Similarity between FX-39 and Ilfosol 3?

[blee1996]

Shot at box speed? Thanks.

Yes both shot at box speed. But then again, I was not using the official dilution (1+9) and time. I was using 1+19 dilution, 8min @ 68F, 10s agitation per min.

 

[pentaxuser]

I can imagine. This is nice work which emphasizes Californian light and certainly not doable with Rodinal:

Can you say what it is about Rodinal that makes Henry Wessel's negative impossible to reproduce in Rodinal Is there something inherent in Rodinal that makes it unsuitable for bright light similar to that of Californian light?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[otto.f]

Can you say what it is about Rodinal that makes Henry Wessel's negative impossible to reproduce in Rodinal Is there something inherent in Rodinal that makes it unsuitable for bright light similar to that of Californian light?

Thanks

pentaxuser

These are all very clean, a bit high key, photo's with hardly any visible grain. I just have never seen Rodinal developed photo's on 35mm format with that characteristics and I would be surprised if I saw them. What I see is that he shoots on Kodak TriX and this film developed in Rodinal has very prominent grain.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks Otto. Based on your quote I had thought that you were saying that Rodinal was unsuitable for bright light similar to Californian light and wanted to know why. Yes, Rodinal may not produce as grain free negatives as other developers but it was specifically whether it was a developer that was specifically unsuited to bright light that made me interested in what you said

As I said if it is solely a question of its grainy appearance that you do not believe could give the same look as Wessel's negatives then you may be right

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[dokko]

Ilfosol-3 is an all round excellent developer. I've never used FX-39 but would be curious to see side by side comparisons...

Just bought some Ilfosol-3, will try to run a comparison the next days

 

[foc]

Just bought some Ilfosol-3, will try to run a comparison the next days

Look forward to seeing the results.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Look forward to seeing the results.

Me as well!

 

[dokko]

edit:
I created a new thread with samples, since it's more a film comparison and no Ilfosol-3 involved:

Comparison of Kodak T-Max 100 vs Delta 100, in Adox FX-39II, Adox XT-3, and Spur HRX

I thought this might be interesting for some, so I created a separate thread from the discussion at https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/similarity-between-fx-39-and-ilfosol-3.198293/ I ran a film/developer comparison recently because I wanted to check two new magazines for my Hasselblad and...

www.photrio.com

I plan a much larger comparison in the coming weeks, and have already ordered some Ilfosol-3 for that as well.

 

[Steven Lee]

As the original author of this thread, I am returning to report on my results. Having developed a few rolls of Delta 100 in 35mm format, I can say that at least with this film, ADOX FX-39 II and Ilfosol 3 are extremely similar. It is tempting to write "interchangeable".

I am struggling to choose the rigth words here to describe the results. Putting speed aside (which I have not tested), it's about sharpness and grain character. Commenting on sharpness, I can juse type: both developers offer high acutance, and I feel we're on the same page. But the online vocabulary never reached appropriate sophistication to accurately describe the grain character. The blog posts and youtubers stick to the meaningless "fine grain" methaphor. The reason is doesn't mean anything is because people use it to describe two completely different/unrelated effects: grain softess and uniformity.

Well... let me try.

Both developers, just like Rodinal, do not soften the grain. In other words the "grain contrast", for the lack of a better term, is high. But the visible uniformity of crystals is a bit better than Rodinal, it's like Rodinal causes a bit of clumping creating a visual impression of rougher grain. I sometimes describe this effect as grain tightness, e.g. there's very little "empty space" around visible crystals. What this means is that up to a certain magnification ratio, images developed in Ilfosol 3 and FX-39 have this lovely texture to them. This is very different look than D76/Xtol that offer soft (not fine) grain.

I have not printed anything yet, but I have a feeling that I'd prefer the look of FX-39 II/Ilfosol 3 for smaller magnification ratios, but as you print larger and stretch the grain, Xtol may be a better way to go.

Just my $0.02 and only applicable to Delta 100. I haven't touched other films for almost a year now.

 

[halfaman]

I used Paterson FX-39 many years ago with Fuji Neopan Acros and I was very pleased. But, honestly, Acros looked well for me in any developer I tried (Rodinal, D76).