FX-55 and RPX-400

[schyter]

Hi everyone

FX-55 is my main and favorite developer, along with a couple of double baths.
I have to develop a Rollei RPX-400 film (exposed at 400) in 120 format (low contrast scenes, approximately 5 stops).
I don't have the time for this film because it's the first time I've used it.
These are quite important shots and I don't want to make serious mistakes.
The only indication I have found refers to Agfa APX-400 in FX-55 for 12 minutes.
I wanted your feedback on these times, or if any of you have used this combination.

Thank you all.

 

[schyter]

in the end I took a chance with 13 minutes / 21 °C.
I'll check after printing, but I think it's a good place to start.
The negative seems correct and printable to me.

 

[albireo]

Hi everyone

FX-55 is my main and favorite developer, along with a couple of double baths.
I have to develop a Rollei RPX-400 film (exposed at 400) in 120 format (low contrast scenes, approximately 5 stops).
I don't have the time for this film because it's the first time I've used it.
These are quite important shots and I don't want to make serious mistakes.
The only indication I have found refers to Agfa APX-400 in FX-55 for 12 minutes.
I wanted your feedback on these times, or if any of you have used this combination.

Thank you all.

Ciao Schyter!

Sorry I cannot help wrt FX-55 - never used it.

One word about RPX 400. Which RPX 400 are you working with? I used to use it a lot (in 120) when it came in a black box with red lettering. It used to give me beautiful, reproducible results and with D76 1:1 it had an EI of 320 in my set-up.

I then noticed Maco had altered its packaging. It now comes in a white box. I purchased some 20 rolls of the new stuff. Well I have been unable to replicate the results I was getting when the stuff was packaged in the black box. I have not done any side-to-side comparisons, however using exactly the same workflow, I'm getting much thinner negatives, with overall really different, much poorer tonal range.

Since I do not know what Maco is putting in those boxes, I have decided to replace RPX with Kentmere 400. This is now giving me the consistent results I was getting from RPX 400 in the black box.

 

[schyter]

Ciao Schyter!

Sorry I cannot help wrt FX-55 - never used it.

One word about RPX 400. Which RPX 400 are you working with? I used to use it a lot (in 120) when it came in a black box with red lettering. It used to give me beautiful, reproducible results and with D76 1:1 it had an EI of 320 in my set-up.

I then noticed Maco had altered its packaging. It now comes in a white box.

I used new production (white/red box) ...
Ma sei italiano ? Lo stesso nick name lo leggevo tempo fa sul forum di Analogica.it ... ma ora non più. Se nn sei tu scusami.

 

[pentaxuser]

in the end I took a chance with 13 minutes / 21 °C.
I'll check after printing, but I think it's a good place to start.
The negative seems correct and printable to me.

Looks pretty good to me. If anything the highlights may have been slightly overdeveloped

pentaxuser

 

[schyter]

Looks pretty good to me. If anything the highlights may have been slightly overdeveloped

pentaxuser

agree ...
I like how the FX-55 takes advantage of the speed and grain management of the RPX-400.
Next time I'll develop 12 minutes

 

[Sidd]

agree ...
I like how the FX-55 takes advantage of the speed and grain management of the RPX-400.
Next time I'll develop 12 minutes

Hello schyter, didn't hear from you regarding your experience with FX-55 and RPX-400 for 12 minutes development. I am very much interested regarding anything related to FX-55. Please share your experience/s?

 

[pentaxuser]

Sidd , a person called John Finch has made several videos on FX55 using his own site called Pictorial Planet. If you search Pictorial Planet videos you will see his whole list

Here's one that summarises the best use of FX55 he has found



pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@pentaxuser it's pretty much what I found out as well with this remarkable developer. I tend to use the more dilute version, with regular agitation. My increase in time is about 50%... that's with TMY and HP5.

 

[pentaxuser]

@pentaxuser it's pretty much what I found out as well with this remarkable developer. I tend to use the more dilute version, with regular agitation. My increase in time is about 50%... that's with TMY and HP5.

Yes, Andy, what I like about John Finch's videos is that he tries things out and then is honest about his findings by showing you what he has found Of course some of his conclusions are of the "close call" kind on whether A is better than B but again he makes it clear that it is exactly that

As I said to sidd he made about 4 vídeos on FX55. He even compares FX55 to D23 replenished which I had forgotten until YouTube presented me with a list of related and unrelated videos, one of which is the aforementioned video

pentaxuser

 

[Sidd]

Sidd , a person called John Finch has made several videos on FX55 using his own site called Pictorial Planet. If you search Pictorial Planet videos you will see his whole list

Here's one that summarises the best use of FX55 he has found



pentaxuser

Thank you, I am a regular follower of John.

