Testing FX-55

[Kevin Caulfield]

I've just finished developing a roll of 120 Acros 100 in FX-55, my first test with this developer. Film is being washed at present, but at first glance, the results look great.

 

[bvy]

Curious, why FX-55? And can we see your results?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

FX-55 has an interesting history. The parent developer FX-50 was designed as two concentrates A and B. The theory was that keeping the ascorbic acid away from the alkaline chemicals in the developer would improve shelf life. However the problem, as with Xtol, was not aerial oxidation but rather with Fenton oxidation. After the commercial failure of FX-50 Crawley again tried to improve the keeping qualities of the developer. He did so with FX-55 where the ascorbic acid is added at the last minute before use. A useful but not commercially viable solution. Of course we now know that the Fenton reaction can be prevented with the addition of a suitable chelating agent to the developer formula. While FX-55 appears to be a competent developer there is the problem of having to lug out the scales each time one wants to develop film.

 

[Harold33]

In my opinion, it's an excellent developper. I noticed a real speed increase of about 2/3 or 1 stop. High sharpness, excellent mid-tones.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

In my opinion, it's an excellent developper. I noticed a real speed increase of about 2/3 or 1 stop. High sharpness, excellent mid-tones.

There quite a few Phenidone based developers both commercial and mix your own that can give you up to a stop increase in film speed. FX-55 is a good developer but hardly unique.

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

Curious, why FX-55? And can we see your results?

I've pretty much been working my way through the Geoffrey Crawley developers. I started using FX-37 as an alternative to FX-39, and am very happy with that one. I also tried FX-15 and like the results from that, maybe a little better mid tone rendition than the FX-37. I also tried FX-2, using it mainly as a stand developer and liked the results. Then I decided that FX-55 should be worth a try, partly because of the fact that the pre-mixed component will not deteriorate with age. Yes, it's a little bit tedious to weigh out the sodium ascorbate and the phenidone prior to each use, but it doesn't bother me too much. I've been using FX-55 as my main developer for quite a few months now. If you look at my gallery uploads, you'll see some examples, mainly of our new puppy. ;-)

 

[john_s]

...Yes, it's a little bit tedious to weigh out the sodium ascorbate and the phenidone prior to each use, but it doesn't bother me too much...

I've always been fastidious about accurate measurement, but It's interesting that a number of articles I've read, such as those from Sandy King about how much phenidone to use in Pyrocat-HD, where they say that within a range it makes little difference. I haven't tried the FX-55 but am interested. I would think that first time I would accurately measure then calibrate a suitable spoon or measure for subsequent times. My guess is that any inaccuracy would be no worse than that caused by the aging of already mixed developers that most people deal with without a thought, even within normal use-by time spans. I wouldn't use published spoon equivalents because in different batches the loose powder density of chemicals can vary a bit with particle size etc.

 

[Harold33]

There quite a few Phenidone based developers both commercial and mix your own that can give you up to a stop increase in film speed. FX-55 is a good developer but hardly unique.

There are even more developers claiming a speed increase which I never saw in real life.
About FX-55, I must add that the price for its qualities is a small loss of details around zone I-II. It's not a compensating formula.

 

[john_s]

.....About FX-55, I must add that the price for its qualities is a small loss of details around zone I-II. It's not a compensating formula.

Wouldn't that be another way of saying that the film speed is actually a bit lower than you might otherwise consider it to have?