Busch 45, check, 150 Nikkor lens, check, Delta 100 in fx39?

[harlequin]

Hello Tteam,

Got my 4x5 working again, have box of Ilford Delta 100 4x5 film and was wondering if results are pleasing and acceptable in fx39, I do like the fact you can get full emulsion speed.
Anyone use this combination, pros cons, sample images all appreciated!

Cheers!

Harlequin

 

[Alan9940]

FX-39 is a really nice developer...can't remember if I ever used it on Delta 100. Only thing I don't like about it is its short shelf life, once opened.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It's one of the best developers I've used.
Full speed, and IMO a type of tone that's amazing: clean and balanced.
D100 in FX-39 is a recommended pairing long ago. Very sharp too.
Lots of wrong times on the web for FX-39, just in case.
Once opened, as Alan said, you can place it in small amber glass bottles.
1+9, 1+12 and 1+14 work well. For better ISO400 grain control, I set my own times for 1+7.
TMX and TMY are great in FX-39 too.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I do like the fact you can get full emulsion speed.

What I like the most with FX-39 is how it retains wonderful tone in overcast light at high EIs. I bet you can get tone you like very much even at 200.
I use TMY at 1000 with my Hasselblad and it doesn't look pushed.

 

[relistan]

It’s a compensating developer so flat scenes look very, very flat. It’s an acutance developer so grain is sharp. In 4x5 that should be fine. I used it on several rolls of Delta 100 35mm and was not impressed. Other people seem to love it so YMMV. I vastly prefer XTOL. Especially for Delta 100. Here are some of the better examples I had. Delta 100 in FX-39. Leica M2 with Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.5/35mm.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It’s a compensating developer so flat scenes look very, very flat.

Hello relistan,
FX-39 was not designed for compensation.
It has zero compensation at the recommended dilution of 1+9.
Obviously any developer exhausts easily if higher dilutions are used.
Indeed, it's a strong, powerful developer that produces intense contrast for soft light scenes.
Dilutions like 1+14 and slower working ones can be used to tame high contrast scenes.

 

[relistan]

Hello relistan,
FX-39 was not designed for compensation.
It has zero compensation at the recommended dilution of 1+9.
Obviously any developer exhausts easily if higher dilutions are used.
Indeed, it's a strong, powerful developer that produces intense contrast for soft light scenes.
Dilutions like 1+14 and slower working ones can be used to tame high contrast scenes.

Hi Juan, in my experience it is a compensating developer, and well, according to ADOX, who currently produce it, It's a compensating developer by design."FX-39 is a compensating developer, providing excellent detail rendition, sharpness and resolution." https://www.fotoimpex.com/chemistry/adox-fx-39-typ-ii-500-ml-conc.html

The recommend higher dilution for more compensation. I found it does that for me in the regular dilution. Again I am happy to not debate about it. He asked for opinions and I gave mine. I am glad that some folks like it!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

No debate, for sure: as I said, most developers are compensating when exhausted because of dilution. FX-39 is no exception.
I referred to your description: "it makes flat scenes look very very flat."
That happened because of the way you used it, not because of the developer.
As I wrote in a previous post, there are lots of wrong data around. Lots of people say it's too contrasty too, go figure...
A very very strong developer. I've used several bottles of FX-39 and FX-39 II, from 1+5 to 1+14, with several films.
I understand your opinion. Have a good night.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Juan, in my experience it is a compensating developer, and well, according to ADOX, who currently produce it, It's a compensating developer by design."FX-39 is a compensating developer, providing excellent detail rendition, sharpness and resolution." https://www.fotoimpex.com/chemistry/adox-fx-39-typ-ii-500-ml-conc.html

The recommend higher dilution for more compensation. I found it does that for me in the regular dilution. Again I am happy to not debate about it. He asked for opinions and I gave mine. I am glad that some folks like it!

I think there are two different stories here about compensation...
Clearly a developer can be designed to take good care of shadow detail: this is the case of FX-39.
Then, it can be sold as compensating, to interest buyers.
But real compensation is a different situation: it requires a very different level of dilution.
FX-39 gives wonderful tone for wet printing low/normal contrast scenes. Impressive. Contrasty and vibrant... Its best characteristic, as I did comment here before (post number 4)...
Although your two images look like scans (a digital photograph of a negative, resulting in new digital tone) and then it's hard to be sure about your negatives, both look slightly underexposed... Or who knows if just scanned for the highlights...
FX-39 gives strong, vibrant, contrasty prints from overcast scenes.
There are many examples on the web: that's why I started buying it.
Couldn't it be you didn't use enough developer, or enough time?
Hard to think Crawley was blind or people at Adox were and remain blind.
Just caring about young readers...

 

[relistan]

You can clearly see that I got good results that are easily printable. I just don’t happen to like them. I did not do anything wrong. But this is all your opinion as well. I think readers should do as they like. I am glad you are happy with the developer. That’s what matters.

 

[Fin77]

Adox FX-39 II and Delta 100 or TMAX 100 are a very good combination. One of my favorite develor and even more than XTOL or Adox XT-3. I have compared the result with both XTOL and XT-3, and somehow micro contrast is little bit better with FX-39. The difference is not huge but noticable. But also grain is more noticable even though with 4x5 it still very pleasing and very well balanced. Actually I like how grain look with FX-39 because it still maintains ”film look”. I was surprised how ”clean” was TMAX 100 developed with XT-3. If I would prefer almost grainless look then I would select XT-3 even over XTOL. Due to better micro contrast photos were looking little more sharper with FX-39, but difference is again not huge. However, you can get very similar look with all three developers. All in all, FX-39 is my go-to developer with Delta and TMAX at the moment. I have not tested with higher speed or traditional emulsion films.