FX-55 - What does it offer?

[Kevin Caulfield]

I'm considering trying FX-55 developer. I'm interested in any comments and opinions on it. I use FX-37 as my main developer and occasionally use FX-15 and also FX-2 for stand development. FX-55 appeals because it is a relatively more recent formulation and the indefinite shelf life is an obvious benefit. I'm particularly interested in how it compares with the other FX developers.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Geoffrey Crawley developed FX-55 to replace Paterson FX-50 which had an abysmal shelf-life. Both are ascorbate based developers. At the time Crawley devised FX-50 little was understood about ascorbate developers. He thought that keeping the ascorbic acid in a separate solution would extend the useful life of the developer. However what kills these developers is the Fenton reaction and separating things does not help. FX-55 has the user add the dry developing agents immediately before use to get around the stability problem. Still the mixed developer needs to be used soon after mixing. Sort of inconvenient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FX-55_(film_developer))

I have never used either but have used Kodak Xtol. FX-55 and Xtol are probably very similar.

You might also consider DS-10. The formula should be on APUG. It is recommended for medium and high speed films. The inventor Ryuji Suzuki does not recommend it for Ilford Pan F+.

 

[john_s]

This is directly from Ryuji Suzuki's (now defunct) website, except for the formatting but it should be clear
===============================
DS-10

Dimezone S
0.15g

ascorbic acid
8.0g

boric acid
4.0g

salicylic acid
1.0g

sodium sulfite, anhydrous
75g

triethanolamine, 99%
10ml

water to make
1.0 liter

target pH
8.00 ± 0.05

This is a very fine grain developer with no loss of shadow details. This developer is intended to meet the image quality of Kodak XTOL developer, but with more robustness against trace impurities, which may have caused unpredictable failures with XTOL.
Phenidone may be substituted for Dimezone S, but the solution should be used soon after mixing. Phenidone B or Dimezone may also be substituted for Dimezone S with no loss of stability, but it is best to dissolve it in alcohol first together with salicylic acid.
The target pH is set 8.00 instead of XTOL's 8.20 to obtain slightly finer grain, though at about 20% increase of development time. If pH of 8.20 is targeted, the development time is nearly identical to XTOL time. This can be achieved by cutting down the boric acid to 2.0g, and this variation is called DS-10X.
This developer may be diluted 1+1 by combining one part DS-10 and one part water.

 

[Harold33]

(...) I'm particularly interested in how it compares with the other FX developers.

I never tried the other FX developer, but I use F-55 often. It's an excellent developer with almost all the qualities you can expect: subtle but very dynamic gradation (better than Xtol), outstanding sharpness (like Beutler), fine grain, easy to manage with reduced/extended development. I never saw the speed increase claimed by Crawley, but I use only classical films.

 

[Harold33]

(...) I have never used either but have used Kodak Xtol. FX-55 and Xtol are probably very similar.

They are different: I don't like XTol very much because of the the grayish (lifeless) mid-tones it delivers, at least to my eyes. FX-55 gives me better satisfaction on this point.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

They are different: I don't like XTol very much because of the the grayish (lifeless) mid-tones it delivers, at least to my eyes. FX-55 gives me better satisfaction on this point.

Xtol, DS-10 and FX-55 are all essentially variations on a theme. The formulas are very similar which was the basis of my post. Any differences attributed may be its method of use being more dilute than the others. Used at a similar dilution say 1+3 might produce similar results to FX-55.

FX-50 was more versatile in its use. It could be used full strength, diluted or even as a two bath developer.

 

[albada]

Xtol, DS-10 and FX-55 are all essentially variations on a theme. The formulas are very similar which was the basis of my post. Any differences attributed may be its method of use being more dilute than the others. Used at a similar dilution say 1+3 might produce similar results to FX-55...

Except that FX-55 has only 3.7 g of sulfites per liter of working solution. The other two contain at least 20 times as much sulfite, making them solvent developers. It seems to me that FX-55 is a nonsolvent developer, so I'm surprised at its claims of both fine grain and high speed.

Mark Overton

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Except that FX-55 has only 3.7 g of sulfites per liter of working solution. The other two contain at least 20 times as much sulfite, making them solvent developers. It seems to me that FX-55 is a nonsolvent developer, so I'm surprised at its claims of both fine grain and high speed.

Mark Overton

[They are different: I don't like XTol very much because of the grayish (lifeless) mid-tones it delivers, at least to my eyes. FX-55 gives me better satisfaction on this point.

My thought was that by diluting Xtol and thereby lowering the sulfite concentration it might be possible to get better gradation.

I agree. At the sulfite concentration of the working solution FX-55 looks more like an acutance developer.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Thanks for the responses so far, very informative.

Sent from my D6653 using Tapatalk

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is a curve for Delta 100 in Xtol 1+2 :
http://www.fotoimport.no/images/pk/xtol-delta100.gif
Attached a curve for Delta 100 in FX-55 from Amateur Photographer 12 Sept 2008 p34.
They are quite similar.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Alan thanks for postings these curves. Actual data is better than speculation.