Anyone using FX2 or TFX2 around here?

waynecrider · Feb 5, 2007

I was wondering what films you liked with these developers. So far I've shot only Tmax 100 and 400 souped in TFX2. The 100 negs look amazing, and good enough to stand on their own. The 400 looks way underexposed, although when scanned (waiting for neg carrier) had more detail then I thought. Next up is Delta 100 and 400.

reellis67 · Feb 5, 2007

I've not used them, but I just today got a shipment of chemicals so that I can mix up some FX-1 among other things. I'll let you know what the results look like (with Pan F+ and FP4+)

- Randy

fwp · Feb 5, 2007

waynecrider said:
I was wondering what films you liked with these developers. So far I've shot only Tmax 100 and 400 souped in TFX2. The 100 negs look amazing, and good enough to stand on their own. The 400 looks way underexposed, although when scanned (waiting for neg carrier) had more detail then I thought. Next up is Delta 100 and 400.

I've been using TFX2 for better then a year now. The film is Efke-25 and I use semi-stand development. I use the developer at 73F (in fall that's the coldest I can get the tap water down to). I start the timing when I start pouring the developer and mildly agitate until the pour time and aggitation time is one minute. I then mildly aggitate for 2-3 sec every three minutes.

pgomena · Feb 6, 2007

I've used TFX2 a couple of times now as an experiment, and I can say I'm amazed.

So far it's been Delta 100 and APX 100, both in 120. Once my darkroom is completed, I'm going to finally tune it in as one of my regular developers.

I've been using it at the standard dilution, agitating first minute, then every 3 minutes. Time for the APX is 20-25 minutes for a "normal" scene. Sharpness is hard to believe, and it doesn't block highlights, which I really like. It's great stuff. Seems to increase film speed some, but that not an objective assessment.

Peter Gomena

Wally H · Feb 6, 2007

I have used TFX2 / TMX for many years.

waynecrider · Feb 6, 2007

I'm looking to experiment with the 3 minute agitation routine as well as trying stand developing with the Tmax in 4x5. Right now I'm waiting on a bright sunny day so I can gauge highlight compensation.

Ole · Feb 6, 2007

Apx100, FP4+, HP5+ and Efke R25, R50 and PL100 so far. Great developer.
With stand development you can even run all those films together in one go.

MMfoto · Feb 6, 2007

waynecrider said:
The 400 looks way underexposed

I had a similar experience when I first tried TFX-2. Using the supplied development times (long!). Slow films worked fine, but the roll of TX 400 was very thin. I assumed it was me, and it may well have been, but I wondered if it may work best with slow films. Not sure.

reellis67 · Feb 7, 2007

I was searching for FX-1 info just now and ran into this thread which has some relevant info on your question

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

- Randy

Keith Tapscott. · Feb 7, 2007

Isn`t TFX-2 the FX-2 formula with the Potassium Carbonate replaced with x1.5 it`s weight with Sodium Metaborate?

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 7, 2007

Keith Tapscott. said:
Isn`t TFX-2 the FX-2 formula with the Potassium Carbonate replaced with x1.5 it`s weight with Sodium Metaborate?

AFIK it is Goeffrey Crawley's FX-2 formula with no Pinacryptol Yellow.

Dave Krueger · Feb 7, 2007

Used it with Pan F+ 35mm

I shot some Ilford Pan F under intentionally contrasty studio lighting and was pleased with it, but will be repeating the experiment at more optimal apertures. I was stopped down to f22 for max depth of field which does not yield the best perfformance of the lens I was using.

In any case, the negatives looked good and seemed to give a slight increase over box speed (I shot the roll at AI 64). The tonal quality was good, though not remarkably better than what I get from other developers. I agitated every third minute, but I don't have my notes in front of me so can't tell you what the development time was for sure. I think itwas 27 minutes at 69F. I will be trying more of it to see if there's a reason for continued use.

-Dave

DJGainer · Feb 7, 2007

Tom Hoskinson said:
AFIK it is Goeffrey Crawley's FX-2 formula with no Pinacryptol Yellow.

