FX-1 and FX-2

Alex Benjamin · Apr 19, 2022

Out of curiosity, after reading about them in The Film Developer's Cookbook, I ordered a pack of each.

I'll probably try them with my main Ilford films in 120 — Pan F, FP4+, and, perhaps, Delta 100, as the FDC mentions that "both developers are at their best with conventional films rated at ISO 200 or less"—, but I'm curious if anybody feels like sharing their experience with these developers, with Ilford or any other film.

Paul Howell · Apr 19, 2022

I used FX with Panatomic X, my thinking was that grain is not an issue, so go with acutance for a sharper looking negative. Later used Acufine, same reasoning, at the time Acufine was easy to find, the photo shops I used carried it. Based on my experience with Panatomic X I think Pan F would be a good match.

juan · Apr 19, 2022

I regularly use FX-2 with any film. Years ago member Tom Hopkinson posted the one shot version given him by Patrick Dignan. I’ve used the sodium carbonate version and generally go with minimal agitation to control the extreme contrast here.

Alex Benjamin · Apr 19, 2022

Paul Howell said:
I used FX with Panatomic X, my thinking was that grain is not an issue, so go with acutance for a sharper looking negative. Later used Acufine, same reasoning, at the time Acufine was easy to find, the photo shops I used carried it. Based on my experience with Panatomic X I think Pan F would be a good match.

Thanks Paul. Good cue. I'll start with Pan F, for which I have yet to find a favourite developer.

juan said:
I regularly use FX-2 with any film. Years ago member Tom Hopkinson posted the one shot version given him by Patrick Dignan. I’ve used the sodium carbonate version and generally go with minimal agitation to control the extreme contrast here.

Thanks Juan. The FDC also mentions that one should be wary of too much agitation with FX-1 and FX-2.

juan · Apr 19, 2022

I see autocorrect changed his name. It’s Tom Hoskinson.

Here’s the link to what he had to say. Tom is one of many missed here.

Crawley's FX-2, Glycin and Potasium Carbonate ????

Why does FX-2 call for Potasium Carbonate instead of Sodium Carbonate? Could one substitute Sodium Carbonate for the Potasium Carbonate in the formula? At what ratio? and with what effect? TIA.

www.photrio.com

Alan Johnson · Apr 19, 2022

FX-1 and FX-2 were first disclosed by Geoffrey Crawley in 1961 in the days when thin emulsion films achieved sharpness by "adjacency" [edge] effects that they provided. FX-2 was considered to have better tonality, FX-1 gave better sharpness. In those days there was less iodide in the film emulsions and Crawley called them acutance films. With modern films which contain more iodide, less adjacency effects are produced and the sharpness is built into the emulsion but there is still some effect with many including Pan F+ and FP4+.

Lachlan Young · Apr 19, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
FX-1 and FX-2 were first disclosed by Geoffrey Crawley in 1961 in the days when thin emulsion films achieved sharpness by "adjacency" [edge] effects that they provided. FX-2 was considered to have better tonality, FX-1 gave better sharpness. In those days there was less iodide in the film emulsions and Crawley called them acutance films. With modern films which contain more iodide, less adjacency effects are produced and the sharpness is built into the emulsion but there is still some effect with many including Pan F+ and FP4+.

It's not necessarily about the mol% iodide - it's about the placement of that iodide within the emulsion structure - and the ability of that developer to release that (via solvency) & produce adjacency effects via development inhibition. Delta emulsions are considerably thinner than what would have been called a 'thin-emulsion' film in the 1950s (even current 400-speed '3D-crystal' emulsions would be 'thin-emulsion' by the standards of when it was a big deal in the 1950s).

Furthermore, it seems to have been discovered that Metol alone will produce adjacency effects via exhaustion - but add HQ (effectively HQMS really) and that effect largely seems to go away. The implication from research from Kodak and others seems to have been that Glycin wasn't as useful as HQMS.

