Similarity between FX-39 and Ilfosol 3?

[Steven Lee]

I've been meaning to try FX-39 ever since ADOX re-introduced it to the market, but I've been unlucky with timing and its availability in the US. Meanwhile, I have discovered Ilfosol 3 last year and have been quite impressed with it. I am seeing Rodinal-like sharpness, tight grain and no loss of film speed as far as I can tell. (waiting for @aparat to eventually get to it though Basically, similar benefits to what team ADOX has shared about FX-39II here.

Last night I've done some reading on various forums (too many old messages and threads to link to here) that suggest that both Ilfosol 3 and FX-39II are non-solvent PQ developers, both recommend 1+9 or 1+14 dilutions, and FX-39 also couldn't brag about its shelf life prior to the recent reformulation. They both are sold in 500ml bottles, which is somewhat unusual.

Which begs the question: can this be the exact same or similar formula? What if I've already been using the Ilford's variant of FX-39?

[EDIT] Their MSDS sheets aren't the same, but I am no chemist and can't compare the ingredients, I only see hydroquinone to be listed in both.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You also have FX-37, which Crawley said was the closest home-brew he concocted to FX-39. Yes, I did use one bottle of the new FX-39II and think Ilfolsol 3 is just as good. I have made FX-37 and used it some years ago, but as of late it's just been Xtol-R and Pyrocat-HDC. That said, I think FX-37 is well worth the try. It might just be what you're looking for, Steven, and you can make it yourself.

 

[markjwyatt]

Here is a conversation about ADOX FX-39 II. I have used it quite a bit the last few years and like it. I have not used Ilfosol 3.

FX-39 back to stay!

Mark, ADOX FX39-II and Kodak T-Max developer are very different: FX39-II is designed for - having very good sharpness / acutance - having semi-compensating or compensating capability (strength is dependent on film and developer dilution) - being very versatile and flexible in working with...

www.photrio.com

See posts 51-53

 

[Steven Lee]

@markjwyatt yes, that the thread that spurred my fascination with FX-39 and began my quest for Rodinal alternatives in general.

 

[otto.f]

I’m a great fan of FX39ii and the few times that I used Ilfosol I found it it a lousy developer

 

[Alan Johnson]

From a quick look at the msds of each , both contain HQ , FX-39 uses metol , Ilfosol-3 uses dimezone-s and an antifoggant.The source of sulfite in FX-39 is not given, diethylene glycol is probably to minimise freezing.

 

[foc]

I have never used FX-39 ll but have used Ilfosol 3, commercially, for many years.
I have always been happy with Ilfosol 3, more importantly, my customers were happy with it and it does have a good shelf life, if stored correctly.

 

[john_s]

From a quick look at the msds of each , both contain HQ , FX-39 uses metol , Ilfosol-3 uses dimezone-s and an antifoggant.The source of sulfite in FX-39 is not given, diethylene glycol is probably to minimise freezing.

I was surprised to read that FX-39 contains metol (as shown in the ADOX MSDS). I had been under the impression that FX-39 was an incremental advance on FX-37 which contains phenidone, which I assumed was responsible for its ability to enhance film speed.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I think all three (FX-39 II, FX-37 and Ilfolsol 3) developers are excellent. It's just a matter of which one suits your needs. I do know from experience that FX-37 is excellent with Delta 100. FX39 II is also very good. I have used both with Delta 100. Even if they use different main developers, the results are more alike than different.

 

[relistan]

I have not used Ilfosol 3 but found FX-39 II quite underwhelming on several rolls of Delta 100—which it is supposed to be good for. The rest of the bottle went bad because I never used it again. But this is why it's great that there are such a selection of B&W developers to choose from!

 

[David R Williams]

I haven't used Ilfosol, but as an acutance developer, FX39-II and TMX are a superb combination - very good tonality and significantly higher sharpness and acutance than with XTol, D76, ID11 or other fine-grain developers unless they're highly diluted.

