New FX-55 Developer

From the book: Controls in Black and White Photography by Dr. Richard J. Henry. 2nd ed.,Focal press, 1986...

"I want to digress a moment here to discuss the method of notating dilutions. Many authors in photography employ the form 1:2 when thy mean 1 part of the solution to be diluted added to 2 parts of the diluent, usually water. In most other scientific fields the notation 1:2 has an entirely different meaning, namely, "dilute 1 part of the solution to be diluted to a final dilution of 2 parts — thus, equal parts of each or 1+1. To avoid confusion, therefore, throughout this book I will use the notation 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, etc so that there cannot be any chance of confusion as to what is meant." — page 88.

This book, now out of print (unfortunately), should be on the bookshelf of every serious black & white photographer. Henry used the Scientific Method to confirm or de-bunk some of the endless flood of words and opinions published over the years. Too bad he isn't around today to continue his investigative work.

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

gainer said:

Let's consider another proposition. In the face of so much buffering, will it really make a difference if you use ascorbic acid instead of sodium ascorbate? If not, then the TEA can be left out and a B solution of 1 gram of phenidone and 12 grams of ascorbic acid in glycol or glycerol used. As I review what I've been preaching, I see that 12 grams of ascorbic may not dissolve in 100 ml of glycol. If not, use 200 ml and double the dose to 20 ml/l of working A.

Click to expand...

Pat, the buffer seems pretty weak. There's potassium carbonate and then a small amount of the bicarbonate, of sodium sulfite and sodium metabisulfite. I'd worry about shifting the pH around using straight ascorbic acid.

The formula looks interesting but I'd want to see noticeably better image qualities to deal with all these reagents (rather than mixing up PC-Glycol or something comparable).

Jordan said:

Pat, the buffer seems pretty weak. There's potassium carbonate and then a small amount of the bicarbonate, of sodium sulfite and sodium metabisulfite. I'd worry about shifting the pH around using straight ascorbic acid.

The formula looks interesting but I'd want to see noticeably better image qualities to deal with all these reagents (rather than mixing up PC-Glycol or something comparable).

Click to expand...

Jordan, it should be easy enough to check. There would only be 1.2 grams of ascorbic acid in a liter of working strength A solution. I agree that I would want noticeably better image qualities than PC-TEA or PC-Glycol before I would go to the trouble of all that measuring and mixing. It is so easy to doctor up the working solution of either one with some sulfite or carbonate or whatever. That is what struck me first about FX55, and why I made some joking remarks.

Reinhold said:

From the book: Controls in Black and White Photography by Dr. Richard J. Henry. 2nd ed.,Focal press, 1986...

"I want to digress a moment here to discuss the method of notating dilutions. Many authors in photography employ the form 1:2 when thy mean 1 part of the solution to be diluted added to 2 parts of the diluent, usually water. In most other scientific fields the notation 1:2 has an entirely different meaning, namely, "dilute 1 part of the solution to be diluted to a final dilution of 2 parts — thus, equal parts of each or 1+1. To avoid confusion, therefore, throughout this book I will use the notation 1+1, 1+2, 1+3, etc so that there cannot be any chance of confusion as to what is meant." — page 88.

This book, now out of print (unfortunately), should be on the bookshelf of every serious black & white photographer. Henry used the Scientific Method to confirm or de-bunk some of the endless flood of words and opinions published over the years. Too bad he isn't around today to continue his investigative work.

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

Click to expand...

Thus, 1:1 really should mean 1 part mixed with 1 part to produce 1 part? In mathematical logic, IIRC, the colon indicates a ratio, not a sum. Alone, it does not specify the final quantity, but only the ratio between its parts.

gainer said:

Thus, 1:1 really should mean 1 part mixed with 1 part to produce 1 part? In mathematical logic, IIRC, the colon indicates a ratio, not a sum. Alone, it does not specify the final quantity, but only the ratio between its parts.

Click to expand...

Have to agree with Reinhold the 1:2, 1:3 etc system used to have a different meaning but increasing Americanisation/Globalisation has changed how we use these figure because Books of Fornulae etc are now aimed at Global markets..

When I first started in photography it was more normal to use 1+1, 1+9 etc but when you saw 1:10 dilution that meant one part chemical was diluted to 10 parts, just occasionally the 1+9 would be in Brackets. 1:1 wasn't used as this was F.S. - Full Strength.

