FX39 II Adox... with FP4 or ACROS 35mm.. ?

[jtk]

I'm in receipt from Freestyle of a tiny bottle of Adox FX39 II (FX39-2) ...

Please share your experiences with FP4 or ACROS, especially for 35mm, especially when scanned.

Perhaps you've compared to a particular dilution of Rodinal (e.g. 1+50). Steel tank & reel.

I've yet to use it but tentatively plan to follow Adox bottled German instructions after some October travels.

 

[awty]

I dont like rodinal much for 35mm. Fine for medium and LF .
Fp4 is more forgiving especially if there are highlights to deal with.
My personal preference would be for 35mm to use fp4 @ 80 iso in d76 for outdoors and acros for in doors and low light, especially for long exposures.
Really best to shoot a couple of rolls of each yourself and see what you like.

 

[subsole]

https://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=FX-39+

 

[jtk]

I dont like rodinal much for 35mm. Fine for medium and LF .
Fp4 is more forgiving especially if there are highlights to deal with.
My personal preference would be for 35mm to use fp4 @ 80 iso in d76 for outdoors and acros for in doors and low light, especially for long exposures.
Really best to shoot a couple of rolls of each yourself and see what you like.

thanks for your selection preferences re fp4 and Acros.. my favorite for 35mm is usually Rodinal 1+100/stand but that's with fast film...HP5 etc...I like the edge effect ...nikon scan

 

[jtk]

https://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=FX-39+

Thanks for that link. Have you used Adox fx39 or fx39II ?

 

[awty]

www.digitaltruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1255
The link above may be of some use.

I pretty much, after a lot of experimenting just use fp4 and hp5 in d76 on 35mm (although I will use ifosal3 if I have any on fp4@80iso). It has predictable results and usually gives me a decent negative to work with if I dont completely cock up the exposure, even then that will not necessarily stop me from printing.
I found acros has a steep learning curve and negatives will come out mushy if you dont get it right, great negatives if you do get it right.

 

[bedrof]

Some few weeks ago I tried this developer for a first time with a roll of Rollei RPX 25 (120), 1+19.
Haven't decided yet if I like the results.

 

[Neil Grant]

I'm in receipt from Freestyle of a tiny bottle of Adox FX39 II (FX39-2) ...

Please share your experiences with FP4 or ACROS, especially for 35mm, especially when scanned.

..i've used it with FP4 35mm, 6 mins @ 1+9. Exposing FP4 at 64 ASA (ie half box-speed). Negs look nice and very sharp but i intend them for optical printing, but i've not got around to that - i'm still at the 'neg' stage. Might try scanning one.

 

[subsole]

Thanks for that link. Have you used Adox fx39 or fx39II ?

No, I haven't used it yet.
There should be no visible difference between FX-39 and FX-39 II.

http://www.adox.de/Photo/adox-film-developer/adox-fx-39/

 

[jtk]

www.digitaltruth.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1255
The link above may be of some use.

I pretty much, after a lot of experimenting just use fp4 and hp5 in d76 on 35mm (although I will use ifosal3 if I have any on fp4@80iso). It has predictable results and usually gives me a decent negative to work with if I dont completely cock up the exposure, even then that will not necessarily stop me from printing.
I found acros has a steep learning curve and negatives will come out mushy if you dont get it right, great negatives if you do get it right.

"Mushy"...details? thanks

 

[awty]

Technical term for low contrast, flat negative, although some people like the mushy look, I dont. Probably something I was doing wrong, doesnt matter, they dont make it any more and I wont be buying any more rolls.
Medium format cooked in pyrocat hd.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not a lot to it really, it's a low solvent developer, intended for higher definition. I recall it has a relationship to Neofin Red & thus back to Beutler. Grain into Rodinal range, definition (from recollection) a bit better than Rodinal, thus perhaps a tick better than diluted ID-11. Tried it quite a while ago, haven't had any urge to do so since. The Paterson instructions gave rather generous times even for diffusion enlargers I recollect.

If your scanner has competent Dmax, very unlikely to be a problem for a neg that prints nicely on G2 (or even lower). Epsons & other consumer grade machines will make their usual pig's ear.

 

[jtk]

Not a lot to it really, it's a low solvent developer, intended for higher definition. I recall it has a relationship to Neofin Red & thus back to Beutler. Grain into Rodinal range, definition (from recollection) a bit better than Rodinal, thus perhaps a tick better than diluted ID-11. Tried it quite a while ago, haven't had any urge to do so since. The Paterson instructions gave rather generous times even for diffusion enlargers I recollect.

If your scanner has competent Dmax, very unlikely to be a problem for a neg that prints nicely on G2 (or even lower). Epsons & other consumer grade machines will make their usual pig's ear.

Thanks.. Nikon scanner.. I used Neofin Red happily for years fwiw.