Formulary FX-2 development times

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi everybody:

I just mixed the stock solutions of Formulary FX-2, and realized that there are no development times given in the instructions. The massive development chart also seems to be based on a different formulation and dilution, and doesn't list times for one of my films anyway.

Does anyone have times for Tri-X and FP4 in the Formulary version of FX-2? I will be using 10 sec/minute agitation and 68 degrees.

Thanks in advance!

Jarin

 

[howardpan]

I don’t use this developer so I hope this will get you started. The web site UnblinkingEye has the following information for using FX-2 from the Photographer’s Formulary with Ilford FP4:

https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Times/FP-4/fp-4.html

 

[voceumana]

The massive developing chart lists FP4+ at 9 minutes for 1:1:8 at 20 degrees C. I don't know if you have FX-2 or TFX-2 or if there is a developing time difference between the two.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

Hi all:

I have the original version FX-2, and intend to use it at the listed dilution, 1:1:18.

 

[Jarin Blaschke]

I now have rudimentary results, as I am only eyeballing the negatives so far.

I exposed FP4 at 80 and TX at 250. I first developed their samples together for 15 minutes at 68 degrees, with 4 gentle agitations every 30 seconds. This looks almost right for Tri-X, although it visually looks more like a grade 2 negative rather than my preferred softer contrast to be printed grade 3.

The FP4 looked rather cooked after that 15 minute bath, so I tried again at 12 minutes. This still looked too heavy, so I then developed a third sample of FP4 for 10 minutes. This looks close, but again it's probably closer to printing on grade 2 paper.

In a loupe, the grain looks more pronounced than the Rodinal test clips. I'm curious to see the printed differences in tonality. Through the loupe, highlight detail looks better distinguished in the Rodinal negatives, but that could be a matter of not yet finessing the developing times. Overall density is matched fairly well, however.

J