Crawley's FX-37 Developer for T-Max/Delta Films

[koraks]

I expect FX37 to keep about as well as ID68, to be honest. They're fairly similar developers from a viewpoint of aging/deterioration.

 

[Don_ih]

One shot is not quite economical

In this instance, it is economical, since 1 litre of the stock solution gives you 4 litres of working - and the chemicals that make up 1 litre are in very small quantities. But I don't consider this developer a good choice for most film (especially for hp5).

 

[Alain Deloc]

In this instance, it is economical, since 1 litre of the stock solution gives you 4 litres of working - and the chemicals that make up 1 litre are in very small quantities. But I don't consider this developer a good choice for most film (especially for hp5).

Why, HP5 comes up too grainy from FX-37? ID68/Microphen looks quite nice on HP5

 

[koraks]

I couldn't tell you why, @Alain Deloc, but I can confirm FX37 will give rather grainy negatives. Since I only use it for contact printing, I don't mind, but if you were to shoot something like HP5+, you would get some pretty gritty images. This can still be nice of course.

If you're looking for fine grain, try an XTOL clone like instant mytol which you can also easily mix at home.

 

[Don_ih]

Why, HP5 comes up too grainy from FX-37? ID68/Microphen looks quite nice on HP5

The stock of ID68 has more sulfite and less borax - no carbonate - than FX37. That probably accounts for nice-looking hp5 negatives. HP5 looks like gravel in FX-37 - less so if you underexpose it (the "speed boost"). I've developed a lot of HP5 in FX37 because it cut through the fog that had developed in that particular bulk roll -- and I kind-of liked the looks (sometimes). But Xtol (Mytol if you make it) makes for better negatives.

 

[Alain Deloc]

The stock of ID68 has more sulfite and less borax - no carbonate - than FX37. That probably accounts for nice-looking hp5 negatives. HP5 looks like gravel in FX-37 - less so if you underexpose it (the "speed boost"). I've developed a lot of HP5 in FX37 because it cut through the fog that had developed in that particular bulk roll -- and I kind-of liked the looks (sometimes). But Xtol (Mytol if you make it) makes for better negatives.

View attachment 361335

Thanks for the sample. Indeed, it looks like a Rodinal development.

 

[retina_restoration]

I was amused by the quotes included early in this thread which describe FX-37 as a "fine grain" developer. Anyone who has done a comparison by developing two pieces of film (of the same shot) in FX-37 and almost any other developer will realize there's nothing "fine grain" about it. I've used FX-37 many times, hoping I'd learn to like the results, but I have always found the resulting negatives to have an unpleasant harshness to their tonality, and though sharper than film developed in any solvent developer, grain was conspicuously more pronounced.
I found FX-37 to be suitable only for large format negatives, and even then, the degradation of the tonality of the image was notable. It may be fine for some who like grain and hard/harsh results, but it wasn't for me.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I tried FX-37 with Delta 100 in 35mm a few years ago, and it was grainy. Rodinal with 35mm Delta 100 is reasonably fine grained.

 

[Alain Deloc]

I was amused by the quotes included early in this thread which describe FX-37 as a "fine grain" developer. Anyone who has done a comparison by developing two pieces of film (of the same shot) in FX-37 and almost any other developer will realize there's nothing "fine grain" about it. I've used FX-37 many times, hoping I'd learn to like the results, but I have always found the resulting negatives to have an unpleasant harshness to their tonality, and though sharper than film developed in any solvent developer, grain was conspicuously more pronounced.
I found FX-37 to be suitable only for large format negatives, and even then, the degradation of the tonality of the image was notable. It may be fine for some who like grain and hard/harsh results, but it wasn't for me.

Thanks for sharing your results @retina_restoration . I am looking for a fine-grain developer actually. Maybe Mytol will be a better option.

 

[Lachlan Young]

There's a whole sequence of strange decisions in FX-37 - too much Phenidone, not enough sulphite and some very odd ideas about buffering. Resolve all of those properly and (congratulations) you will have made ID-68/ Microphen/ DD-X/ Xtol/ XT-3/ Ilfosol 3. In other words, you are welcome to waste vast amounts of time, or buy products (or find the right formulae) that were actually formulated to do the job properly in the first place...

 

[retina_restoration]

Thanks for sharing your results @retina_restoration . I am looking for a fine-grain developer actually. Maybe Mytol will be a better option.

I have found Mytol (or Xtol) to be an excellent option for most any film type. I've never been disappointed by the results. It will certainly deliver finer grain (and smoother tonality) with most films. (You don't mention whether you have a specific film in mind or not)
There are some who dislike Xtol/Mytol a lot, but my impression is that it's people who prefer a very strong, contrasty negative with very graphic tonality, and Xtol/Mytol is not designed to give that style of negative. It is meant to give a rich tonal scale without unprintable highlights, and with excellent acutance and detail, without exaggerating grain properties.

FX-37 is not appropriate with small roll film formats (IMO) unless you are looking for hard edges, serious contrast, and gritty grain qualities.

 

[koraks]

Moderator note: some posts further exploring Mytol were moved to an existing thread about that developer: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/will-the-real-mytol-please-stand-up.84293/post-2764328