FX-39 back to stay!

[markjwyatt]

Mark,
ADOX FX39-II and Kodak T-Max developer are very different:
FX39-II is designed for
- having very good sharpness / acutance
- having semi-compensating or compensating capability (strength is dependent on film and developer dilution)
- being very versatile and flexible in working with different dilutions (best results mostly with 1+9, 1+14, 1+19 and 1+24), that makes it more easier to get the characteristic curve shape you need = optimised tonal values
- being "low(er)-tox", and can be shipped easily internationally
- very easy handling
- because of the (semi)compensating effect too dense highlights can be avoided if a 1-stop push is needed (works not with all, but with several films)
- improved storage capability of the concentrate (with the current version "II").

T-Max and T-Max RS developer is designed for
- getting a bit more effective film speed than standard developers
- getting a linear characteristic curve shape with most films
- usage in prof. labs
- easy handling
- good long-term storage capability of the concentrate.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks for the responses, Henning. I am using ADOX FX-39 II w/CHS 100 II based on your earlier recommendations, and do like it. I may try it with some expired Agfa APX-100 (in 120), as well as a roll of Kodak TMAX P3200 I have. I only have one roll, and do not intend to buy TMax developer for one roll, so in my current inventory (HC110, FX-39, Rodinal), I suspect FX-39 is my best bet for P3200 (last roll was HC110, looks good, but grainy). The only thing I do not like about ADOX FX-39 II is the little hole they put in the top of the container- makes it hard pour into graduated cylinders (and impossible to withdraw with syringes), but this is minor. Probably helps with storage (minimizes oxygen/air encroachment).

Do you have any comments on the formulation? (my original comment started with, "I know the formula for FX-39 is proprietary, but can anyone comment on its basic make-up?").

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanks for the responses, Henning. I am using ADOX FX-39 II w/CHS 100 II based on your earlier recommendations, and do like it. I may try it with some expired Agfa APX-100 (in 120), as well as a roll of Kodak TMAX P3200 I have. I only have one roll, and do not intend to buy TMax developer for one roll, so in my current inventory (HC110, FX-39, Rodinal), I suspect FX-39 is my best bet for P3200 (last roll was HC110, looks good, but grainy). The only thing I do not like about ADOX FX-39 II is the little hole they put in the top of the container- makes it hard pour into graduated cylinders (and impossible to withdraw with syringes), but this is minor. Probably helps with storage (minimizes oxygen/air encroachment).

I have no significant problems with these new and improved bottles. Just the opposite. They have also a special coating inside which decreases diffusion of oxygen significantly and therefore increases the shelf life of the developer.
For handling I always use a small funnel I put in the graduated cylinder. And by moving the bottle slowly back after filling the developer in the cylinder I also have no problems withthe small hole in the cap.

Do you have any comments on the formulation? (my original comment started with, "I know the formula for FX-39 is proprietary, but can anyone comment on its basic make-up?").

As with all developers, you can find the 'basic make-up' in the MSDS. FX-39 II is improved in comparison to FX-39, mainly concerning better shelf-life and better temperature stability.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[markjwyatt]

...
As with all developers, you can find the 'basic make-up' in the MSDS. FX-39 II is improved in comparison to FX-39, mainly concerning better shelf-life and better temperature stability.

Best regards,
Henning

HQ + metol with glycol... I guess that is enough to get an idea. Thanks. Should have checked the MSDS first...

 

[Morgenland]

A linear curve shape with very even tonal steps from Zone I to Zone X.
TMX and TMY-2 deliver linear curves in most developers, often even in (semi)compensating developers. To get a (semi)compensating characteristic curve with them is generally more difficult than with other films.
To get a semi-compensating curve shape with FX-39 II you probably need 1+19 or even 1+24 dilution. I say probably, because I have not tested that yet.



I have the data at my second living place, where also my lab is. I will have a look in my data book as soon as I am back there, and contact you then again.

So long, best regards,
Henning

Thanks for the sharing.
I am also interested in your developing time of tmax 400@200 with FX-39 in 1+14 dilution. I have several rolls of tmax 400 shoot @ 200 and two bottles of FX-39.

I've not got my hand on the Spur HRX. But IMHO, tmax 400 does not work well with Spur Acurol-N. The results are too punchy.

 

[Henning Serger]

Thanks for the sharing.
I am also interested in your developing time of tmax 400@200 with FX-39 in 1+14 dilution. I have several rolls of tmax 400 shoot @ 200 and two bottles of FX-39.

I've not got my hand on the Spur HRX. But IMHO, tmax 400 does not work well with Spur Acurol-N. The results are too punchy.

Well, I've optimised TMY-2 with EI of 200/24° for my workflow and for max. shadow detail and straight linear curve, and for classic optical enlargement with my Kaiser enlarger.
So maybe you have to adjust it for your workflow and your eqipment.

I develop it with classic agitation / inversion by hand (and not with my JOBO CPE-3 processor).
For that I am using 14 minutes developing time, dilution 1+14, and agitation / inversion rythm is 2x just at the start, and then 1x every minute.
It is very important to keep that agitation scheme and not agitating more, because otherwise highlight density would be too high.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Morgenland]

Well, I've optimised TMY-2 with EI of 200/24° for my workflow and for max. shadow detail and straight linear curve, and for classic optical enlargement with my Kaiser enlarger.
So maybe you have to adjust it for your workflow and your eqipment.

I develop it with classic agitation / inversion by hand (and not with my JOBO CPE-3 processor).
For that I am using 14 minutes developing time, dilution 1+14, and agitation / inversion rythm is 2x just at the start, and then 1x every minute.
It is very important to keep that agitation scheme and not agitating more, because otherwise highlight density would be too high.

Best regards,
Henning

THX.
I will try this recipe definately.

 

[MattKing]

Yup. I request to not work on them, movies and TV shows. Unfortunately they're becoming our biggest client. They expect a smorgasbord of options so they can change their mind 3 more times.

We aren't sure whether or not you meant to post this here, but in any event wish to welcome you to Photrio.