In scientific terms diluting 1:10 or 1:100 means making a 10% or 1% solultion.

However looking at older Agfa (Ansco), Kodak & Ilford Formulae books they all spelled out the dilutions, ie 1 part developer plus 9 parts water. Modern Ilford technical data sheets always use the + symbol, while Kodak however use the : to mean the same.

Luckily we have come to accept that modern usage of 1+9 and 1:9 means the same thing.

Ian

I made this last night and used the PC TEA method. The 12g of ascorbate went into solution with a 100cc mix using the glycol I have a Corning stirrer which took about 15 minutes to do the job. I developed new TMY, normal negs, and just had to guess at time. I used my D76 time in my Jobo and the negs are a little thin. I will do 4 more tonight, add some time and see what gives. I will need to print to really have a good impression but it does not appear to have any advantage over D76, not any sharper, not really unique contrast. I have used FX37 with TMX and it is really sharp and snappy.

EC

It seems to me that given the "interchangeability" or not as the case may be of 1:9 AND 1+9 and the issue of what exactly was meant in the addition of part B to part A, that clarification from Mr Crawley might be in order. I think it likely that 1:9 and 1+9 are interchangeable but as I am used to seeing 1+ figures in the Ilford literature, it leaves room for doubt. I haven't read enough of Mr Crawley's writings to make a deduction about his meaning.

My guess is and it's only a guess is that the purpose of the article was to try and introduce readers of AP to DIY mixing and was trying to make it as simple as possible using the range of easiliy obtainable chemicals for his readership which is predominantly U.K based. Could that explain why there's no mention of PC-TEA or glycol? I don't know. Maybe other U.K. APUGers can comment on the availability of such chemicals.

I haven't costed it out but I imagine that FX 55 is much cheaper than over-the-counter developers with the great attraction of indefinite keeping properties and absolute freshness at point of use in return for a bit of mixing effort.Therein lies the attraction.

My guess is that gainer's interpretation of the mixing procedure is right and as he says you end up with a litre of working solution each time which you either use on say 3/4 films @250/300mls each time or throw away the excess. Pity Mr Crawley leaves that aspect to be inferred by the reader instead of stated, especially if the article was written for new DIY mixers.

A second pity is that he didn't have the space or inclination to compare his FX55 with other commercial developers. He shows the curve and it is a very gentle S shape with a short toe and long "straightish line middle". He goes on to say that it is especially suitable for high tech grain films where they have less exposure lattitude than traditional films such as Pan F. FP4+, HP5+, Plus-X and Tri-X

I suppose that comparisons by the author to other commercial developers in an article in AP is fraught with danger and wasn't in his remit

Such comparisons more properly belong to forums such as ours.

So anyone caring to compare on looks, grain etc with ID11 or D76 or others commercial developers in the future would be adding to my knowledge and others. My guess is that it isn't as fine grained as Perceptol as it seems to have btween half and 1 stop speed increasing properties but might compare to DDX which I think is an improvement on ID11?

In fact if it compared favourably with DDX which isn't the cheapest of developers, it might turn a lot of people to DIY mixing.

pentaxuser

I compared the negs form the FX55 I made last night to some D76 negs from Monday and on the light table under 8X magnification they seem to be identical and have the same look. As far as cost goes, this stuff is ultra inexpensive...EC

pentaxuser said:

Keith It's the latest issue. You raise some good points. Part A makes 1 ltr stock to which part B is added. However my tank only needs 250ml at a 1:9 dilution. So do I add the same quantities, as Mr Crawley suggests to 1 litre, to 250mls. My assumption was that I do as I assume that part B remains the same whether you use the whole litre or only a part of a litre. In effect it is part B to say 25mls of stock at 1:9 to make up my 250 mls

However an assumption is all that it is. If part B was proportional to liquid used then I think that Mr Crawley would have mentioned it. In fact at a further dilution of part A at 1:9 the phenidone quantity would drop to a very small level - impossible to measure by most normal scales.

So until someone who knows better tells me, I'll continue to assume that part B is a fixed amount to be added each time to whatever portion of the 1 litre needed at a 1:9 dilution to make up a sufficient developer quantity


pentaxuser

Click to expand...

PU (and others!)