That is what I understood from the Film Developing Cookbook. I think the T indicates the developer has been modified to better suit Tabular grain films. If I recall correctly the Pinacryptol Yellow was causing problems with the sensitizing dyes found in T-grain films.

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 7, 2007

DJGainer said:
That is what I understood from the Film Developing Cookbook. I think the T indicates the developer has been modified to better suit Tabular grain films. If I recall correctly the Pinacryptol Yellow was causing problems with the sensitizing dyes found in T-grain films.

I have always assumed that the "T" in TFX-2 meant Troop (as in Bill Troop's modification of FX-2).

My own Test results (and the results reported by many others) confirm to me that Crawley's FX-2 without the Pinacryptol works very well with tabular grain films.

DJGainer · Feb 7, 2007

Tom Hoskinson said:
I have always assumed that the "T" in TFX-2 meant Troop (as in Bill Troop's modification of FX-2).

My own Test results (and the results reported by many others) confirm to me that Crawley's FX-2 without the Pinacryptol works very well with tabular grain films.

Have you noted any difference in results from using FX-2 v. TFX-2? I have been interested in this developer and was planning on running my own test when I run out of my current supply of HC-110.

waynecrider · Feb 7, 2007

MMfoto said:
I had a similar experience when I first tried TFX-2. Using the supplied development times (long!). Slow films worked fine, but the roll of TX 400 was very thin. I assumed it was me, and it may well have been, but I wondered if it may work best with slow films. Not sure.

It's noted in the Cookbook that it's suppose to work better with slow traditional films under 200ISO but Crawley apparently also wrote that both FX2 and TFX2 are popular with tabular grain films. Apparently from the threads above TFX2 is the better choice. Crawley also came up with FX37, a developer optimized for tabular films.

I think that Tmax 400 should be overexposed at least a stop if not possibly two. At two stops one may as well shoot the 100 speed version. I did tho get more detail then I thought I would get and I suspect that if one is using a condenser enlarger then perhaps a 1 stop overexposure might do the trick. Unfortunately box speed looks to be out of the question. Perhaps FX37 would be the developer to use?

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 7, 2007

I have not compared FX-2 with TFX-2.

I mix my own FX-2 without adding pinacryptol yellow and it has worked very well for me with Kodak TMX and Kodak TMY.
It also worked very well for me with Ilford's Delta Films. I have not tried it yet with Fuji Acros.

MMfoto · Feb 8, 2007

I put a roll of Acros through TFX-2 using half the normal dilution and semi stand for 90 min. I havn't printed yet, but contrast came out just right and the negs are visually extremely sharp. The few frames with people in them look unpleasantly sharp, but I'm excited to print the film.

DJGainer · Feb 8, 2007

waynecrider said:
It's noted in the Cookbook Crawley apparently also wrote that both FX2 and TFX2 are popular with tabular grain films.

I checked the Cookbook last night because after I read Tom's response, I thought I had somehow made it up in my mind that TFX2 was preferred for T-grain. Turns out in the Cookbook it is mentioned that Crawley indicated the TFX2 was indeed preferable for the T-grain films, but never explains why...

In light of the comments here, it seems like the difference in formulae is of little consequence...

waynecrider · Feb 8, 2007

Tom Hoskinson said:
I have not compared FX-2 with TFX-2.

I mix my own FX-2 without adding pinacryptol yellow and it has worked very well for me with Kodak TMX and Kodak TMY.
It also worked very well for me with Ilford's Delta Films. I have not tried it yet with Fuji Acros.

Tom, any remarks on Delta films with this developer compared to Kodak's? What speeds were you using?

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 8, 2007

Wayne, IMO you need to determine your own EIs based on your own exposure and development techniques and procedures.

Both the TMAX and Delta films are capable of producing excellent tonality, different developers do produce different results.

My EI Ratings:
I rate Delta 100 at EI 100 and I rate Delta 400 at EI 400.

I rate TMax 400 at EI 320. I rate TMax 100 at EI 63.

Personally, with both TMAX and Delta films, I prefer the tonal results I get with Pyrocat-MC. The Pyrocat-MC stain clamps the highlights.

Anyone using FX2 or TFX2 around here?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency