Rodinal vs. FX39 II
-
A
- Thread starter Minox
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Deardorff 5x7 Camera
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Praktica KW 35mm with Zeiss Jena M42 Lens
- Started by J Durr
-
For Sale 7 inch Speedotron Black Line Flash Unit Reflectors
- Started by spoolman
-
For Sale FS: Durst Pictochrom CL Enlarger
- Started by slashower
Forum statistics
I'm in the same bottle boat! 
I like the Rodinal look but not thrilled by its speed drop against Xtol. I tried Ilfosol 3 which is a mind-blowing developer, but continue to be spooked by its supposed short shelf life, although I personally haven't experienced it.
In some older FX-39 threads, ADOX themselves categorized it as "modern Rodinal replacement". So... I now have a fresh bottle of FX-39 waiting for its prime time and looking forward to hear people's FX39-to-Rodinal comparisons.
I like the Rodinal look but not thrilled by its speed drop against Xtol. I tried Ilfosol 3 which is a mind-blowing developer, but continue to be spooked by its supposed short shelf life, although I personally haven't experienced it. In some older FX-39 threads, ADOX themselves categorized it as "modern Rodinal replacement". So... I now have a fresh bottle of FX-39 waiting for its prime time and looking forward to hear people's FX39-to-Rodinal comparisons.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 3,239
Some old results from Erwin Puts:
BW photography
web.archive.org
I started using FX39 II after reading Alex Luyckx's review of it
http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/2020/12/22/developer-review-blog-no-12-adox-fx-39-ii/
and especially using it with slow films like Adox HR-50. And I agree with him that FX39 is more like a cross between Rodinal and XTOL in having very, very fine grain but very high sharpness (and a full range of tones while keeping the speed). It's become my standard developer for many films. I should add that I don't actually like Rodinal but FX39 is so different that it's only the characteristics that can be described as 'Rodinal like' in some respects and it isn't a complete substitute.
http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/2020/12/22/developer-review-blog-no-12-adox-fx-39-ii/
and especially using it with slow films like Adox HR-50. And I agree with him that FX39 is more like a cross between Rodinal and XTOL in having very, very fine grain but very high sharpness (and a full range of tones while keeping the speed). It's become my standard developer for many films. I should add that I don't actually like Rodinal but FX39 is so different that it's only the characteristics that can be described as 'Rodinal like' in some respects and it isn't a complete substitute.
I can’t say that Rodinal looks like FX39ii at all, especially with 35mm film. The grain resulting from Rodinal is much more dominant and not always very nice, which is the opposite with FX39ii. Rodinal has an almost eternal shelf life, FX39ii max. 2years.
Thank you guys, very informative. Btw, are there any major differences between these two formulas (FX39 and FX39 II) ? While the FX39 is listed on MDC, the FX39 II is not, so I am a bit baffled by what times and dilutions should one experiment with.
Would the data from FX39 be close to that needed for FX39 II ?
Would the data from FX39 be close to that needed for FX39 II ?
You can directly compare the developers on some common films here :
fotoimport.no
They are not that similar, but you may like the change .
Fotoimport AS
Fotoimport er en spesialbutikk innen foto, med et stort utvalg av blekk og papir, samt analogt materiell og lysutstyr.
They are not that similar, but you may like the change .
A crucial question but what seems a definitive answer is on the Adox website as follows.
NEW: FX-39 TYPE II features better keeping properties and is less sensitive to low temperatures during shipping.
So my conclusion would be that in terms of dev time there is no difference between the two
pentaxuser
Rodinal is a aminophenol developer. FX-39 is a metol hydroquinone developer. Not the same thing at all. I've used both. I prefer the appearance of sharpness of cubic grain 35mm films developed with Rodinal. A friend who has also used both developers but shoots T-grain 35mm film prefers the reduced grain with FX-39.
Eventually, it would help if you decided whether to be a photographer or a photographic scientist.
Thanks for the link. I found it strange that Erwin used D76 stock instead of diluting it 1+1 as I have always found it to give me results I much prefer to the stock solution.
I thought it was odd too that Puts used a 1:100 dilution for Rodinal rather than the much more commonly recommended and used 1:50.