I had a quick look at the article again this morning and Part A is made up to the 1000ml mark as per my original post. This solution is then diluted for actual use, with the example given of 30ml of Part A diluted to 300ml with water, i.e. the quantity required to dev a 35mm film in a Paterson tank. The part B chemicals are added to this dilute mixture with the info that the ascorbate will dissolve straight away, but the phenidone will take a few minutes plus some agitation.

Pat?(GG)

We in the UK have been unable to use TEA as it has not been available, hence our reluctance to comment on your comparisons. It is now available via Retro Photographic, however, so I look forward to hearing from others how they get on with it.

Peter

Peter Black said:

.....We in the UK have been unable to use TEA as it has not been available,....
Peter

Click to expand...

TEA is used in many common products, such as liquid soaps, shampoos, disinfectants, pesticide sprays, paper making, corrosion inhibitors and others. I'd be surprised if you couldn't find some (but minimum quantities could be an issue). I get mine (here in Australia) from a lubricant specialist. I bring my own container.

Peter Black said:

PU (and others!)

I had a quick look at the article again this morning and Part A is made up to the 1000ml mark as per my original post. This solution is then diluted for actual use, with the example given of 30ml of Part A diluted to 300ml with water, i.e. the quantity required to dev a 35mm film in a Paterson tank. The part B chemicals are added to this dilute mixture with the info that the ascorbate will dissolve straight away, but the phenidone will take a few minutes plus some agitation.


Peter

Click to expand...

Thanks Peter. I had intended to go back to the library to re-read it myself but we've had a mini monsoon here in Daventry today!

If I have understood you correctly it looks as if my original thoughts on Mr Crawley's explanation were correct after all and all of Part B is added to the 1:9 dilution made up to the exact quantity needed for each tank thereby avoiding any wastage of part A.

I am no chemist but from this it seems as if the quantities of Part B are fixed and have the same effect whether you have a 250ml tank, a 300ml tank or need a whole litre of diluted solution or more depending on how many films you wish to develop within a 36 hour max period that the Part A mixed with part B lasts. My analogy, assuming I am correct would be that Part B seems to be like a catalyst in the process and its effect is independent of the quantity of Part A needed for the tank size and the number of films to be developed.

So no wastage at all and this must make it even more ultra inexpensive as stated by another poster.

If it at least matches ID11 in quality and characteristics then it's a real boon to those without easy access Ilford's or other companies' commercial developers but access to some easily shipped chemicals.

The prints in the article using D100 looked good. I think it was a 35mm film but I am not sure.

pentaxuser

I'll believe that when someone gets the same result by adding all of B to 1.) 30 ml A and 270 ml water, and 2.) 100 ml a and 900 ml water. I think it more likely that Crawley will say that you will need 3.3 times as much of each of the B powders in the second case. Is there a possibility that we could get Mr. Crawley to settle the matter?

I think that 10 ml of a B solution comprised of 12 grams ascorbic acid and 1 gram phenidone in 100 ml glycol or glycerol will use up 0.6 grams of sodium bicarbonate in becoming 1.3 g sodium ascorbate and 0.1 grams of phenidone plus carbonic acid, which acid becomes water and CO2. If you measure out the B solution first and add a small amount of the diluted A, you should observe effervescence. When that subsides, you may add the rest of the diluted A solution. Sodium ascorbate in water has a pH of about 7.6.
The difference between this solution and Crawley's will be 0.6 grams of sodium bicarbonate. Increasing the amount of the bicarbonate in the A stock solution by 6 grams should take out the difference without using TEA as the solvent in B. It should not affect the longevity of A. Alternatively, one could increase the amount of sodium carbonate in the A stock by 3.6 g (anh) . Either way, a small amount of diluted A should be mixed with the required amount of B and the effervescence allowed to subside before adding the remainder of the diluted A.

Given this analysis, you will see that whether you make a B solution or not, 1.2 grams of ascorbic acid may be substituted for 1.3 grams of sodium ascorbate if you add a little carbonate or bicarbonate to the A stock.

Patrick, he calls for potassium carbonate not sodium, which is why I asked if anyone had measued the pH (v.s.)
I have none myself or I would have done it. All in all it looks like a complicated way to make PC-Borax. No? Well, maybe add a little sulfite for whatever it might do.

Murray

gainer said:

Snip

I think that 10 ml of a B solution comprised of 12 grams ascorbic acid and 1 gram phenidone in 100 ml glycol or glycerol will use up 0.6 grams of sodium bicarbonate in becoming 1.3 g sodium ascorbate and 0.1 grams of phenidone plus carbonic acid, which acid becomes water and CO2. If you measure out the B solution first and add a small amount of the diluted A, you should observe effervescence. When that subsides, you may add the rest of the diluted A solution. Sodium ascorbate in water has a pH of about 7.6.
The difference between this solution and Crawley's will be 0.6 grams of sodium bicarbonate. Increasing the amount of the bicarbonate in the A stock solution by 6 grams should take out the difference without using TEA as the solvent in B. It should not affect the longevity of A. Alternatively, one could increase the amount of sodium carbonate in the A stock by 3.6 g (anh) . Either way, a small amount of diluted A should be mixed with the required amount of B and the effervescence allowed to subside before adding the remainder of the diluted A.
snip

Click to expand...

Murray Kelly said:

Patrick, he calls for potassium carbonate not sodium, which is why I asked if anyone had measued the pH (v.s.)
I have none myself or I would have done it. All in all it looks like a complicated way to make PC-Borax. No? Well, maybe add a little sulfite for whatever it might do.

Murray

Click to expand...

I forgot that he had used potassium. 4.3 more grams of potassium carbonate would get you potassium ascorbate in the required molecular proportions. While we're on the subject, the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics finds no mystery in crystalline potassium carbonate, defining it as K2CO3.1.5 H2O. You could as well say 2(K2CO3).3(H20).

FX-50?

I'm guessing that FX-55 is a close variant of Paterson's FX-50 which was formulated by Geoffrey Crawley. When it first appeared it was reviewed favourably by Roger Hicks in issue no. 14 (Oct.2002) of Black and White Photography, and by Roger Maile in the now defunct Mono magazine (does anyone else miss this and the Best of Friends annual?). But in spite of its eco credentials and alleged qualities, it attracted unfavourable comment because of perceived lack of keeping quality and sudden death syndrome. After Paterson were forced to find a new manufacturer for their chemicals, they re-introduced Aculux (as Aculux 3) and FX-39, but not FX-50 (or Acutol). Although there have been rumours about a second coming for FX-50 in an improved version, I am guessing that Geoffrey Crawley has decided to release this formula now because that is not going to happen.
It would be helpful to know how close FX-55 is to FX-50. For example, Crawley advocated an EI of 200 for Acros for standard development in FX-50.

JA.

First, Crawley's Amateur Photographer article 13 Sept 08 states:
" B
Sodium L-Ascorbate 1.3g
Phenidone 0.1g
ADD TO 1000 ML OF A, DILUTED 1:9"
There are some good deals on spectacles these days for those who missed it.

Second,from the old safety data sheet I have ,FX-50,(which IIRC was diluted 1+1+8) would have had about 4 times as much of both potassium carbonate and sodium sulfite as FX-55,but there is no mention of what was the primary developing agent and no mention of bicarbonate so to make a comparison it would be necessary to guess both the primary developing agent and buffer,if any, in FX-50.

John Anders said:

I'm guessing that FX-55 is a close variant of Paterson's FX-50 which was formulated by Geoffrey Crawley. But in spite of its eco credentials and alleged qualities, it attracted unfavourable comment because of perceived lack of keeping quality and sudden death syndrome. After Paterson were forced to find a new manufacturer for their chemicals, they re-introduced Aculux (as Aculux 3) and FX-39, but not FX-50 (or Acutol). Although there have been rumours about a second coming for FX-50 in an improved version, I am guessing that Geoffrey Crawley has decided to release this formula now because that is not going to happen.
It would be helpful to know how close FX-55 is to FX-50. For example, Crawley advocated an EI of 200 for Acros for standard development in FX-50.

JA.

Click to expand...

Two things to say which might be helpful. Both follow on from your comments and give credence to your guess. In terms of speed increase Mr Crawley says of FX-55 that it can give between half a stop and one stop speed increase and he appears to have got round the sudden death syndrome by introducing a developer which is in two parts. Part A which has indefinite keeping qualities and Part B which is added at time of usage. The combined part A+B has only max 36 hours keeping quality and then only in a covered sealed container.

pentaxuser

gainer said:

In case it's too difficult to figure out, here's a formula for a liquid FX55 part B with very long shelf life.

1 gram phenidone
10 grams TEA (it's liquid, but easier to measure by weight in such small amounts.)
12 grams ascorbic acid, either L- or D-
Glycol or glycerol to make 100 ml.
Glycerol is more viscous.

