Ilford FP4 - Flexible & Classic Black and White | ROLL REVIEW

[@metocvideo]

Great review. It was 1968 when I was 18 and determined to become a professional photographer, in London, England. The swinging sixties were still swinging, and Ilford released a brand new replacement medium speed film to replace the wartime FP3. This new film was immediately embraced by the most well-known photographers in London, David Bailey, Brian Duffy, Terry Donovan and Clive Arrowsmith to mention a few. The new film had a long tone range and very fine grain and was very flexible. You could fine-grain develop it, use an ‘Acutance’ developer to squeeze every ounce of sharpness and detail out of it, or stand-develop it to get amazingly smooth tones with ‘MacKie Lines’ separating the tonal regions. It did everything and did it well. No surprise that it took until 1990 to supersede it with FP4+. In my lifetime I have shot over 10,000 rolls of it and I have never had a problem that wasn’t my fault.

[@richardsimms251]

Wow What an incredible story. Thank you. RS. Canada

[@marsgal42]

FP4 and HP5 (I use both) are reliable workhorse films. They don't do anything fancy. They just work.

[@daveed4475]

Great review. Just developed my first roll, and I’m blown away.

[@gregpantelides1355]

I love the dreamy effect of this film. I works perfectly with my creative vision. :-)

[@bluntman900]

Dude you are killing it! You help so much to chose my next film to try! thanks from an amateur amateur photographer.

[@paulconnors2078]

I've always thought of FP4 as Ilford's equivalent of the now no longer available Kodak PLUS X.

[@dominicmeakin]

FP4 is my go to B&W film. It's wonderful in ID-11 1+1 for 35mm and 1+3 for 120 to bring out a little more sharpness.

[@shawnpray4631]

Ive had good results with Fp4+ overall but I'm still in the midst of shooting/experimenting with it. Definitely a much nicer range of tones straight away compared to HP5 and the grain is very nice. It has a unique look and it's definitely worth trying.

[@tonyzhu403]

Next Stop: Ilford Delta Series.

[@Otokichi786]

Since Kodak discontinued Plus-X Pan, I consider Ilford FP4 to be "the medium speed champ." (Unless you think that ISO 125 is "slow.," that is.;)

[@richardsimms251]

Excellent video. Thank you. RS. Canada

[@Pokertyme2009]

Ilford FP4 Plus is my 'go to' film both in 35mm and 120. Unless it's my fault it always gives a nice range of tone, and you can always push it around a tad in post processing on the computer.

[@Pacmanfan-po9rn]

My two favourite BW film stocks.

[@Bartolome_Dobo]

FP4 in d76 1+3 is godly. Also check David hancock reviews of fp4 and hp5 - it shows you how versatile this film is to match your needs with right processing chemistry and dilutions :)

[@artistjoh]

FP4 is always my favorite because at both toe and shoulder it has the latitude to give detail where other B&W films such as Delta or T-max just lose detail. Just like Tri-X, it simply has a look that tends to be pleasing. The older grain structure tends to shine at these slower 100-400 speeds and tabular grains shine in the higher speeds. Agreed that FP4 is more pleasing than HP5. I choose FP4 for 100-ish ISO and Tri-X for 400-ish, and Delta 3200 for high speed. These are my base-line films. When getting creative I go for Lomography. More grain always tends to produce more character.

[@RonEMarks]

I tried FP4 in hc110 and rodinal. I didn’t like it until I tried it in XTOL. FP4 is now my favorite film, period. I shoot it in 135, 120 and 4x5.

[@funkyuk1]

Fluffy is a good descriptor of FP4. Nice one fella. 👍🏼

[@gemista]

I have found that I’ve gotten better results with the 135 variant rather than the 120. With HC-110, the contrast seems to be very low, especially compared to other emulsions like Pan F and Double X

[@scrapcrumbs]

Love the reviews!!

[@ikobek]

Great review again!

[@shamikchoudhury5924]

How about shooting FP4 for portrait? Seems to be nice film for that.

[@PolCornelis]

It is!

[@DPImageCapturing]

Hi Noah, greatly video! Could you do a Ilford PANF+ review? CHEERS!

[@n6vcw]

The results obtained with HC-110 are vastly different than those I've obtained with Ifosol 3. It's like night and day. Ifosol 3 gives me much higher contrast than HC-110 and looks far more life like. To each their own, of course. I, however, much prefer developing it in Ifosol 3 to get a better sense of realism. It has VERY similar results to that of Plus-X film and Microdol-X developer from the 80s.

[@terrywbreedlove]

I have three rolls of 120 FP4 and I also picked up some ilfosol 3. I have had them for about four months. Happy to see your thoughts on this combination. Now I need to get out on the streets and give it a shot.

[@JenniferM13]

Have you ever tried it in Xtol?

[@nelsonm.5044]

Between FP4 and Delta 100, I much prefer the Delta and the 25 ISO difference is really not a big deal

[@GettingNegative]

What camera and lens did you shoot the 35mm comparisons with?

[@gabrielgarza3707]

FP4 reminds me of Kodak plus-x (man I miss that film)

[@milandoersam]

Could you do a Roll-Review of Fuji Natura?

[@tonyzhu403]

From Ilford's Official Documents, it seems that FP4+ isn't as suitable for Push/Pull as HP5+. Official Dev Time is Available between ISO 50-200.

[@xzyth4079]

FP4 pairs really well with Ilfosol 3 which makes it a very cheap film to develop.