 

[Sidd]

Yes, Andy, what I like about John Finch's videos is that he tries things out and then is honest about his findings by showing you what he has found Of course some of his conclusions are of the "close call" kind on whether A is better than B but again he makes it clear that it is exactly that

As I said to sidd he made about 4 vídeos on FX55. He even compares FX55 to D23 replenished which I had forgotten until YouTube presented me with a list of related and unrelated videos, one of which is the aforementioned video

pentaxuser

I have tried John Finch's diluted FX-55, with his recommended times. Results are okay. I can't say remarkable.

My issue at the present is that I am presently using Tmax-s, from bulk rolls, and I can't find the timings anywhere. John uses only traditional grain films. I'll have to wait for opening of my FP4+ bulk roll.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have tried John Finch's diluted FX-55, with his recommended times. Results are okay. I can't say remarkable.

My issue at the present is that I am presently using Tmax-s, from bulk rolls, and I can't find the timings anywhere. John uses only traditional grain films. I'll have to wait for opening of my FP4+ bulk roll.

Thanks his results from his times looked excellent to me but of course that was his camera and meter Do I take it that it was FP4 you used when you found the results to be okay but not remarkable?

There are 2 timings for both Tmax100 and 400 using FX55 on the Massive Development Chart which is also know as Digital Truth They mention 1+9 which I found confusing but I think this has to be the working solution made after the taking 100ml of stock and adding water to make 1L

Those timings may not be right for you but should be close

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

Sidd I have had a look at other films and times on the MDC and I admit I am confused at what I saw for HP5+. At 400 speed the time is 13.5 mins at 1+9 but for 640 speed it says 15 mins and stock

I had thought that 1+9 referred to the fact that you dilute the stock of 1L by using 100ml of stock and adding a further 900 ml of plain water but as the instructions say to then dilute the stock at 1+9 to make a working solution I did wonder why 1+9 was even mentioned as I assumed that 1+9 was required for all films

Now I have found a reference to stock so can anyone who actually knows say what stock mean?

Does it in fact mean that to get increased speed such as 640 from HP5 you need to use say 500ml of the original stock of 1 litre with no further dilution?

Out of the whole list of fílms that a company called Nik and Trick have copied from the MDC only 2 films call for stock, HP5+ and Fomapan 100 which only gets to 80 speed even at stock The other 2 Foma films of 200 and 400 only need 1+9 even at box speed

Frankly I cannot make any sense of this. Maybe others who have used FX55 can make sense of it and íf so can they explain it

I certainly cannot recall John Finch making any mentíon of using "stock"

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've never used "stock". Always diluted. Now I'm tempted to try it1

 

[Sidd]

Sidd I have had a look at other films and times on the MDC and I admit I am confused at what I saw for HP5+. At 400 speed the time is 13.5 mins at 1+9 but for 640 speed it says 15 mins and stock

I had thought that 1+9 referred to the fact that you dilute the stock of 1L by using 100ml of stock and adding a further 900 ml of plain water but as the instructions say to then dilute the stock at 1+9 to make a working solution I did wonder why 1+9 was even mentioned as I assumed that 1+9 was required for all films

Now I have found a reference to stock so can anyone who actually knows say what stock mean?

Does it in fact mean that to get increased speed such as 640 from HP5 you need to use say 500ml of the original stock of 1 litre with no further dilution?

Out of the whole list of fílms that a company called Nik and Trick have copied from the MDC only 2 films call for stock, HP5+ and Fomapan 100 which only gets to 80 speed even at stock The other 2 Foma films of 200 and 400 only need 1+9 even at box speed

Frankly I cannot make any sense of this. Maybe others who have used FX55 can make sense of it and íf so can they explain it

I certainly cannot recall John Finch making any mentíon of using "stock"

Thanks

pentaxuser

Sorry, my film was not FP4, it was double X, I couldn't get timings from a reliable source, had to extrapolate.

Definitely the working solution is 1+9, i.e., one part stock solution A plus nine parts of water, to which Part B are/is mixed. Somebody may have referred this wrongly as "stock" solution. I don't think the negative would survive otherwise.

To dilute, we have to mix water in this working solution.

John Finch's videos are absolutely clear in this regard (in fact all of his videos are very clear).

 

[pentaxuser]

Sorry, my film was not FP4, it double X, I couldn't get timings from a reliable source, had to extrapolate.

Definitely the working solution is 1+9, i.e., one part stock solution A plus nine parts of water, to which Part B are/is mixed. Somebody may have referred this wrongly as "stock" solution. I don't think the negative would survive otherwise.

To dilute, we have to mix water in this working solution.

John Finch's videos are absolutely clear in this regard (in fact all of his videos are very clear).

Thanks Sidd It looks to be another confusing and possibly misleading entry in the MDC What is a little strange is that Nik and Trick ( a supplier of FX55) have compiled a comprehensive list of MDC times but make no mention of the strange reference to "stock" in the MDC

Nik and Trick even give their own testers' recommendations for FX55 times where they differ from the MDC on the few occasíons where they do

pentaxuser