Use 10 ml of the above in place of 0.1 grams phenidone and 1.3 grams of sodium ascorbate.

Click to expand...

Paterson Photographic Ltd would be wise to consider some of your suggestions Patrick as it might lead to FX-50 being reintroduced with a significantly increased shelf life.

Some manufacturers produce one-shot viscous concentrates.IIRC DEA and DEA-Sulfur dioxide addition products produce alkalinity and sulfite.This has not been done with ascorbate.

DEA is diethanolamine and is of higher pH in water than TEA. It is used along with the sulfur dioxide in HC-110. Ascorbic acid can be added to HC-110. One could make a developer like HC-110 with ascorbic acid instead of hydroquinone and perhaps a little higher concentration of DEA than in HC-110. I would leave that to Kodak. I did show the result of adding ascorbic acid to HC-110 in an article in Photo Techniques some time ago. It is best if you want to try this to use the acid rather than the ascorbate, since the ascorbate does not dissolve well in DEA. The ascorbate will be formed between DEA and the ascorbic acid when the concentrate is diluted with water.

Six years after

Six years after the OP, I made several tests with this developer.

-- contraction and expansion are easy and predictable;
-- grain is fine without being ultra-fine;
-- sharpness is excellent (better than diluted D-76)
-- mid-tone separation is very good.
-- I did'nt noticed any significant speed increase (at least with Delta 100, Trix-X, Eastman XX).

The only drawback is the preparation method.
BTW, according to my thermometer, the addition of ascorbate + phenidone raise the temperature of a liter of A by 0,4° C.

In conclusion, IMHO, FX55 is a really excellent developer.
If anybody have a PDF of the original publication by Crawley, I'll would be glad to read it.

The problem with FX-50 was Fenton oxidation of the ascorbate ion. Under the right conditions the Fenton reaction can destroy all of the ascorbate ion in a matter of hours. Paterson tried to remedy the short shelf life of the developer concentrates by separating the developing agents from the alkalies. Unfortunately tis will not work. Any ascorbate based developer needs a chelating agent to complex any iron (III) and copper (II) ions present in all the chemicals used in the making of the developer concentrates(s). This also includes the water used. Look at the formula at this site for further information. The salicylic acid chelates the iron and the triethalamine chelates the copper. http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/ds-10.php

Iron and copper are common contaminants of many chemicals such as sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate. The only way around the problem without using chelating agents is to add the ascorbate just before the working solution is used to develop film. Unlike the usual oxidation most people are familiar with Fenton oxidation will cause no color change in the solution. So there will be no warning that the developer has spoiled until it does not work. Paterson never realized what the real problem was and was therefore unable to solve the problem. They finally removed FX-50 from the market.

Very worthwhile read. Thank-you gentlemen.

Gerald C Koch said:

The problem with FX-50 was Fenton oxidation of the ascorbate ion. Under the right conditions the Fenton reaction can destroy all of the ascorbate ion in a matter of hours. Paterson tried to remedy the short shelf life of the developer concentrates by separating the developing agents from the alkalies. Unfortunately tis will not work. Any ascorbate based developer needs a chelating agent to complex any iron (III) and copper (II) ions present in all the chemicals used in the making of the developer concentrates(s). This also includes the water used. Look at the formula at this site for further information. The salicylic acid chelates the iron and the triethalamine chelates the copper. http://www.digitaltruth.com/data/ds-10.php

Iron and copper are common contaminants of many chemicals such as sodium sulfite and sodium carbonate. The only way around the problem without using chelating agents is to add the ascorbate just before the working solution is used to develop film. Unlike the usual oxidation most people are familiar with Fenton oxidation will cause no color change in the solution. So there will be no warning that the developer has spoiled until it does not work. Paterson never realized what the real problem was and was therefore unable to solve the problem. They finally removed FX-50 from the market.

Click to expand...

If this is true, Kodak could extend the working life of Xtol by adding a chelating agent but they have not.
The shelf life of Xtol in part full bottles is at least 2 months:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

Alan Johnson said:

If this is true, Kodak could extend the working life of Xtol by adding a chelating agent but they have not.
The shelf life of Xtol in part full bottles is at least 2 months:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j109/j109.pdf

Click to expand...

Kodak uses DTPA as chelating agent in Xtol.