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 3,239
Puts had a later book called Leica Practicum but all he says is this:
"Spur Acurol-N for medium speed films like Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T-Max 100. If the Spur products are not available, the alternative is the Paterson FX-39 or the Ilford Ilfosol 3. These are all high-definition highly diluted developers. For high speed films the Spur HRX-3 is a good choice, or the Paterson Aculux 3 or Kodak XTOL. For photographers with an adventurous attitude there is the classical Rodinal formula for high sharpness and some increased grain impression."
"Spur Acurol-N for medium speed films like Ilford Delta100 and Kodak T-Max 100. If the Spur products are not available, the alternative is the Paterson FX-39 or the Ilford Ilfosol 3. These are all high-definition highly diluted developers. For high speed films the Spur HRX-3 is a good choice, or the Paterson Aculux 3 or Kodak XTOL. For photographers with an adventurous attitude there is the classical Rodinal formula for high sharpness and some increased grain impression."
I've been wondering about this myself(and haven't tried it out)
I saw one mention that fx39 and adox chs 100 ii was very grainy(hoping this is not the case)
I saw one mention that fx39 and adox chs 100 ii was very grainy(hoping this is not the case)
In recent 12 month I have standardized on FX-39 II (1+9) for almost all slower speed films (Arista EDU 100, Neopan Acros II 100, Kodak TMX100, Ilford FP4+, PanF+, Adox HR-50, etc. FX-39 II provides a good balance of fine grain, excellent sharpness, medium contrast, and reasonable ISO speed.
However, in my limited experience FX-39 II does not give full speed when developing 400 and above ISO films.
However, in my limited experience FX-39 II does not give full speed when developing 400 and above ISO films.
I have been using FX39 for quite some time. It is far superior to Rodinal.
I'm very interested in this topic. I have a lot of experience with Rodinal but close to zero with FX39. I was given a bottle of the latter a couple of months ago and thought I'd give it a go with a roll of Foma 200 in 35mm.
These are the indications from the official sheet https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/59870_4_PDF-Datenblatt.pdf
Fomapan 200 20 °C 1+9 10 0,65
I exposed at 125EI, which is what I use when I develop contrasty frames in my favourite Fomadon R09 (Rodinal) 1+50 combo, and followed the indications above, subtracting 15% from the suggested time.
The results were extremely disappointing. Terribly grainy, fuzzy stuff. Much worse than Rodinal. 'Rodinal-sharp'? Utter nonsense.
I had forgotten about this developer but now I'm interested in the positive comments vs Rodinal I'm reading here. I must have done something wrong or perhaps there was something wrong with that roll of Foma 200. I am about to do another test with a couple of rolls of Foma 100 in 120, where Rodinal 1:50 (IMO) absolutely shines.
I will report back.
These are the indications from the official sheet https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/images/products/media/59870_4_PDF-Datenblatt.pdf
Fomapan 200 20 °C 1+9 10 0,65
I exposed at 125EI, which is what I use when I develop contrasty frames in my favourite Fomadon R09 (Rodinal) 1+50 combo, and followed the indications above, subtracting 15% from the suggested time.
The results were extremely disappointing. Terribly grainy, fuzzy stuff. Much worse than Rodinal. 'Rodinal-sharp'? Utter nonsense.
I had forgotten about this developer but now I'm interested in the positive comments vs Rodinal I'm reading here. I must have done something wrong or perhaps there was something wrong with that roll of Foma 200. I am about to do another test with a couple of rolls of Foma 100 in 120, where Rodinal 1:50 (IMO) absolutely shines.
I will report back.
Last edited:
Keep the agitation down, no sloshing around, no vigorous cocktail shaker impressions, just minimal and gentle. Over a range of films the dev time at 1+9 is only in the range of seven to ten minutes at normal ISO so there's not going to be a problem if you just use the twiddle stick for five seconds on the minute. The problem is if you transport what you did with Rodinal over to FX39 because general Rodinal practice is for an entirely different type of image.
No sloshing with Rodinal done around here - but thanks for the tips.
Last edited:
Is your bottle FX-39 or FX-39 II? Is it fresh?
+1 Wondering the same thing. If the bottle doesn't have the II on it I'd say it's long gone.
None of this matters. Agitation intensity is akin to temperature or development time. You increase one, make sure to reduce another to compensate. Forget cocktail shakers. You can agitate in a blender all day long. With the corresponding reduction of development time or temperature you'll get same results. With all films and all developers.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |