FX 39 Devlopement Times and other Questions

Dear Apugers,

normally I prefer fine grain developers such as X-TOL but for some motives I want more acutance and slightly more grain. I used to use in this cases Adox ADX. It's a very similar formula to Spur SD2525. Unfortunately I always had troubles with my most frequently used ISO 400 film T-MAX 400. There were brown stainings and some kind of strange bubble marks on the negatives. I'm quite sure that I did'nt make any mistakes and I never had problems with other soups. Because of this I won't use this developer any more.

So I was looking for alternatives. Some people recommended Adox (prevously Paterson) FX 39 to me. It gives a very good film speed, a balancing effect and a very high acutance. Maybe the grain is a bit too much as I like it but in spite of that it seems to be a perfect developer for me. However I still have questions about this developer and I would be very glad if someone knows this developer and can help me.

Adox hasn't realeased any developement times but you can still find the old data sheet from paterson in the net. Though many people say that the recommended times are too long. At digitaltruth there is an alternate Data sheet from Michael Scarpitti. He recommends completly different times. For instance Paterson says 10min 1+9 at 20° for Delta 100 and Scarpitty says 8min 1+19 at 20° for the same film. Which starting points are more trustworthy in your opinion? Do you also think that the developement times from Paterson are too long?

Adox/Paterson claims that FX 39 gives 1/2 stop more film speed at a dilution of 1+9 and if you extend the developement times for 50% you can reach a doubling of the film speed. Can you confirm it?

When do I get more grain? At the dilution of 1+9 or at a dilution of 1+19? I ask because it is so different from developer to developer. For example X-Tol gives more grain at higher dilutions but Rodinal produces less grain at higher dilutions.

What can you say about FX 39 generally? Do you like it? Which dilution do you prefer and why?

I have been using FX-39 a dosen of times, mostly with Fuji Acros 100. I have not made any full-fledged film testing. I have not been able to find any significant differences between 1+14 vs 1+9. I have now settled on 1+9. I have not noticed an increase in film speed, I still rate my Acros at EI64 or EI80. At EI80, I use a dev time of 7:30.
I like FX-39 together with Acros 100; very crisp and sharp negatives I belive, with a "clean" look.

Here is a chance to find the correct development time for your process. Everybody works differently. Any times that are not published by the film or developer manufacturer are suspect.

Freestyle recommends it for up to 200 ISO film; but I'd like to use it for Tri-X400. Any experience with this combination?

Try Rodinal? You can get more grain by giving it less of a dilution and/or more agitation. Exposure and development agitation are just a couple of things that will determine film grain, along w/ choice of films of course.

I'm in the process of dialing in my processing of Plus-X + FX39. Using the times on the Mass Dev Chart, plus Paterson's sheet, I took a target EFS of 200 and a dev time of 12min as points of departure, and, over the three or four rolls I've done so far, have found myself successively lowering both EFS and dev time (as you would expect). My next roll is probably going to be ISO 125 (=box speed) and about 8mins in the 1+14 dilution. I gave the 1+19 a try as well, but didn't like the results. The negs appeared muddy, probably due to the developer dying off prematurely in the highlights (that's a native (there was a url link here which no longer exists) of FX39, even when diluting less). Not nice for normal-contrast subjects. Maybe a good choice though for low-light, high-contrast.

Do I like it? Yes, it's going to be my go-to developer for pretty much everything. That is, until I can dig up a european retailer of the Formulary's TFX-2.

As for the Scarpitti data, note that he's aiming at negatives suitable for condensor enlargers (i.e. lower-contrast), and that taking film and developer manufacturers' suggestions too seriously will often result in negs that have been exposed less and developed more than is good for them (as was the case with my 200/12min as well).

FX39's shelf life is said to be short. I split up my bottle into some of those small brown Neofin ones.

Thanks to everyone for the replies.

momus, no, I have never tried Rodinal. I know that this developer has a place at nearly every photographer's home but Rodinal doesn't give you the full film speed and produces even more grain than FX 39. These are the main reasons why I haven't given it a chance. Maybe because of the fact that everybody uses it can be another reason. I just don't like Rodinal. If I would try it I am sure that I would get terribly developed negatives just because of the self-fulfilling prophecy.

AntiLynd, you say that the shelf life of FX 39 is very short. Can you guess approximately how short? If it is under six month it would be a dealbreaker.

I never had issues with the shelf life of FX-39. You will get at least six months to a year out of it.

Thank you for the response. Good to hear that the shelf-life isn't a big problem. Six months to a year will be ok for me.

Shutterspeed said:

you say that the shelf life of FX 39 is v̶e̶r̶y̶ [!] short. Can you guess approximately how short?

Click to expand...

My bottle was about half empty after four or five months. It was then that I decanted it into smaller bottles, which was another three months ago. No problems so far.

good luck
Nils

FYI, Mirko from Adox told me that the shelf life for FX39 is 3 years as long as no precipitate has formed at the bottom of the bottle. He also warned against freezing it, FWIW...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD