Nik Stanbridge

Analogue photography and printmaking

FP4 type 517 cine: Follow some simple rules to get the best results (and avoid airports)

Great results — if you follow the rules (and avoid airports)

I’ve written before about this film and I boldly said that I like it. I’ve now shot a few more rolls with it and have a few more thoughts and suggestions about getting the most from it.

I really wanted to love it. For several very sensible, very me reasons:

  • It’s a derivative of FP4, and FP4 is my go-to medium-speed stock
  • It’s cheap — currently £4 a roll
  • And it’s “made” (i.e., cut and rolled) by Analogue Cameras, who happen to be 15 minutes down the road from me in Oxfordshire

So I bought ten rolls late last year. Wintertime — HP5 season, obviously — so they sat around untouched until spring, when I packed a few for a short trip to Cannes.

Note: None of the photos in this article are very good because I didn’t know what the rules were.

Nasty vertical banding from underexposure. Unrecoverable. Dull photo too.

Now, I had done a bit of homework: read some reviews, had a chat with Dan at Analogue Cameras when I picked up the rolls. The general warning? Be careful about underexposure.

So I shot it at ISO 100, which felt safe. But I now realise I was far too casual about exposing for shadows — riding on the assumption that it would behave like regular FP4, with all its lovely forgiving latitude.

Reader: it did not.

So far, I’ve run seven rolls through my M3 with the Summaron 35/3.5, all developed in Rodinal. And here’s what I’ve learned: underexpose your shadows even a bit, and you’ll be rewarded with some wide, curved vertical banding that ruins the frame entirely. We’re talking ugly, unrecoverable stuff.

The apartment in Paris. Note the curved vertical bands that come from underexposure. And the fine horizontal lines from X-ray scanner exposure.

The good news? It’s entirely avoidable — if you treat this film with care. Which is to say: it’s not FP4. It just sort of looks like it.

But when it does work? It really sings. Rich tones, beautiful contrast, that classic grain. The blacks are deep, the whites are crisp, and the whole thing just feels cinematic — as you’d expect from “cine” film.

It’s everything I hoped for when I first fell for the idea of it.

And then I took it to Paris.

Big mistake. Huge.

Very prominent horizontal bands from X-ray scanner exposure. And some vertical underexposure banding. The window frame shadows would have been fine with regular FP4.

I shot two rolls there, and both came back with strange, narrow horizontal banding — linear and regular dark bands across every frame. It wasn’t subtle. It was catastrophic.

Marsden, West Yorkshire. Zingy contrast, sharp, properly exposed. The film at its very very best.

Now, let’s talk caveats, because I’ve done some detective work and there are a few possible culprits:

  • The Cannes rolls went through hand-luggage CAT scanners — once at Birmingham, once at Nice. I didn’t label which rolls went through what, which was… not clever.
  • The Paris rolls might’ve been part of the Cannes batch, so may have gone through scanners four times — including Eurostar scanners in London and Paris.
  • All scanning happened with the film tucked inside a Domke “lead-lined” bag (whatever that actually means), which I now know is probably as effective as wrapping your film in hopes and dreams.

Apparently, even with the bag, X-rays can cause those linear patterns. So I’ve binned the rest of the batch. I simply can’t tell what’s been zapped and what hasn’t — and I don’t want another Parisian heartbreak.

Tanker, northern Spain. Could be regular FP4. No issues whatsoever. Exposure is spot on and no X-ray banding. Obviously a roll that hasn’t been to Cannes or Paris.

Tips (aka lessons from the film wreckage):

  • Rate it at ISO 50, not 100
  • Meter carefully for shadows — like, really carefully
  • Avoid X-ray scanners at all costs
  • Don’t use it for once-in-a-lifetime trips, weddings, or anything you’d be sad to lose
  • Try Perceptol (Dan recommends it; I’ve just bought some to test against Rodinal)
  • Beware of light piping – load and unload the film in low light or, better still, darkness

So no, I haven’t binned it entirely — but I have adjusted my expectations.

Concrete in northern Spain. Not sure where that horizontal scratch came from. Ruins the photo – but at least it hasn’t been ruined by any sort of banding.

I won’t be flying with it again. That’s no tragedy — these days, most of my journeys roll on four wheels and end in a lay-by with a decent view. And next time I load a roll, I’ll know what I’m dealing with: a film that needs to be coaxed, not rushed. Wait for good light. Expose for shadows. Don’t assume it’s FP4 just because it says so on the tin.

It’s not a universal stock. It’s not one to throw in the camera and forget about. But give it the right conditions — time, care, a little patience — and it’ll reward you with images that feel pulled from another era.

Just… don’t expect it to meet you halfway. This film is very much on its own terms.

Give it a go. Just be careful.