I recently shot a roll of Ilford FP4+, 125 iso, bulk loaded film and had the roll processed at a local lab. I have never had problems with previous rolls of b&w film until this time. When I got my prints back, I was upset to find that not a single print turned out. Normally, I will have some under and over-exposed prints, as that would be my own fault as a photographer. But generally, I get a good handful of great shots, where I would then make more prints from myself.

Could this have been an error on the lab's part, or mine, or could the film have been exposed to light when it was loaded into the film canister? I shot both indoor and outdoor (snow) shots and nothing turned out. Photos were not even sharp. I was not doing anything different than normal. Should I just write this off as a learning experience and keep at it?

Thanks, - M

-- mli (mli_wpg@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002

Answers

Sounds like it could be the processing. Maybe your lab hired someone new... it's strange the photos weren't sharp. In any case, ask for your money back (respectfully).

Cheerio

-- floren (flcpge@yahoo.com), March 27, 2002.

What do the negatives look like?

-- Joe Miller (jmmiller@poka.com), March 27, 2002.

I looked at the negs, and sure, there were some underexposed shots, and some that I thought were exposed normally, and could have yielded a decent print. It's hard to say... I was in a hurry and now I wished I went through them while in the store. But I think I will definitely take them back to the store and have them look at them.

It was the first time I've used FP4+ and I'm not familiar with its reputation as a B&W film, but I was really disappointed with my results. My experience with Ilford HP5+ and TMAX films have been good in the past.

M

-- mli (mli_wg@hotmail.com), March 27, 2002.

If the film was processed at a custom lab, take it back and ask them what the problem is. Or you could find a knowledgeable person to look at them. It is difficult to diagnose the problem without seeing the negatives and prints.

If you took it to an automated lab (using an automated processing machine) I doubt if you will get decent results unless you stick with a C-41 process film such as Ilford XP2.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), March 27, 2002.

In the "Film Developing Cookbook" (Focal Press 1998), Anchell and Troop describe FP4+ as "another favorite of ours...an excellent film to use as a standard for measuring the qualities of other films." (page 14).

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), March 27, 2002.

It does not seem like anyone has really addressed your question properly.

The first thing to look at is the sprocket area of your film. Is this area nice and clear? Are the film edge markings sharp? Are they easily readable? If so, your film was not improperly exposed to light during loading or processing.

Also looking at the negatives: Do the negatives matching the the unsharp prints look sharper than the prints themselves? Or the same? I don't remember ever receiving a print that the lab did not print sharply. But, I would not rule it out.

Who bulk loaded the film? Are they reliable? Have you used them before? Have shot other film in the same camera with the same lens since shooting this role?

Everyone wants to jump up and blame the lab. Much more often then not, it is the photographer fault. (This includes me, by the way!)

-- Ed Farmer (photography2k@hotmail.com), March 29, 2002.

Just because we suggest the film and prints be taken back to lab to have them look at it, doesn't mean we are blaming the lab. But maybe they can explain what the problem is. It's very difficult to diagnose the problem without looking at negatives and prints.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), March 30, 2002.

Sounds to me the film was loaded the wrong side to the camera lens. From your description the images are unsharp etc, it seems you exposed through the antihalation backing. This is just a guess since your description is unclear.

-- Jorge Gasteazoro (rossorabbit@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002.

Michael,

You're right. Your response was the most helpful of the lot. But, depending on the lab, they may be very defensive. They will blame everything but the processing for any problem. A local lab once told a friend of mine the her Nikon only took 3 1/2 x 5 photos, not 4x6! You need to go in armed with some information.

-- Ed Farmer (photography2k@hotmail.com), March 30, 2002.

Jorge's is correct if the images appear upside-down or backwards when the frame numbers are right side up.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), March 31, 2002.

Thanks for all your contributions and suggestions. I don't have the negatives in front of me but will check everything when I get home. As for the bulk-loaded film, it was the first time I used FP4+, but not the first time I've used bulk loaded film. The individual who sold it to me, also sold me a roll of HP5+, which turned out very well for me.

I'll admit I think the results are partly due to my own inexperience as a new photographer. FP4+ is 125 iso, and I was using it for indoor basketball shots, dogs in the backyard, and indoor shots of a statue. I don't think this film was fast enough for the shots I wanted, and I'm not experienced enough at this time to make it work for those kind of shots. I always use my 50 mm lens, as that is the only lens I own at this time. It has always given tack sharp photos. I take this experience as one of many that will happen as i continue to learn the art of photography.

Thanks again. Your comments were greatly appreciated!

-- mli (mli_wpg@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

If you have an auto-exposure camera, a slower film may cause the camera to select a wider aperture, which decreases the depth of field (the distance within the scene that will be in focus). Try using FP4+ outdoors and see if you like the results. You should get finer grain and improved resolution than HP5+.

-- Michael Feldman (mfeldman@qwest.net), April 01, 2002.