mentioned any scan will need adjustments. FP4+ and Ilfosol-3 1+14 is my go-to combo for 35mm and 120. Here is an adjusted crappy scan from a 4490. Original scan is a TIFF that was 9968x9919 and the crop from the right-hand base of the lighthouse shows the detail even a crappy scan can achieve. Originally shot with a Bronica S2a and 100mm Zenzanon.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

FP-4 is a gorgeous film, and one that works well in just about any developer. I have used it in D-76, Rodinal, and PMK with great results. PMK is my favorite

PMK is my favorite for FP4 as well, though I haven't tried everything. Tone and the nature of the grain.

Here's one I developed yesterday, as it happens. 135 film here, 120 is even better. Clicking on this takes you to smugmug with possibility of viewing a couple of larger ones, I think.

 

[Steve Ruddy]

D-76 is fine for Ilford FP-4, see my example in my post above. Your image has very flat, muddy tonality, though. That is not because of how you developed it; it is because of scanning.

Film scanners do NOT give you a finished image right from the scanner. A lot of guys online claim to be 'purists' and beat their chests about never 'manipulating' the scan. That's bull****. ALL scans MUST be edited to bring out the tonality in the image.

This is because a film scanner has a much wider dynamic range than a black and white negative. This allows it to capture the very wide density range of a color slide, but it produces very flat scans of negatives (this is true of color negs, too). Even color slides do usually require a little tweaking. You must increase contrast, especially midtone contrast, quite a lot to get to the beautiful tonality hiding in that flat scan.

I took your file and edited it in Photoshop. A web-resolution version attached to this post. Keep in mind that this is a backlit scene, so the high contrast is normal and expected from this sort of lighting!

I was going to attach a web-resolution version in PSD format that has the adjustment layers I used, so that you can open it in Photoshop and see what, exactly, I did to it in my editing!

Unfortunately, RFF does not allow attaching PSD files. So, PM me your email address if you want to see it.

Thanks for the info Chris. I always wondered why the scans look flat. BTW the image I posted has been processed. Here is a side by side so everyone can see how flat it looks. I'm going to try my digital camera next. I'm told a camera will actually resolve the grain. The thing that bugs me is I was under the impression that the resolution of a medium format neg is much higher than my 30mp 35mm digital image. Am I loosing this resolution advantage by digitizing the 120 neg with a 30mp camera? At the same time it's nice to be able to scan an output of 50+mp with my scanner but if it's never going to be able to capture the amount of detail my camera can what's the point.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks for the info Chris. I always wondered why the scans look flat. BTW the image I posted has been processed. Here is a side by side so everyone can see how flat it looks. I'm going to try my digital camera next. I'm told a camera will actually resolve the grain. The thing that bugs me is I was under the impression that the resolution of a medium format neg is much higher than my 30mp 35mm digital image. Am I loosing this resolution advantage by digitizing the 120 neg with a 30mp camera? At the same time it's nice to be able to scan an output of 50+mp with my scanner but if it's never going to be able to capture the amount of detail my camera can what's the point.

Don't be afraid to go far enough in your editing. I still think your edited one is too flat and lifeless.

I don't know if a 30mp camera will beat your flatbed scanner. I have never used either a flatbed or a camera to scan film. I use a Nikon 8000ED.

I suspect my Nikon will beat a 30mp camera, but the camera will beat your scanner. The problem with flatbeds is they use low quality lenses, and then they compound the problem by having fixed-focus optical systems. Real films scanners use very high quality lenses, and the lenses can be focused (most are autofcus and the system can focus on the film's grain). That greatly increases resolution, and its why a film scanner and a flatbed with the same sensor resolution will give VERY different real resolution in the scans!

 

[css9450]

Even "scanning" with the DSLR and macro lens is going to need the same kind of post-processing, I would think?

 

[Huss]

I'm going to try my digital camera next. I'm told a camera will actually resolve the grain. The thing that bugs me is I was under the impression that the resolution of a medium format neg is much higher than my 30mp 35mm digital image. Am I loosing this resolution advantage by digitizing the 120 neg with a 30mp camera? At the same time it's nice to be able to scan an output of 50+mp with my scanner but if it's never going to be able to capture the amount of detail my camera can what's the point.

35mm film scanned with my Nikon D750



120 film scanned with my Nikon D750