FX-55 anyone?

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I mixed up Crawley's FX-55 developer to test it. But I only get rather soft negatives with relative low density. Even prolonging the developing time about 25% didn't do much. Since I mix up all my stuff by myself I do not believe that  something is wrong with my chemistry.
The softness might not be a great problem if you scan the negative, but I also would say that I only get good shadow details only at about half of the box speed. Then this developer wouldn't make much sense.  Astonishing I found the pH level of only about 7.5. Does anyone know what it normally should be? 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Susie]

What film are you using?  I only ask as I am currently using another Crawley developer, FX-39ii, and find I had to reduce my KH film by 2/3 stop.  This gives a Zone I net density of 0.1, and Zone VIII of about 1.20

The acid test (no pun intended) is how well the negs print up.

[fotomas]

Hi Susie,

I tried TRI-X, TMax 400, HP5 and ORWO NP15 in the first run. But this was unsuccessful, what was the reason for my post. Meanwhile I figured out what was the problem. It was the acid;-)
I used ascorbin acid, while Crawley used sodium ascorbate. After I added the stoichiometric amount of sodium hydroxide, to compensate the acid, all went well and I received full film speed. For this last test I only used the TRI-X, because I wouldn't lose so much film for the tests. I don't use the zone system so I can't tell the values for that, but I do a lot of testing different developers, since I mix up my stuff on my own. So I also tested some Crawley developers: FX-15, FX-21 and now FX-55. Crawley claimed for most of his formulas an increase of film speed of about 2/3 f-stop. Mostly I couldn't see this. But it might be, this was true for the films of the time when the developer was designed. Interesting fact here, FX-15 was introduced 1964 as Acutol S by Paterson. I found a speed increase with the ORWO NP15 what was, I guess, from 1961.
I never tested FX-39, but it was one of the last and most modern formulas from Geoffrey Crawley. Here in the forum quite a few use it. Some in the "I like film" thread. Never read about complains. So I guess it should work fine.
Maybe you need to extend the developing time? But there are also films that don't reach the EI they claimed.

[Susie]

Hi Tomas (if that is your name!)

The low value (Zone I) is just above film base+fog - hence the 0.1 density, so almost as clear as an unexposed frame.  The Zone VIII (very dark on the neg) is regulated by the development; I aim for a density of 1.20, which suits my enlarger.  The KH film is the cinematography version of Plus-X (K for Kodak and H for Plus-X).   The Kodak rating is 80 ASA in daylight and 64 ASA in tungsten.  I have been using it at 50 ASA with good results.  It is not Plus-X Pan which is rated at 125 ASA.  I bought three 100 foot reels some time ago, which is enough for about 2100 shots.

[fotomas]

Hi Susie,

my real name is Frank. Fotomas was inspired from the old Phantomas films. So the Foto-Phantomas;-)
I know the zone system in theory, but never used it in praxis, due to lack of required densitometer and spot light meter. Hope you get the values you desire for it.
Thanks for explaining the film. Didn't know this stuff. IIRC FX-39 is also a kind of high acutance formula. But it never was published, so I can't tell. It is claimed that FX-37 should be similar, for what the formula is available. This is not so extreme as FX-21, what goes maximum sharpness, but similar. I normally never used this kind of developers, but mixed FX-21 up to give it a try. Guess it was the sharpest developer I used so far, but the grain also got excessive. But I don't liked it's tonal values. Somehow flat and gray, so I don't go further on this road. 
I would imagine Kodak D-96 might be a good choice for that kind of film. I sometimes use it replenished what give the riches tones. Slightly sharper then D-76. Not sure if you can buy the replenisher in small sizes. Maybe only for cine film, what would be 60 l packages. But if you dilute it instead it should become even sharper. You can also mix it on your own, since the formula is published.
I'm interested in your results.

[schmidtbaer]

Hello all,

I tried FX-55 together with HP5+ (boxed as 400 ASA). After shooting some test negatives, it seems that the achieved ASA is only 200. I hope for 400-500.

Somebody else tried this combination and got higher ASA?

 

[fotomas]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello schmidtbaer,

at the moment I don't have the time to test this out. What developing time did you use? I had 13 min. with the TRI-X at 20°C in the end. In general I found the times for HP5+ to be pretty much the same. pH level should be about 8.2 I guess.
Did you mix it up fresh? Ascorbate didn't keep in solution longer than about 1 hour. So it is important to add it just before use.

 

[schmidtbaer]

Hello Fotomas,

I actually used 13min @ 20°, but did not measure the pH level.The developer was freshly mixed just before development.

 

[fotomas]

Hello schmidtbaer,

sounds like you did everything right. So I assume you also use sodiumascorbate instead of vitamin C.
Guess it should be possible to get 400 ASA with HP5+. Unfortunately I didn't have the time to do a test at least for the next three weeks.

[schmidtbaer]

Hello Frank,

yes, I used sodium ascorbate (not Vitamin C acid).

Most chemicals I had purchased recently a specialized shop.

The sodium bicarbonate and the sodium ascorbate are "food" grade types, but also fresh. Could this be an issue?

BR,

Marcus

 

[fotomas]

Hello Marcus,

I don't think food grade would be an issue, as long as it's pur without other additions. Normally technical quality is enough for most photographic chemicals.

I did my testing with testcharts, but haven't done a real live test yet.
It is claimed that FX-55 should be similar to FX-50 what was commercial presented by Paterson. With some published formulars from Crawley I got the impression, that we might get only a part of the total truth. I could imagine, that the freely published formula might be not as good as the commercial one.

Here I found an intersting post whre someone made a guess about the formular of FX-50.

Zitat

Another experiment. In former safety data for G.W.Crawley's two part FX-50 ascorbate developer the primary developing agent was never disclosed, the B solution contained carbonate.
I made this FX-50 type developer,possibly similar in properties to FX-50:
A. Ascorbic acid(vitamin C powder) 15g/L
Phenidone 0.6 g/L (equal to 1/25 the weight of ascorbic acid)
Sodium sulfite 140g/L
B. Sodium carbonate anhydrous 80 g/L (or 216 g/L washing soda
crystals,needs filtering.)
For use take 1 part A, 1 part B, 8 parts water.
I compared APX 100,sun/shade exposures, developed in PC-TEA 1:50 13.75min 68F (EI=80) and in FX-50 type 1+1+8 10 min 68F (EI=125).The FX-50 type gave 2/3 stop more film speed.There is an increase in grain with the FX-50 type,but IMO it is acceptable for landscapes on 12x8 prints from 35mm.

Incidentally, the concentrations of phenidone and ascorbate in the working solution are PC-TEA 1:50 0.05, 1.8 g/L,FX-50 type 0.06,1.5g/l, ie, similar,indicating that PC-TEA 1:50 made up in a working solution of sodium sulfite 14g/L and sodium carbonate 8g/L may give 2/3 stop speed increase,I did not try it.
Anyhow the experiment indicated the connection between carbonate and speed increase.

As we see it contains much more alkaline. Such a developer should have more energy, maybe sacrifiing the graininess and fog level instead.
To make FX-55 more agil you could try to add 5 or 10 g or even more gram of pottasium carbonate.

Or try this what was given with the formula at Wikipedia: Negatives intended for scanning can benefit from a higher CI. A CI of around 0.65 may be obtained by reducing the sodium metabisulphite in A to 10g, or by increasing the developing times by about 10%.

The suggested time for HP5+ is 13 1/2 minutes. So 15 might be better.

BR

Frank

[schmidtbaer]

Hello,

today, I have shot a new test film and created negatives for the zones 0-X. Developed the HP5+ 13:00 @ 20°C and measured the resulting densities.

The recalculation shows a gamma of 0.64 and a sensitivity of 400 ASA. Looks like I interpreted my first test negatives wrongly...shame on me.

At least box speed is achieved, although I was hoping for 1/2 to 1 stop more.

@fotomas: Thanks for your inputs. I will play a bit around with the ingredients ratios.

Best wishes

Marcus

 

 

 

 

 

[fotomas]

Hi Marcus,

thanks for your results. Great that it seemed to work now. If you already at gamma 0.64 I would assume that there is not much room left to increase the sensitivity further. 0.65 is a good aim I think, maybe 0.66 is also OK. Guess rising the pH-level is then not the way to go. Better prolonging development time. But if want to give it a try I would be interested in the results.
As I mentioned in #3 I didn't find any significant speed increase with modern films. Guess the rise of sensitivity today is just a marketing myth, that's kept since the old days. This was claimed for nearly all Crawley developers from the beginning on. It might have been true with older films, maybe even with the old HP5, but with the HP5+ I'm afraid we won't see it. Only via push processing, but then probably with an undesirable gamma.

Best Regards

Frank

[schmidtbaer]

Hello Frank,

unfortunately there seems much truth in the points you make

In the past I used to develop HP5 in XTOL and with a gamma of around 0.62 I got 500 ASA.

Currently I am using mainly the ILFORD RC Deluxe New, which when compared its predecessors requires a lower gamma.

This, of course, will impact (reduce) the achieved sensitivity further - due to the reduced development times of the film to get to a gamma of < 0.6.

Best regards

Marcus