[@Adrian-wd4rn]

For your mamiya super 23, do you have the interchangable backs for shooting other formats? I want to 3D print mine since I cant' find any online, but I also don't know the dimensions of the mask so I can't make them, lol.

[@sifren2491]

I don't think the highlight bloom is because of the film, its just a really soft lens. It didn't show up on the MUP because the Sekor lenses are sharper.

[@NoviSavvy]

Type-42L review please. ISO 1250 and very flexible for pull and push. $38 per 100ft (approximately 18 rolls so ~$2 per roll) fresh from the factory. Nice grain and latitude

[@julianhernandez9504]

Cómo se puede revelar con el pq universal de Ilford, aparte de usar stock?

[@PolCornelis]

Could it be that the halo you got with the 35mm version and less with the 120 version is a result of your lenses?

[@AnalogResurgence]

I would assume so for some of the 35 shots. Definitely the 120 mamiya lends itself to a higher quality in comparison to the 35.

[@tomjanowski8584]

I definitely prefer FP4 over Kodak Tri-X or TMax and I like it better than Acros II.

[@fphedman]

Great video as usual 👌 do you get Fomapan over where you live?, I feel like this is a more refined version of Fomapan 100 classic.

[@AnalogResurgence]

Got some Fomapan in the fridge right now for the future!

[@nickfanzo]

Trent Parke turned me on to fp4.

[@robinj.9329]

I'm wondering if this film has been "reformulated"??? When I used to use oodles of this in the 1980's, we got CRISP, SHARP, fine grain images, that would knock your socks off! While your images today, don't even come close to the old pictures in my files. That blury, "fluffy" stuff your showing, would have never passed muster in our very demanding Studio!

[@AndresRuiz-gs8vm]

It would be nice if we could get the community together to push Kodak into releasing a slow speed cubic grain bnw film like how ilford has done with fp4... i often shoot Trix 400 at iso 200 or 100 just to get those tones but it's not the same. It also seems like there has been fair bit of slow speed bnw films released in the past few years, a Kodak one would definitely be berri niice!

[@Adrian-wd4rn]

Get Tmax 100....

[@krishartsphotography5643]

Nice & Thanks :)

[@scottraymond4801]

Those are some great 120 millimeter negatives!

[@scottraymond4801]

@@tomjanowski8584 yes, thank you, I know. I’m trolling Noah for saying ISO as an acronym instead of as a word.

[@AnalogResurgence]

I’ll go to the grave saying ISO that way. I’ve rarely ever encountered anyone pronouncing it as a word

[@scottraymond4801]

@@AnalogResurgence it seems to be a film photographer thing. A hold over from ASA days and prior to information being ubiquitous due to the internet. I come from an aerospace manufacturing background that adhered to ISO standards so the pronunciation wasn’t new to me. I will stop trolling and hope you realize it was all in good fun but here is a video explaining it in case you need more proof. Thanks for the content. I have learned so much and enjoy watching. 👍😊 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYiuoXeLaa6XY68

[@scottraymond4801]

@@tomjanowski8584 most film photographers say the letters. Most digital photographers say the word. You should watch the video I posted above. I started in digital and have found a love for analogue. I noticed people said it differently and did some digging.

[@scottraymond4801]

@@tomjanowski8584 well that’s the thing about generalizations and why I said most and not all without exception. Either way I was trying to go around it and be nice but plain and simple one is right and the other is not. If you want to keep saying it wrong go ahead. I was trying to get Noah to change because he mentioned in his last video that it bugs him when people say 120 mm because it’s not 120 mm. I thought maybe he’d like to know it’s pronounced “ice oh” because it’s not an acronym it’s the name of an organization that many people mispronounce.

[@ViaOjo]

Are you ok? Haven’t heard from you

[@btpuppy2]

Terrible results shooting it - so low contrast, might as well be a tintype! What is the best developer and time? I used Ilford HC

[@stefflus08]

Yeah, I liked the results I got in 135, but not enough to use it again. PanF and HP5 are much more fun to work with. In 4x5 it looks very nice though. And I disagree with calling it a low ISO film. 100-800 is fast in my book. 25 and 50 medium, 12 downwards slow, 1600 onwards very fast.

[@mamiyapress]

Daming a film with faint praise.

[@flavioserci6046]

I don't like it. Usually I develop my film in D76 stock. FP4 is creamy and without grain. I prefer a crispy image and in my opinion DELTA 100 is better.

[@pps67]

I tried FP4+ after a 20 year hiatus from film photography to use as a replacement for the discontinued plus X. I agree that FP4+ shines in medium format. l tried the film out with my Mamiya universal and Super 23 with 2 1/4x3 1/4 sheet film. Harsh lighting with 11 and 12 stop spread between shadow areas I wanted to retain some detail and high areas where I didn't want the negative to block up. Rodinal at 1:100 and 1:200 semi-stand development for 1 and 2 hours respectively. At 1:200 you get very high acuteness but very pronounced grain (not a big deal in medium format) 1:100 isn't as edgy but still gives a great compensating effect for high contrast scenes. Overall, I ended up liking FP4+ more than Plus-x, and I regret not finding out about FP4 back when I shot film regularly. fp4 at 1:200 flic.kr/p/2kShUSP FP 4 at 1:100 flic.kr/p/2kSQVuM Both shots with Mamiya Universal and 50mm lens, Graphmatic 6 shot film holder.