Edwal fg 7 and sodium sulphite

[Bennett Brown]

Good morning out there:

I'm about to resurrect a previous years' passion for B&W photography (stricty amateur) which I temporarily set aside many years ago when I was inclined to use the above in a 9% solution for development.

Is anyone still using this combination or am I really out of date? If so (out of date), what alternatives might I experiment with for fine grain results. Typically, I prefer outdoors' still photography.

Many thanks.

Bennett Brown

 

[Jim Noel]

If you liked it then, you will like it now. It doesn't matter if others are using it.

I used FG-7 with sulfite for many years. I still do so on occasion but since i do not do much roll film any longer, I use other developers.

As you get back into this wonderful world you should begin with what you remember so that youwill be more comfortable. Enough things such as film and paper will have to change so keep as much of the old as you can. After you get your feet back under you, you can begin to experiment with some of the more popular developers of the day.

 

[Bennett Brown]

Many thanks Jim. I really did like it then and appreciate your counsel.

Bennett

 

[dynachrome]

FG-7 used to have a much longer shelf life and used to come in dark brown glass bottles. It comes in plastic containers and doesn't last nearly as long. My favorite use for FG-7 was with Panatomic-X at an EI of 64 at 1:15 with plain water. The tonality was nice, the sharpness very high and the grain very fine. I found FG-7 better without sulfite with slow films, a toss-up with medium speed film and better with sulfite for fast film. It's a phenidone based developer so you can get similar results with other developers. These include Microphen, NACCO Super 76, Clayton F60, Acufine, UFG and X-tol. I am not a big fan of X-tol but plenty of people here like it. If yiy get FG-7 or SUper 76 or F60 you should pour the contents into smaller glass bottles for better keeping.

 

[Anscojohn]

I used FG-7 for quite a time, both with and without sulfite. I found that using it 1:31 with 9 % sulfite gave very good results at box speeds. IIRC, Bill Pierce used it 1:19 with 4.5% sulfite for Tri-X. I would have to lukitup. I drifted away from FG-7 when I "discovered" D-23.

 

[Bennett Brown]

Many thanks gentlemen.

John - why do you prefer D-23 over FG7?

Bennett

 

[Anscojohn]

Many thanks gentlemen.

John - why do you prefer D-23 over FG7?

Bennett

******
Hi Bennett,
Several reasons: I like the "look" of D23 in the mid-tones. It is not quite as "sharp appearing" as FG-7, which makes it particularly nice for portraits. I am also very frugal (my bride says cheap!) and energy challenged. I mix up two liters of D23 and a liter of DK25R replenisher and when the replenisher is gone I dump the D23 and begin anew.

All that being said, in terms of economy and flexibility I always found FG-7 hard to beat. By reading closely the little folder of instructions (which I still have) about which EI to use with which film, I saw that by rating the film at box speed or a bit lower, then using 9% sulfite and a 1:31 dilution, rather than 1:15, I got easily printed, long scale negatives which suited my condensor enlarger very nicely.

 

[grahamp]

I find FG-7 handles Delta 100 and Delta 400 fine without sulphite (120 and 5x4), and doesn't do too bad a job with HP5 at 5x4. I do tend to up the dilutions to at least 1+11 or 1+15 for Jobo and hand tanks. Going above 1+15 will probably need more solution than the standard spiral requires - you are getting into minimum active ingredient territory there.

 

[Larry Bullis]

I don't like using it with the sulphite with it for two reasons. First, the fine grain is achieved by dissolving the edges of the grains, which impairs the acutance. I actually LIKE grain, as long as the grain looks good, but I don't think it is all that grainy anyway. Not everyone can accept grain, though. Second, the sulphite makes a big mess!

I am using it without sulphite now with fp4, which is a great combination.

By the way, it was Minor White's favorite developer, at least in the mid '60's. He liked it because it was very versatile for expansions and contractions.

 

[white.elephant]

I am using it without sulphite now with fp4, which is a great combination.

By the way, it was Minor White's favorite developer, at least in the mid '60's. He liked it because it was very versatile for expansions and contractions.

When I was taught darkroom technique in the mid-70's, it was with FG-7 and FP4. I never used a Kodak product, and back then I probably shot 500 rolls of black and white film over a few years, mainly actor's head shots and some personal projects. So, while I knew a little about developing and printing, it was in a very narrow set of limitations.

I've recently begun to get back into traditional darkroom work, inspired mainly by playing around with digital and wanting a more 'hands on' experience.

But I digress. I saw this thread and since it talked about my old pairing of FG7 and FP4, I had to read it. My question is this: what do you mean 'expansions and contractions'?

 

[Larry Bullis]

... My question is this: what do you mean 'expansions and contractions'?

Expansion = increase of contrast by extending development
Contraction = decrease of contrast by shortening development

MW taught the "zone system" which uses these devices to fit the scene contrast to the range of the paper by adjusting the development of the film, or, as very often in his own work, to adjust the contrast to produce a predetermined deviation from a conventional interpretation of the scene.

 

[Bennett Brown]

I'll give fp4 a shot. Thanks to all for the most informative chat.

Bennett

 

[Bennett Brown]

I'll also give D-23 a try. thanks John.

Bennett

 

[Anscojohn]

I'll also give D-23 a try. thanks John.

Bennett

*****
I will also tell you that, with FG-7 and with D-23, Ilford FP-4 was my favorite film. People pictures in outdoor shade, 1/125 at f/4.0, especially. It was a marriage of love which came from necessity. By that, I mean, I was using a really sweet little 100 mm 2.8 East German lens on an slr; the lens had only a click stop diaphram. I just could not afford to take the camera from the eye to stop the lens down manually; but it focussed nicely at f 4.0, thank you very much.

 

[Bennett Brown]

I too used FP-4 (as well as Panatomic -X) in the days when I was really active. It was a very rewarding combination.

Bennett

 

[Earl Dunbar]

I haven't used FG7 for years, but for quite some time it was my go-to developer, especially for medium speed films such as FP4. I seem to recall that the main attribute of that combination was a really long, smooth & lovely tonal scale. I generally didn't use sulfite, IIRC, at least for slower films. I preferred HC-110 for faster films, especially Tri-X, but these days I primarily use Rodinal and am gravitating to XTol or a combination of Rodinal & XTol.

However, the only reason I don't stock FG7 now is that I want to keep my life simple, eliminate choices, and become as proficient as possible with one or two developers.

BTW, FG-7 for 4x5 was really, really nice. I have Agfapan 100 negs souped in FG-7 that are delicious.

 

[Larry Bullis]

Today, I shot a test roll of FP4 and processed it in Edwal 12. Half the roll was zs patches and the other half casual shooting. It was close enough (E12 at 9 minutes) that I ran two more rolls . They are some of the most beautiful negatives I have ever seen. Well, I'm one of those who would love to show my negatives.

E12 is not FG7, but both were the creations of Edmund Lowe. I suspect that FG7 may have been developed to provide a more or less similar look but without the disadvantages (toxicity, inavailability, inconvenience, etc.). FG7 produces a similar look, but E12 has really amazing highlights. E12 contains metol, paraphenylene diamine, and glycin. I would expect it to be even better for expansions than FG7, and the grain is both very sharp and extremely small. Good looking stuff.

L.