Phenidones seem to produce adjacency effects via development inhibition (and used as the sole development agent are capable of very extreme development inhibition effects) but with the addition of HQ (HQMS)/ Ascorbate etc the effect does not switch off & can be modulated via optimal choice of Phenidone (Dimezone-S seems to have some preferential qualities) and ratio of that Phenidone to electron transfer agent. Furthermore, pH can also be exploited to maximise adjacency effect (about 9.8-10.0 seems optimal (and it seems that the effect drops away more slowly as pH goes down into the range of more traditional 'fine-grain' developers than as it rises into Rodinal territory)) along with a level of solvency geared to how much access into the iodide in the emulsion is desired.

Alan Johnson · Apr 19, 2022

Lachlan Young said:
Furthermore, it seems to have been discovered that Metol alone will produce adjacency effects via exhaustion - but add HQ (effectively HQMS really) and that effect largely seems to go away. The implication from research from Kodak and others seems to have been that Glycin wasn't as useful as HQMS.

FDC 2020 p28 "Practically speaking,10 times as much HQMS may be required, compared to HQ"
So can it be assumed that it would not be practical to replace glycin in FX-2 by HQMS?

Lachlan Young · Apr 19, 2022

Alan Johnson said:
FDC 2020 p28 "Practically speaking,10 times as much HQMS may be required, compared to HQ"
So can it be assumed that it would not be practical to replace glycin in FX-2 by HQMS?

You could probably try, but you'll probably very quickly run into issues with HQMS refreshing the Metol fast enough that it doesn't produce exhaustion derived adjacency effects (aka the mechanism that has been posited for D-76) - the problem is that Dimezone-S & HQMS (whether used directly or formed in-situ) - or ascorbate would do the job better for high definition & good image quality - and the major manufacturers have known that for decades. Glycin & HQMS seem to have been investigated alongside each other for various effects & HQMS found more effective across the board (for all the reasons that have been discussed about HQMS in E-6's FD etc on here).

ruilourosa · Apr 20, 2022

Fx1 works wonders with pan f...

Fx2... I dont have pinacriptol....... But i would like to try some substitute...

juan · Apr 20, 2022

I think most folks just leave out the pinacritol. The formula I linked above has none.

ruilourosa · Apr 21, 2022

I like fx1... When i need a more pictorial look i can buffer the carbonate or go to other developers... I really dont like the price of glycin....and its deterioration speed...

Alex Benjamin · Apr 21, 2022

I got the kits from Formulary. Here are the chemicals contained int the kit for FX-2:

Metol
Sodium Sulfite
Glycin
Potassium Carbonate, Anhydrous
Pinacryptol Yellow (1:2000 dilution)

The description mentions that "FX-2 used as a stand developer for one hour produces the most interesting internal contrast effects of the FX developers." Anybody has tried this?

Andrew O'Neill · Apr 21, 2022

They did nothing for me with HP5 and FP4.

Alex Benjamin said:
I got the kits from Formulary. Here are the chemicals contained int the kit for FX-2:

Metol
Sodium Sulfite
Glycin
Potassium Carbonate, Anhydrous
Pinacryptol Yellow (1:2000 dilution)

The description mentions that "FX-2 used as a stand developer for one hour produces the most interesting internal contrast effects of the FX developers." Anybody has tried this?

Yes, I did. Back in the 90's with HP5 and FP4. Did not care for it. Pyrocat-HD was much much better for stand.

ruilourosa · Apr 24, 2022

Was pyrocat available um the 90s?

Alex Benjamin · Apr 24, 2022

ruilourosa said:
Was pyrocat available um the 90s?

There were pyro staining developers available long before the 90s, but Pyrocat HD was conceived by Sandy King in 1999. Whole story of pyro developers here: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

ruilourosa · Apr 25, 2022

removedacct3 · May 23, 2022

Alex Benjamin said:
I got the kits from Formulary. Here are the chemicals contained int the kit for FX-2:

Metol
Sodium Sulfite
Glycin
Potassium Carbonate, Anhydrous
Pinacryptol Yellow (1:2000 dilution)

The description mentions that "FX-2 used as a stand developer for one hour produces the most interesting internal contrast effects of the FX developers." Anybody has tried this?

Alex, any news to report regarding your FX-2 endeavours?

Alex Benjamin · May 23, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
Alex, any news to report regarding your FX-2 endeavours?

Haven't had time yet. I have a week off first week of June during which I'll do some testing.

FX-1 and FX-2

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency