Fx-1 and FP4 Developing Advice Needed

[JeffD]

For years, I have pretty much used one developer and film- HC110 and TMax 400 in a rolling Jobo drum. I got my times figured out to get pretty consistant -2, -1, N, +1, +2 results.

However, on some scenes I began to feel like I needed just a little bit extra sharpness "kick", that I wasn't getting, and yesterday decided to try a slower "non tabular" grain film and some high accutance developer.

I had purchase a combi-plan tank a while back, and yesterday ordered a box of 100 sheets of FP4 4x5 film, and some FX-1 developer from the Formulary. I am planning on hanging this film in the combi tank, instead of rolling in my Jobo drum.

My goal is to get a little more sharpness bite in my negatives.

Can anyone give me some dilution tips for this developer in the combi-tank, and agitation techniques? Should I dilute more than recommended, and try some kind of "standing" development with little periodic agitation? If so, should I attempt to work out minus, normal, and plus times, or rely more on developer exhaustion to keep my highlights under control?

Any comments, especially from those who have used this developer and/or film combination appreciated.

 

[JeffD]

Wow, no one using FX-1 and HP4+ ??

 

[Justin Low]

Jeff, I've used some with Foma 400 and 100, 1+1+8 dilution. My first guess at timings came out to 6m30s at 30°C (I live in the tropics); based on my coefficient (I multiply given 20°C times by 0.44 for my temperature), that'd give you about 14 or 15 minutes at 20°C. The results were okay, but I'd have to fine tune it a little more.

With Foma 100, I tried a time of 6m and the negatives lacked density. I find this a little odd, and am looking into it.

From what I saw, the resulting acutance is even greater than Rodinal, but at the expense of more visible grain.

By the way, I didn't get mine from the Formulary. Mixed it up from scratch. Works out much cheaper.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Wow, no one using FX-1 and HP4+ ??

Why not Crawley's FX-2 with FP4 Plus instead of FX-1?

See: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[df cardwell]

I'm with Tom. FX-1 is a great developer, but was not really intended to work as you intend. Crawley DID design FX-2 with you in mind. FX-2 may well solve your sharpness problems using the JOBO. And it is perfect for all manner of 'intermittent agitation', high acutance techniques.

.

 

[JeffD]

I'm with Tom. FX-1 is a great developer, but was not really intended to work as you intend. Crawley DID design FX-2 with you in mind. FX-2 may well solve your sharpness problems using the JOBO. And it is perfect for all manner of 'intermittent agitation', high acutance techniques.

.

Hmmm. Well, I may be giving it a try, as some is on it's way to me now. I have read that FX-1 might be a bit harsh for 35mm, but I was thinking that with 4x5 negatives, which will be enlarged to, maybe 16x20 max, that grain won't be much of a problem. Would grain be the reason that you recommend FX-2 instead of FX-1? Personally I am not bothered by grain, and I don't think it would be excessive, considering the negative size and how much I'll be enlarging.

Thanks for the comments!

If anyone has used this, I'd appreciate any more comments about times and dilutions and agitation.

 

[df cardwell]

You'll do fine with FX1.... it really is a great 35mm and 120 developer. It isn't that it is harsh, it absolutely isn't - if handled properly - but that FX-2 is so bloody good, in every respect.

For a starting point, you might try Fp4's published time for ID-11.

 

[pauldc]

- but that FX-2 is so bloody good, in every respect.

This is very interesting and I am tempted to try FX-2 in 35mm format (mixing it myself). I notice the formula lists something called Pinacryptol Yellow. I have never heard of this and looking at past threads some people state that it is not absolutely neccessary although there may be an increase in base fog without it. Any views or experiences on this?

Best wishes

 

[df cardwell]

With T grain films, Pinakryptol Yellow is not required.

 

[Alan Johnson]

FX-1 and FX-2 became established as acutance developers mentioned in BJP annual for years.Starting times suggested for both are the same,for FP4 at 68F, 13min(MF) and 14min (RF) where I believe MF=minature film(35mm) and RF=roll film. 4 inversions /min (small 300ml tanks), 6 inversions/min larger ones.No data for large format.
FX-1 is said to be designed for maximum resolution,FX-2 is more pictorial.I believe it is the glycin in FX-2 that helps prevent streaking in extended development.

 

[bobbysandstrom]

JeffD

I switched from fx-1 to fx-2 because I just bought an 8x10 enlarger and want to enlarge my 8x10 negs. I've found as a developer for contact printing fx1 is amazing. Once you start to enlarge it begins to fall apart as the image begins to get gritty(for lack of a better term)looking. I enlarged a 4x5 neg to 11x14 and didn't like what I saw. Try both though and you'll see first hand. For FX-1 Bill Troop recommended FP4 @200 and agitating every 2 minutes for 10sec (I lift the film out of the tray drain and replace). My initial agitation is for 45 seconds. My normal times at 68F diluted 1-1-8 are

N-2 9:12 g .33
N-1 10:54 g .39
N 15:09 g .49
N+1 21:43 g .64

I really love both developers!