Some photographers prefer diluting developers for high contrast scenes' control, adding reduced agitation... That makes a developer, a more compensating one... Good sometimes, but sometimes bad, depending on the scene, if midtones get too compressed...
For soft light, stronger dilutions are said to be a better option... I used to develop with rodinal 1:50 for overcast, and I liked the images, but I tried 1:25 for the same soft light years ago, and tones looked better, with more separation...
What have you found with FX-39?
With this developer there's a lot of contradictory information around... Dilutions from 1+9 to 1+19 are recommended... From 1+14 on, it's considered by some photographers, a compensating developer...
As Paterson original published times were found too long by many, including diffuser enlargers users, it's been often said since, use, instead of the original 1+9 recommendation, similar times but with the compensating 1+14, 1+17 and 1+19 dilutions... Economy points there too, so perhaps some people have been doing soft light with a system that's not the best for mild expansion, but only for economy, unnecessary compensation, and worse, inappropriate compression...
Is someone using 1+9 for soft light?
I have found nothing on the subject, not even if Crawley himself offered both dilution levels with scene contrast in mind...
Thanks everyone.
For soft light, stronger dilutions are said to be a better option... I used to develop with rodinal 1:50 for overcast, and I liked the images, but I tried 1:25 for the same soft light years ago, and tones looked better, with more separation...
What have you found with FX-39?
With this developer there's a lot of contradictory information around... Dilutions from 1+9 to 1+19 are recommended... From 1+14 on, it's considered by some photographers, a compensating developer...
As Paterson original published times were found too long by many, including diffuser enlargers users, it's been often said since, use, instead of the original 1+9 recommendation, similar times but with the compensating 1+14, 1+17 and 1+19 dilutions... Economy points there too, so perhaps some people have been doing soft light with a system that's not the best for mild expansion, but only for economy, unnecessary compensation, and worse, inappropriate compression...
Is someone using 1+9 for soft light?
I have found nothing on the subject, not even if Crawley himself offered both dilution levels with scene contrast in mind...
Thanks everyone.