In my experience D100 doesn't significantly change its image structure or character in differing developers, and is crisp enough to start with that it doesn't show much change in sharpness with FX39, but TMX sure does.

 

[markjwyatt]

I have not used Ilfosol 3 but found FX-39 II quite underwhelming on several rolls of Delta 100—which it is supposed to be good for. The rest of the bottle went bad because I never used it again. But this is why it's great that there are such a selection of B&W developers to choose from!

Do you mean these shots?

Flickr Search — “Delta AND FX-39 NOT XTOL”

flickr.com

I note that these were from 2017 and you say FX-39. Is that the original? Plus the film sat exposed/undeveloped for ~7 years.

I shot some Delta 100 recently and developed in ADOX FX-39 II. Most of my lighting was more contrasty, plus I developed the film within a couple weeks of exposure. I was happy overall; though I usually use FX-39 II for ADOX CHS 100 II (like you said, it is supposed to be good for more modern tabular grain type films, so I thought I would try it also).

Flickr Search — “Delta and FX-39”

flickr.com

 

[relistan]

Do you mean these shots?

Flickr Search — “Delta AND FX-39 NOT XTOL”

flickr.com

I note that these were from 2017 and you say FX-39. Is that the original? Plus the film sat exposed/undeveloped for ~7 years.

I shot some Delta 100 recently and developed in ADOX FX-39 II. Most of my lighting was more contrasty, plus I developed the film within a couple weeks of exposure. I was happy overall; though I usually use FX-39 II for ADOX CHS 100 II (like you said, it is supposed to be good for more modern tabular grain type films, so I thought I would try it also).

Flickr Search — “Delta and FX-39”

flickr.com

Yes and a few others. I thought the ADOX version was always the II version. But in any case I wouldn’t put any stock in the age of the undeveloped negatives, that film has done fine in XTOL over some years. I had a huge backlog to clear back then.

Other people should enjoy it if they like it. Was just saying that for myself I was not a fan.

 

[dokko]

I haven't used Ilfosol, but as an acutance developer, FX39-II and TMX are a superb combination - very good tonality and significantly higher sharpness and acutance than with XTol, D76, ID11 or other fine-grain developers unless they're highly diluted.

In my experience D100 doesn't significantly change its image structure or character in differing developers, and is crisp enough to start with that it doesn't show much change in sharpness with FX39, but TMX sure does.

I very much agree with David on the combination of TMX with FX39-II being an excellent match. I just ran a test between TMX in XT-3 (Adox version of XTOL) diluted 1+2 and FX39-II diluted 1+14 and the later shows significant higher sharpness and detail.

XT-3 has finer grain and a tiny bit more shadow detail, but looks soft in comparison.

I'll post some scans at 11'000 ppi and will also run the same test on Delta 100.

 

[pentaxuser]

I've been meaning to try FX-39 ever since ADOX re-introduced it to the market, but I've been unlucky with timing and its availability in the US. Meanwhile, I have discovered Ilfosol 3 last year and have been quite impressed with it. I am seeing Rodinal-like sharpness, tight grain and no loss of film speed as far as I can tell

Ilfosol sounds like the "wonder " developer but surely something out of the sharpness, tight grain and film speed has to suffer, doesn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[Steven Lee]

@pentaxuser I only used one bottle of Ilfosol 3. My impression was that it delivered Rodinal-ish fine & tight grain but without the loss of speed. My typical Rodinal dilution is 1+50. But I rarely shoot ISO 100 films in 35mm, so Rodinal makes more sense to me because it keeps forever.

 

[pentaxuser]

@pentaxuser I only used one bottle of Ilfosol 3. My impression was that it delivered Rodinal-ish fine & tight grain but without the loss of speed. My typical Rodinal dilution is 1+50. But I rarely shoot ISO 100 films in 35mm, so Rodinal makes more sense to me because it keeps forever.

Thanks for the reply. That is what I like about Rodinal as well - its keeping quality and economy. There may even be a way to retain its sharpness or most of it and improve its grain but that belongs to another thread

pentaxuser

 

[dokko]

I very much agree with David on the combination of TMX with FX39-II being an excellent match. I just ran a test between TMX in XT-3 (Adox version of XTOL) diluted 1+2 and FX39-II diluted 1+14 and the later shows significant higher sharpness and detail.

XT-3 has finer grain and a tiny bit more shadow detail, but looks soft in comparison.

I'll post some scans at 11'000 ppi and will also run the same test on Delta 100.

Processed the same shot on Delta 100 today in Adox XT-3 1+2, Adox FX39II 1+14 and Spur HRX 1+20. The results were quite surprising:

XT-3 and HRX both show virtually identical sharpness, detail and fine grain. the only difference is that HRX has slightly less shadow detail.

FX39II is quite a bit grainier and has less sharpness and detail. It also has less shadow detail (and a lot more grain in the shadows then XT-3)

this is quite different than TMX, which as mentioned showed more detail and sharpness in FX39II than in XT-3.

I also wanted to test TMX in Spur HRX but unluckily I didn't have enough film of the same scene for a third developer, so I'll have to reshoot.

I'll try to find the time to post a detailed write up with grain texture samples, but it will be a while.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Ilfosol-3 is an all round excellent developer. I've never used FX-39 but would be curious to see side by side comparisons...

 

[blee1996]

I have been trying Adox FX-39 II recently, based on recommendations from a photo.net member. 1+19 dilution, 8 min at 68F, gentle 10s agitation per minute. My previous developer was Clayton F76+, 1+9, which is generic and versatile.

With Arista EDU 400 and Arista EDU 100, the negatives look a bit thin. But it does scan nicely, and you can get good tonality and dynamic range in post processing.

With Kentmere 100, the negatives have full range and good contrast. They scan well and there are less adjustment needed in post processing.

I look forward to trying out TMX 100 (based on @David R Williams and @dokko comments), Delta 100, and Pan F+ in FX-39II.

 

[removedacct3]

I look forward to trying out TMX 100 (based on @David R Williams and @dokko comments), Delta 100, and Pan F+ in FX-39II.

Please report back what results you got using FX-39 II with Pan F+. Very curious to know how that combo pans out.

 

[otto.f]

Please report back what results you got using FX-39 II with Pan F+. Very curious to know how that combo pans out.

I tried that and it’s definitely not my way to go. At the moment I prefer Rodinal, because with this low ISO the grain is still sympathetic and not that muddy as it can become with a 400 film in 35mm. Pan F+ as such can use a bit more bite and Rodinal delivers that

 

[blee1996]

One of the main reasons for trying out FX-39 II is to tame high contrast, which is often the case in California daytime photography. Pan F+ 50 with Rodinal 1+50 produce very fine grain and lots of sharpness, but can be a bit too contrasty in bright California sunlit scenes. So the idea is that we get a flatter negative that preserve/compress as much dynamic range as possible, and then do the artistic manipulations in post-processing.

If I take photos in rainy, misty, or shaded areas, I would probably not use FX-39 II.

 

[otto.f]

One of the main reasons for trying out FX-39 II is to tame high contrast, which is often the case in California daytime photography. Pan F+ 50 with Rodinal 1+50 produce very fine grain and lots of sharpness, but can be a bit too contrasty in bright California sunlit scenes. So the idea is that we get a flatter negative that preserve/compress as much dynamic range as possible, and then do the artistic manipulations in post-processing.

If I take photos in rainy, misty, or shaded areas, I would probably not use FX-39 II.

I can imagine. This is nice work which emphasizes Californian light and certainly not doable with Rodinal:

 

[miha]

With Arista EDU 400 and Arista EDU 100, the negatives look a bit thin. But it does scan nicely, and you can get good tonality and dynamic range in post processing.

Shot at box speed? Thanks.