Ilford FP4 - I want to like it … but I’m not sure I do?
The film, the box it came in, and the camera I shot it with.
My experience with Ilford FP4 has mostly been a story of failure. I had shot a few rolls years ago when I was coming to terms with film in general. Due to the combination of my relative inexperience with shooting, developing, and scanning film, nothing particularly inspiring ever came from them. Despite that I still had it stuck in my head that I would like FP4. It’s an old school emulsion, it’s fine grain and has a bit character. I’ve always had good results from it’s faster sibling HP5+, but when armed with plenty of daylight and shooting landscapes I’d generally prefer a little less grain.
With a few more years of film shooting under my belt, and a much more refined developing and scanning technique, I decided to load a roll in my Minolta XE-7 for a Christmas trip back home. It was my grandpa’s old camera, and I figured a family trip should be a shot on a family camera.
Scenic winter drive through the mountains and prairies seemed like the perfect chance to let the film shine. It delivered ... exactly one keeper.
The keeper ... Skaters on Lake Louise.
To be fair it was a solid keeper. It’s one of my favourites from the year and currently printed and hanging by front door. That’s the extent of my success though. Annoyingly, some combination of either a half century old shutter curtain or a tired battery did not cooperate with -20C. Most of the shots turned out with varying amounts solid black from the shutter partially sticking open.
Cliche mirror looking back shot. Another survivor from that roll presumably because it was from the warmth and comfort of a VW passenger seat.
Equally annoying was the user error setting the ISO dial. The XE-7 has a small white dot indicating the selected speed and a small silver lock button slightly offset from that. Hastily loading the roll while packing I managed to align my desired 125 ISO with the lock button, accidentally selecting 640 ISO instead and effectively pushing the whole roll two and a bit stops. I didn’t notice while I was shooting the outdoor stuff, thinking “whatever ... it’s bright out, fast shutter makes sense” and it wasn’t until some indoor family shots where I clued in that F8 on 125 ISO didn’t quite add up. Knowing the pretty mountain shots were all at 640 ISO I decided to stick with it for the whole roll and approximate a 2 ¼ stop push in development.
That Lake Louise shot stuck with me though. If FP4 could pull that off with a pretty big push and a questionable shutter, imagine what it could do under more ideal circumstances! That opportunity came a few weeks ago. Wanting a break from digital after a few months playing with the shiny new XT4 I decided to load a roll of FP4 in the Minolta SRT201 and take it on an overnight backpacking trip to Twin Lakes. Supposed to be just a relaxing down weekend with a few km hike in, campfire and a couple beers, but of course we managed to tack on an extra 12km of peak scrambling and ridge hiking. Apparently sitting still is hard.
Roll shot and parked in the wine fridge (currently occupied by more film than wine) I managed to get to development a week later. Record time! Usually it’s weeks to months! I wasn’t taking any chances on this one and mixed up a fresh batch of EcoPro developer and some fresh fixer.
Developed in EcoPro 1+1 dilution, timed according to Massive Dev Chart. Negatives came out nice and dense as per my tendency to expose for the shadows and let the dynamic range sort out the rest. Scanned on an XT4 with an adapted old Minolta 50mm macro with an extension tube, edited in Lightroom Classic with Negative Lab Pro. So with fresh chemistry, a bomber mechanical camera, beautiful scenery and an apparent lack of user error, what could possibly go wrong?
Nothing! Nothing went wrong! I succeeded in shooting a roll of FP4. That shouldn’t feel like such an achievement but it was quite the journey getting there, though after all that though I can’t help but feel a little underwhelmed.
I find the contrast to be a bit lacking, which isn’t inherently bad. Probably nice for skin tones in portraits, but not so much for my landscape needs or personal preferences. The linear tones can be preferable as they allow for more flexibility in post, and I did get the images more or less how I like them, but I’d rather the film just better match my desired outcome in the first place. I also find there’s something to the tones that give it a yesteryear feel, which makes sense given that it’s an old school emulsion.
Dynamic range is one aspect that it excels at. Very little in the way of crushed shadows and blown highlights despite using the Minolta SRT 201's slightly questionable built in meter and my even more questionable situational judgment.
The grain is quite fine, but I found the grain along with the details in the images were quite soft across all the shots. A quick glance back in time showed a similar softness in the first rolls of FP4 I shot years ago. I suspect this is the result of the film/developer combination as I’ve had much sharper results from the same lenses and process with different films.
With all that said, I think FP4 has a lot of desirable qualities and with the appropriate subject, workflow and preferences I’m sure it could produce some amazing results. Personally I don’t think I’ll be getting or shooting with it anymore. I’ve realized that the appeal of the Lake Louise shot likely came from the fairly big push which makes it a bit grainier with more contrast. Or in other words, more like HP5 shot at 800, which is my go to for black and white.
That’s just me though. There’s nothing inherently wrong with FP4, and it’s entirely up to preference. FP4 might be exactly what you’re after. If you haven’t shot a roll or two before I recommend giving it a try. I hope it takes you less than the two years it took me to come to a decision as to whether or not it belongs in the fridge! For now the quest for my go to slow landscape film continues.