FG-7

[chip j]

I used a lot of it back in the Day, 1:15 w/sodium sulfite, because my Leica dealer stocked it. Just curious as to how any of you perceived it vs other developers?

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't think it matters, since it is not available anymore.

If you're looking for a good liquid BW film developer that gives good tonality and reasonably fine grain, Kodak Tmax Developer works well for me for Tri-X, Tmax 400, and Ilford Delta 3200.

 

[chip j]

I thought it disappeared. But I was using in on Plus-X & FP4, and I didn't think T-Max dev was appropriate for that. Just trying to stir up some old memories.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

It WAS what I learned on. Then I switched to TG-7 because I was shooting lots of t-grain (read Tmax 100 and 400) film. When TG-7 went away I switched to Rodinal. Now I'm a Pyrocat HD guy. But FG-7 was a pretty decent developer in its day. I'm about to teach the exposure and processing segment of my Intro To Large Format class and I'm going to use Rodinal with FP4+ for my students.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I wonder who holds the recipe rights?

 

[Paul Howell]

Edwal is the folks who made FG 7, I dont know of any clones, the closest I have come to FG 7 is Studional with the sodium sulfite additive. Freestyle sells Compard R09 Spezial Film Ronindal Special which may Studional, I am down to my last 2 bottles of Studional.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Edwal is still in business, so for whatever reason they're holding on to a formula for a compound they don't see as worth manufacturing. But then again Kodak does that too with some of their products that they've had withdrawn from the market in some cases for decades.

 

[fotch]

Edwal is still in business, so for whatever reason they're holding on to a formula for a compound they don't see as worth manufacturing. But then again Kodak does that too with some of their products that they've had withdrawn from the market in some cases for decades.

I wonder why? What possible advantage would this offer? What disadvantages are there to letting it go or? Just wondering.

 

[Paul Howell]

I wrote Edwal several times to find out what Gardol is so that I could mix up Edwal 20. Not even a none of your business reply.

 

[Tom1956]

I wonder why? What possible advantage would this offer? What disadvantages are there to letting it go or? Just wondering.

They might be holding on to these recipes for the day when the general population sees what a bad idea digital photography was, and they get tired of it. Or they could be holding on to it for after the second coming and the world will be bright and cheery with everybody walking around with a real camera around their neck. Or if aliens land with the cure for cancer in trade for the recipe for Microdol X and Coca Cola. Never can tell.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I wonder why? What possible advantage would this offer? What disadvantages are there to letting it go or? Just wondering.

It's probably on the level of "If we release it, we can't possibly make money off of it ever again. If we sell it to an individual, we'll never get what it's worth. So we'll hold on to it in the hopes that someday we might again make money off of it". Either that, or they have some proprietary chemical compounds in it that they still use in other products that they don't want to reveal.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

FG-7 can probably trace its origin to Champlin 17 which does not appear in Chamlin's book but appeared somewhat later in Minicam magazine in 1940. Dr Lowe of Edwal was not above borrowing formulas. The formula is very simple BUT one of the two developing agents chlorhydroquinone is no longer available.

 

[chip j]

Thanks,,all. Chip

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I looked at the MSDS for FG-7 and at one time Edwal was getting around the lack of availability of chlorhydroquinone by making it in situ by reacting p-benzoquinone (a particularly nasty chemical) with hydrochloric acid. So the original developer can still be made.

 

[dynachrome]

FG-7 was one of the most versatile developers. Whether I used it 1:15 with water for slower films or 1:15 with 9% Sodum Sulfite solution for faster films I always got good results. My favorte combination was 1:15 with water with Panatomic-X rated at 64. Grain and sharpness were very good and it had a slight compensating effect too. Apart from these qualities, it had very good shelf life. Edwal ruined the good keeping quality by switching from a dark brown glass bottle to a white nearly translucent plastic bottle. The biggest difference between using it in the early 1970s and using it more recently is that the faster flms are much better. Many developers sold in plastic bottles had keeping problems. These included the many Paterson formulas, the imitation Rodinals and the house brand concentrates. HC-110 is an exception. Even in its plastic bottle it lasts quite a while and PC-TEA also lasts a long time. The current Tri-X, developed in D-76 1:1 gives much better results than Tri-X from the early 1970s developed in FG-7 1:15 with 9% sodium sulfite solution. You can get results which are similar to what FG-7 gave by using Ilford Microphen 1:1, Ilford DD-X, Kodak X-tol, Clayton F60 or any other phenidone based developer. If you want to make up your own stock, PC-TEA will also give similar results at 1:50 and will last a long time.

 

[craigclu]

They made some big claims! I used and liked it back in the day. I thought it could be a bit mushy with the SS but never experimented with varying the quantity. Good shadow detail and I believed it added some usable speed and retained good tonality.

 

[mrred]

Offer still good?