FX39: pros and cons of its dilutions

[NickLimegrove]

Hi everyone,

I've recently acquired a few hands full of 35mm Plus-X, for which I think FX39 will be a suitable developer choice. Now Fotoimpex's recent re-release of FX39 is marketed with the product claim that it »yields up to one stop over box speed«. I'd like to test that claim and shoot a few rolls at EI 200 (normal to low contrast subjects). What I'd like to find out is not if I can reach that EFS (I don't doubt that), but at what expense. What I need help with, though, is the question of which dilution to use, as different developers may behave differently at different dilutions, and I'm new to FX39.

What are the respective pros and cons of the three common FX39 dilutions going to be (1+9, 1+14, 1+19)? A sore wrist at 1+19 ...and what else?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Generally, the higher dilution you use, the longer your development time is. The longer the development time is, the more your shadows will develop. More developed shadows = more film speed.

I used Paterson FX-39 and found that TMax 400 did not yield normal shadow detail at EI 400 in normal contrast. So I would take that claim with a grain of salt and do your own testing. I had to shoot at EI 250 to get adequate shadow detail and not bury too much detail in black holes. I meter with an incident meter, by the way, which will make a difference.

Good luck.

 

[baachitraka]

Please also consider that incident metering shadows may require further adjustments.

On flat but beautiful day, I go without adjustments but on bright sunny day I consider adjusting at-least one stop.

 

[Xmas]

Generally, the higher dilution you use, the longer your development time is. The longer the development time is, the more your shadows will develop. More developed shadows = more film speed.

There is the risk with some developers that the base fog level increases as fast or faster than the shadow detail, so you don't gain much real speed.

And if you normally use a 'fast' developer any way you wont see much gain.

If you don't have a step wedge. etc. it is going to be difficult to detect any difference.

Plus-x is nice film Id shoot it on something nice myself.

 

[baachitraka]

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This method is rather very good in pushing shadows but only works with certain films.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Developers like FX-39 which use phenidone or one of it derivatives typically produce a 2/3 stop speed increase. In addition films usually have a 1 stop latitude toward under exposure. So the claim for a 1 stop speed increase is not unusual. In fact there are a number of developers that can make the same claim. That being said many people are more interested in tonality than any increase in speed. So only you can determine whether this combination meets your neds.

 

[Trask]

Please also consider that incident metering shadows may require further adjustments.

On flat but beautiful day, I go without adjustments but on bright sunny day I consider adjusting at-least one stop.

Baachitraka: could you please explain what you mean by adjusting at least one stop? I incident meter all the time with a Polaris meter. I'm using mostly Neopan 400 these days in 510 Pyro and even when I overexpose by lowering the ISO I just don't seem to be getting the shadow detail I'd like.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

There is the risk with some developers that the base fog level increases as fast or faster than the shadow detail, so you don't gain much real speed.

And if you normally use a 'fast' developer any way you wont see much gain.

If you don't have a step wedge. etc. it is going to be difficult to detect any difference.

Plus-x is nice film Id shoot it on something nice myself.

I don't recommend things that I don't know works by having tried it myself. Extending development time 'generally' (as I said earlier, generally), will develop the shadows more, increasing film speed. I have never seen base fog increase visibly, and nowhere near the increase I've had in shadow detail. Without step wedge.
Xtol, D76, Rodinal, Pyrocat, DD-X, HC-110, and Edwal 12. With FP4+, TMY, TMY-2, TX400, HP5+, Delta 3200, TMZ, TMX, Acros, and Neopan 400. That covers many films in production today.

 

[baachitraka]

- My personal assumption with my meter which is Gossen digisix is that the white dome mimics 18℅ gray card.
- I also give considerations to lens and camera flare.
- With that 7 stop range is reduced to 6 effective stops.
- So I incident meter the shadow and adjust the according to the illumination.

* I doubt about box speed with my prrsonal developerD-76 1+1

 

[Xmas]

I don't recommend things that I don't know works by having tried it myself. Extending development time 'generally' (as I said earlier, generally), will develop the shadows more, increasing film speed. I have never seen base fog increase visibly, and nowhere near the increase I've had in shadow detail. Without step wedge.
Xtol, D76, Rodinal, Pyrocat, DD-X, HC-110, and Edwal 12. With FP4+, TMY, TMY-2, TX400, HP5+, Delta 3200, TMZ, TMX, Acros, and Neopan 400. That covers many films in production today.

Maybe but id expect base fog to lift with increased development time the relative degree with respect to shadow speed dependent on developer type
and film type.

Eg see Foma's PDF data sheets
http://www.foma.cz/en/catalogue-fomapan-400-action-detail-272

But I use Microphen stock and Rodinal 1+100 and don't see big differences (cept maybe grain).

 

[NickLimegrove]

first results

Thanks everyone for your comments!

So I would take that claim with a grain of salt and do your own testing.

sure, that's the whole point of this enterprise

So, I've just hung up to dry the first of my Plus-Xs (in this case, EK 5231, to be precise) in FX39. I decided to go for the 1+15 dilution for that first test. I pretty much guesstimated my dev time (12min) based on MDC's times for 1+9, plus a few minutes for 1+15 and a few more for the extra EI. Results are looking great so far. I'm particularly happy to see that shadow detail's all there, for, as a Beutler disciple, I'm usually on the verge of not having enough of it. Not sure yet if they aren't a bit too dense. I might try the 1+19 next time, depending on how they print.

 

[NickLimegrove]

update

I) 0.05
V) 0.75
VIII) 1.31

will try 1+19 next time, with just a tiny bit of extra dev time