Is Ilford's FP4 4x5 Film for Me? Black and White Large Format Landscape Photography. 

Thanks John, I’m still getting the development dialed in but what I’ve seen from FP4+ so far I’m liking a lot, thanks for stopping by the channel and leaving a comment!

Thank you Russell, I first one is the one I like most as well.

Thanks Brett, now I’ve finally got my development dialed in I can go out and have more fun with the camera. :)

@@DavidPattonPhotography It is nice to have the process out of the way so you can get on with the creative part.

Thank you

Thank you, I’ve been pretty impressed with FP4 so far, I could see it becoming my favorite as well.

Lol, yes Ricardo, I was relieved to be finally finished filming that segment and could get to some photography, not to mention I had to cover that rock scrambling a couple times to film it myself. The thought that I might be to unfit or just plain old for some or this did cross my mind more than a few times during the making of this video. :)

Thanks for sharing Neil

Thank you Christine

Well I don't have a darkroom or an enlarger that will handle 4x5, I've been scanning film for many years and I can say I've printed pretty large, maybe 30 inches with no evidence of grain or noise so I'm very happy with my results and workflow for now.

Thank you Robert, the large negatives are a joy to work with!

Thanks Martin, that FP4+ is sure tasty, I can see how it can be addictive lol, looking forward to shooting some more sheets.

Thank you Philip

Thank you Bill, I did stare at the steep, slippery hillside going down to the stream for a good while before heading down, who says wisdom comes with age Lol I probably should have passed on that last composition, what’s really dumb is I had to walk each section a couple times so I could film it, going back for the camera is often the hardest part! Again not that smart! :)

@@DavidPattonPhotography But, you made it!! 😎

My go to b&w films has been T-max 100 and Delta 100 in medium format and have liked what I was getting out of those films. Now that I’m back to shooting large format, I thought I would give FP4 a try and I’m finding that because the negative is so much larger that sharpness isn’t really an issue for me, I find FP4 to be plenty sharp and the grain fine enough for the type of photography I do.

@@DavidPattonPhotography FX39 developer is the best acutance developer on the market and delivers optimum results. Here's a link to a fair review and handling, with photos. www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index.php/2020/12/22/developer-review-blog-no-12-adox-fx-39-ii/

Thanks for the link, I will have a look.

Thanks Paul, I’ve always used Kodak black and white films until a couple years ago when I gave Ilford films a try, I’ve been really enjoying what they have to offer.

Thanks Chris, when shooting 4x5 film, a high percentage of the time I will use an incident meter to measure the light falling on the subject or scene, if I can’t get into the same light then I will go ahead and use a spot meter reading. I used to have a Pentax 645 medium format camera that I didn’t like the built in meter much, so I used a handheld incident meter, after awhile I upgraded to a new model, the Pentax 645n, and found the built in meter to be pretty reliable so I rarely used the incident meter but kept in my bag just in case. Now I’m back to using a camera that needs me to use an external meter, so now I’m back to the incident meter, I find that measuring the light falling on the scene is the most accurate way for me to work. It’s really just personal preference, the best way to meter is the way that gets you the results you are looking for. :) I recently addressed this topic in a video, here is a link if you are interested ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-IA3HGZeVJE4.html

Thanks Randy, actually, I always do my film photography with a incident meter, I have found I get a more accurate exposure reading the light hitting the subject or scene than trying to interpret the light reflecting off the subject or scene, well, as long as I can be in the same light the subject is in :) I do carry a small camera with a spot meter for those rare occasions I can’t be in the same light. I’m not sure why more photographers aren’t using incident meters, I once watched a photographer take a number of spot meter readings and average them together for his exposure calculations then walk up to the subject and take a incident reading to check to see if his calculations were right, I’m not sure why he didn’t just use the incident meter in the first place. Lol

Well FP4+ does have an interesting tone about it but there’s nothing wrong with Delta 100, or Tmax 100 for that matter, Lol so many choices, it might be worth a try though, you might like it and it’s also a little bit more affordable. :)

Thank you George, it’s great to make your acquaintance and welcome to the channel. I agree, the light that falls on the subject is the light and once you know your film of choice, you know how it will react to different lighting situations. I’ve found the negative films I use are pretty forgiving with lots of latitude so I find it’s pretty hard to mess it up, when I was using transparency film.... well that’s a different animal that could bite you if you where off with the exposure just a bit, even so I’d still rather measure the light falling on the scene. Have a great weekend George!

Thanks Stuart, when I can afford it a 100 sheet pack is the way to go, right now I’m still trying to fill out my 4x5 kit, need to add a fresnel lens to my ground glass, the wide lens is a pain to compose, also need a focusing cloth and a short telephoto would be nice so I maybe stuck buying the 25 packs for awhile. Interesting you would ask about high speed film, a topic I’ve given much thought but my answer might disappoint. :) The only time I’ve ever used any film faster than iso100 is when I was using film for journalism and tmax 400 was my everyday film, I’ve tried tmax 3200 but found I could push tmax 400 to 1600 with acceptable results so that’s what I generally did. I would also consider 400 speed a good choice for portrait work with a medium format camera. Now for landscape, I’ve always considered anything faster than iso100 a compromise, if the conditions wouldn’t allow me to make a photo, then I wouldn’t make a photo and try again at a time when the conditions allowed. The way I look at it, the reason I’m using large format in the first place is I want the best possible image quality I can theoretically get, if I’m going to do something that I view as a compromise, I might as well just make the shot with my digital camera, which arguably handles faster speeds better than film anyway at this point, that is the plan, if I expect dodgy conditions I will make sure I bring along a basic digital kit as well. Thanks for the question Stuart, I might address that topic in a future video, of course I could always change my mind about my approach to film speed, I’ve been known to do that from time to time. :)

@@DavidPattonPhotography Great response. Good thoughts on >100 ISO. If you’re still up to trying other 4x5 film stocks, consider Ortho 80 for the right scene. Yellow filters can bring out the clouds by holding back the blue light.

Thanks for the heads up on the film, sounds interesting, might be fun to give it a try.

Thanks Jim, yes I’m still using FP4+, I don’t know how it compares to TriX party because contrast can be a product of how a films been exposed and how it’s been developed, so the contrast can vary, it’s been many years since I’ve used TriX but in my case it did seem pretty contrasty, even more so if pushed a stop. FP4 doesn’t seem overly contrasty to me and actually I prefer working with a less contrasty negative, since I do the scanning of my film, I find that contrast is one of the easiest elements to add when editing the file, so I like to start with a pretty flat scan, making sure to not clip the highlights and retain some detail in the dark areas, then when editing, I add the contrast to taste. oh, and I think you are right about FP4 being cheaper, which is also a big plus to me anyway :)

@@DavidPattonPhotography Thanks for such a considered reply. I’m looking to do platinum and palladium printing and think higher contrast would be helpful. I used to use Agfapan developed in Rodinal but that’s no longer an option.

ok, now I see what you are getting at Jim, you might want to give FP4 a try, it seems to me to have a bit of a punch, I certainly wouldn't say its lacking in contrast, also pushing it a stop might get the contrast you are looking for, you could also filter your shots, maybe a orange or red filter. I haven't had experience with platinum and palladium printing myself but I don't think it would be to hard to get more contrast out of FP4. Good luck Jim, I hope you come up with some excellent prints!

@@DavidPattonPhotography Thanks again. It’s a fun process and contact printing opens the door to using vintage glass.

Yes, that is Oregon, at McDowell Creek Falls County Park, in Linn County between Lebanon and Sweet Home, the first falls is Majestic Falls.

@@DavidPattonPhotography thank you sir