FX-37 & T-Grained Films

[Andrew O'Neill]

This is first of a series. This one looks specifically at TMY.

 

[koraks]

This reminds me of the almost legendary entry of @dokko on this forum. I'm sure he'll be interested in these videos as well, and may be willing to comment on them.
See also here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...n-adox-fx-39ii-adox-xt-3-and-spur-hrx.202467/

 

[retina_restoration]

I tried FX-37 many times with many films and determined a few things: 1) if you don't find the right development time, you're likely to end up with either flat, thin negs, or brutally overdeveloped negs with butchered high values. Most of the published times are way too long. And 2) there is a perceived increase in sharpness with FX-37 negs, but the fact is that grain size increases conspicuously and the separation of higher values becomes quite harsh and there is a loss of the subtler values of the lighting. The significant increase in the coarseness of the grain structure (as you can see in Andrew's scans) is counterproductive if you wish to preserve the tactile qualities of the lighting used to make the image. If you are working with large negatives (bigger than 6x4.5) then it might be an okay choice for you, but the smaller the negative, the more obvious the flaws will be.
I abandoned FX-37 over a year ago, deciding that for what I do, almost ANY other developer did the job better.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I tried FX-37 many times with many films and determined a few things: 1) if you don't find the right development time, you're likely to end up with either flat, thin negs, or brutally overdeveloped negs with butchered high values. Most of the published times are way too long. And 2) there is a perceived increase in sharpness with FX-37 negs, but the fact is that grain size increases conspicuously and the separation of higher values becomes quite harsh and there is a loss of the subtler values of the lighting. The significant increase in the coarseness of the grain structure (as you can see in Andrew's scans) is counterproductive if you wish to preserve the tactile qualities of the lighting used to make the image. If you are working with large negatives (bigger than 6x4.5) then it might be an okay choice for you, but the smaller the negative, the more obvious the flaws will be.
I abandoned FX-37 over a year ago, deciding that for what I do, almost ANY other developer did the job better.

I'll be testing it out with large format TMY, and TMX in this series. I won't be using FX-37 for roll films. The grain was a bit overwhelming for me.

 

[Sidd]

I have tried FX-37 once. The result was so so. After watching your video, Andrew, I am almost confirmed that I'll not use it any further. Xtol, even D-76, is better for me. In near future I am going to test FX-55 with Tmax 400.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I have tried FX-37 once. The result was so so. After watching your video, Andrew, I am almost confirmed that I'll not use it any further. Xtol, even D-76, is better for me. In near future I am going to test FX-55 with Tmax 400.

Ya I tend to agree. I was planning on doing a series with other T-grained films, but not really motivated. I will however, do one with TMX 100 sheet film, though, and maybe a very fine grained non T-grained film, like Pan F.

 

[retina_restoration]

I should have mentioned that with all of the "t-grain" type films I use PMK as my default developer. If you want acutance and good grain structure, PMK is hard to beat. It gives a vastly superior negative to FX-37, which all too often mangles the very high values.

 

[Sidd]

Ya I tend to agree. I was planning on doing a series with other T-grained films, but not really motivated. I will however, do one with TMX 100 sheet film, though, and maybe a very fine grained non T-grained film, like Pan F.

Eagerly waiting for those.

 

[Sidd]

I should have mentioned that with all of the "t-grain" type films I use PMK as my default developer. If you want acutance and good grain structure, PMK is hard to beat. It gives a vastly superior negative to FX-37, which all too often mangles the very high values.

Good lead, I'll try PMK, Thanks.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I should have mentioned that with all of the "t-grain" type films I use PMK as my default developer. If you want acutance and good grain structure, PMK is hard to beat. It gives a vastly superior negative to FX-37, which all too often mangles the very high values.

My go to for TMY, TMX, and both Deltas, has always been XTol 1+1 and Pyrocat-HD.

 

[pentaxuser]

I hadn't seen a comparison done before so thanks for that,Andrew I agree with what has been the gist of opinion so far that Xtol is the better of the two developers I have seen a few videos on FX55 and while I haven't seen a direct comparison with Xtol I anticipate a much closer run race

Where did the tune and lyrics come from? It reminds me a little of "The Mason Dixon Line" by Mark Knopfler and James Taylor in Sailing to Philadelphia

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I hadn't seen a comparison done before so thanks for that,Andrew I agree with what has been the gist of opinion so far that Xtol is the better of the two developers I have seen a few videos on FX55 and while I haven't seen a direct comparison with Xtol I anticipate a much closer run race

Where did the tune and lyrics come from? It reminds me a little of "The Mason Dixon Line" by Mark Knopfler and James Taylor in Sailing to Philadelphia

pentaxuser

I spoon fed ChatGPT some info on FX37, and it spat out some lyrics. Turned it into a tune in Suno.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I tried FX37 and found it to be a pretty good film developer. Not the finest grain for sure, but pretty good speed and acutance. I have only tried it with a little 4x5, 6x7 and 6x9 negatives where grain wasn't a serious problem. Still, I didn't see any real advantage over my good old Adox XT-3 replenished. Or even Pyrocat HDC for that matter. Two films I did like it with were Delta 100 and also PanF+, which surprised me a little. FX37 was good with PanF+, but I still prefer using Rodinal with that film.

 

[pentaxuser]

I spoon fed ChatGPT some info on FX37, and it spat out some lyrics. Turned it into a tune in Suno.

That's actually quite fríghtening. Can this ChatGPT arrange a Bonnie Prince Charlie reply to my request that he persuades the clans to continue marching South from Derby in December 1745?

pentaxuser

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I tried FX-37 many times with many films and determined a few things: 1) if you don't find the right development time, you're likely to end up with either flat, thin negs, or brutally overdeveloped negs with butchered high values. Most of the published times are way too long. And 2) there is a perceived increase in sharpness with FX-37 negs, but the fact is that grain size increases conspicuously and the separation of higher values becomes quite harsh and there is a loss of the subtler values of the lighting. The significant increase in the coarseness of the grain structure (as you can see in Andrew's scans) is counterproductive if you wish to preserve the tactile qualities of the lighting used to make the image. If you are working with large negatives (bigger than 6x4.5) then it might be an okay choice for you, but the smaller the negative, the more obvious the flaws will be.
I abandoned FX-37 over a year ago, deciding that for what I do, almost ANY other developer did the job better.

Based on what you say here, I believe the dilution should be greater than recommended.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I read somewhere that it was used diluted 1+9 to develop FP4 Plus for 11 minutes at 20 degrees Celsius.
It gave fine grain and very good sharpness.
It may have been Peter Elgar (pentaxpete) if I remember correctly.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I used FX-37 for a short time with Delta 100 in 35mm. It gave rather grainy results, and I couldn't see a benefit over for example, Rodinal, which actually works rather well with Delta 100.

 

[dokko]

This reminds me of the almost legendary entry of @dokko on this forum. I'm sure he'll be interested in these videos as well, and may be willing to comment on them.
See also here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...n-adox-fx-39ii-adox-xt-3-and-spur-hrx.202467/

Thanks for the heads up, very interesting indeed!
looks like a very carefully performed test to me.

The older I get, the more I believe the challenge with these tests is, that it is always necessary to see it as comparison of the whole imaging chain… like:

Subject — lighting — lens — film — developer — scanning/printing technique — enlargement size etc…

For example, in this comparison FX-37 looks quite grainy on the scan, but I could well imagine that the texture might look nice on low enlargement analogue print made with a somewhat soft enlarging lens. On the other hand, many scanners tend to amplify the appearence of grain, so Xtol usually would be more suitable for that.

My focus is usually scanning for very large prints, so I‘m interested how the grain texture looks on high enlargements. I‘m still planning to run some more controlled comparisons, but the last months I was rather swamped with work.

Andrew, if you‘d like to show a high resolution scan of this comparison (or others you have done), feel welcome to send me a PM. I’m always interested in grain texture of different films and developers on high enlargements.
In my experience TMY-2 looks best in the 10‘000 to 15‘000ppi range, higher than that the grain clusters start to look like individual dots/strands. That said, I‘ve just invested in a rather expensive optical system that should perform stellar at 27‘000ppi, so I‘m looking forward to test it when it arrives in 3 weeks

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I should have mentioned that with all of the "t-grain" type films I use PMK as my default developer. If you want acutance and good grain structure, PMK is hard to beat. It gives a vastly superior negative to FX-37, which all too often mangles the very high values.

I think that PMK is beautiful with Tmax films, too. I've used it a lot on both Tmax 100 and Tmax 400.