FX-1 Development Times? (Ilford Fp4+ & others)

[cirwin2010]

I have an interested in trying to make some FX-1 film developer to replace my Rollei R09 once I run out. I usually use the Massive Dev Chart as a reference for dev times, but there is very limited dev time information for FX-1. I'm also not finding much elsewhere online or in my Film Development Cookbook 2nd edition.

I mostly want to try this developer with Ilford FP4+ as that is my main medium speed film I use with R09/Rodinal 1:50. I would also be interested in trying it with Ilford HP5+ and Fuji Acros II. Does anyone have any reference points for development times with 120 film in an inversion type tank?



I'm sure someone will ask why FX-1 instead of FX-2, FX-14, Rodinal, or some other high acutance developer.
1. I want something noticeably sharper than Rodinal for my larger landscape enlargements
2. I've seen a sample enlargement made from a negative developed in FX-1. The edge effects it provides does seem to created that "engraved" look others have described.
3. I think there is a speed increase compared to Rodinal which would could handy since I shoot a lot at dusk or dawn.
4. If there isn't any great reference points to start from for development time, I will look into other developers more.

 

[Murray Kelly]

A good place to start would be FP4 in Beutler using the MDC.

 

[Don_ih]

The sheet says you gain a stop and 12-16 minutes is a good starting time for development. You will probably need to sacrifice a roll to see how you like it. I'd take a dozen identical exposures and cut the film up into three or four pieces, develop a piece at a time starting with 15 minutes and changing based on the result.

 

[cirwin2010]

A good place to start would be FP4 in Beutler using the MDC.

Are the development times/formulas similar? I know nothing about Beutler.

The sheet says you gain a stop and 12-16 minutes is a good starting time for development. You will probably need to sacrifice a roll to see how you like it. I'd take a dozen identical exposures and cut the film up into three or four pieces, develop a piece at a time starting with 15 minutes and changing based on the result.

Yeah, I may need to try this if there aren't any other data points to start from. Not thrilled about having to "waste" a roll for each film I want to use, but it is what it is.

 

[Don_ih]

Yeah, I may need to try this if there aren't any other data points to start from. Not thrilled about having to "waste" a roll for each film I want to use, but it is what it is.

You can get around that by exposing a full roll normally except for the last three shots, which are identical. Cut most of the last two exposures off the roll and test with that (cut it in half for two tests).

 

[cirwin2010]

You can get around that by exposing a full roll normally except for the last three shots, which are identical. Cut most of the last two exposures off the roll and test with that (cut it in half for two tests).

That is a good possible solution. Thanks for the suggestion!

 

[subsole]

I have an interested in trying to make some FX-1 film developer to replace my Rollei R09 once I run out. I usually use the Massive Dev Chart as a reference for dev times, but there is very limited dev time information for FX-1. I'm also not finding much elsewhere online or in my Film Development Cookbook 2nd edition.

I mostly want to try this developer with Ilford FP4+ as that is my main medium speed film I use with R09/Rodinal 1:50. I would also be interested in trying it with Ilford HP5+ and Fuji Acros II. Does anyone have any reference points for development times with 120 film in an inversion type tank?



I'm sure someone will ask why FX-1 instead of FX-2, FX-14, Rodinal, or some other high acutance developer.
1. I want something noticeably sharper than Rodinal for my larger landscape enlargements
2. I've seen a sample enlargement made from a negative developed in FX-1. The edge effects it provides does seem to created that "engraved" look others have described.
3. I think there is a speed increase compared to Rodinal which would could handy since I shoot a lot at dusk or dawn.
4. If there isn't any great reference points to start from for development time, I will look into other developers more.

ADOX FX 39 high definition developer is what you are looking for : https://www.freestylephoto.biz/33830-Adox-FX-39-II-Film-Developer-500-ml

 

[cirwin2010]

ADOX FX 39 high definition developer is what you are looking for : https://www.freestylephoto.biz/33830-Adox-FX-39-II-Film-Developer-500-ml

I don't really know anything about FX-39 other than what is says on the product page. Is what way is it what I am looking for? How might this compare to Rodinal as a reference point?

 

[subsole]

I don't really know anything about FX-39 other than what is says on the product page. Is what way is it what I am looking for? How might this compare to Rodinal as a reference point?

Speed increase, better sharpness. Grain is also slightly finer.

 

[Alan Johnson]

For engraving like effect, FX-1 is the best. Although the old films like Efke 100 or Plus-X that gave the most effect are discontinued, FP4+ and HP5+ are two of the best modern films for that purpose. BJP p41 1961 gives a development time of 17m 20C for FP3. The times for FX-1 and FX-2 are given as the same. When I wrote to Geoffrey Crawley asking if there was any point in adding the iodide in FX-1 as modern films have a significant iodide content, he replied that there is no point with modern films.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040207063311/http://www.jackspcs.com/fx1.htm

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Photographer's Formulary probably has an info sheet for FX-1 and that would have times on it. I used FX-1 quite a bit years ago but I never kept any notes back then unfortunately. I have used Beutler's a lot in recent years though if you have any questions about that.