 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / August 2005LONG development times with Crawley's FX-2. Help!
Hi, I recently purchased an FX-2 kit from the photographer's formulary. After unsucessfully googling for times with Tri-x and/or HP5+, I decided to shoot some test rolls. I did a first test with Tri-X (tx400 - 135), giving it 15' at 20C. My EI came out at 100, and my contrast index at 38. Zone VIII at 0.85 over fb-f. A second test was taken, giving it 24' at 20C. Now, the EI came out at 180, and the contrast index at 44. Zone VIII at 1.07 over fb-f. I'm not really keen on agitating a small tank for one hour plus. That, and the fact the the instructions that came with the kit said that time for plus-x was 18', makes me wonder if something's wrong. I did prepare the kit as per the formulary instructions, except that I added 50ml of isopropyl alcohol to ensure dissolving the glycin. That was recommended in one or two pages I read about FX-2. I am using a small, two reel tank, doing five inversiones in five secs every other minute. 30 secs initial agitation. 20C temperature. Any help/pointers/comments would be appreciated. Some forgotten data: The working solution is made with 25ml of Sol A, 25 of Sol B, 175 of Pkryptol 1:2000, and water to complete 500cc of solution. 1,75ml of pkryptol, sorry. ? > Hi, I recently purchased an FX-2 kit > from the photographer's formulary. > > I am using a small, two reel tank, doing five > inversiones in five secs every other minute. > 30 secs initial agitation. 20C temperature. I'd not have added any thing to the kit. Those instructions may have been written twenty years ago. I've gotten the impression that P. For. should update. Those emulsions may be much harder now. Harder emulsions retard solution penetration and diffusion. I suggest no Pk., 22C, and four inversions each minute. Are you sure you've the correct amount of chemistry in your working solution? Let us know. Dan Hi, and thanks for your response. Stock solutions are prepared as per PF instructions, giving 1liter of solA and 1liter of solB, in distilled water. The dilution to working solution is also straight out of the PF instructions. Thanks for your suggestions, I'll try some of them tonight (increasing agitation and working temperature). I was also thinking of doubling the amount of chemistry in the working solution, to 50ml both of sol A and B in 500ml. Thanks again, Santiago > I was also thinking of doubling > the amount of chemistry in the working solution, > to 50ml both of sol A and B in 500ml. > > Thanks again, Santiago Steve Anchell, in a Camera & Darkroom article "Formulas Using Glycin" suggests 50ml of each to make 1ltr. His formula may not be the same as P. Formulary's. A, Metol, sulfite, glycin, 5 - 70 - 15 grams; to make 1ltr. He does mention using 50ml of isopropyl. B, K2CO3, 123 grams. To use Na2CO3 subtract 10% of that 123; to make 1ltr. C, Pinacryptol yellow at 1:2000; 100ml. To make one liter working strength, 50ml of A and B. Add 3.5ml of the PCY. Some Crawley formulas are note-worthy for adding the most minute amounts of retardant; iodide and maybe that PCY. BTW, try that with some print paper. Play with the dilution. I've found that Crawley's FX-1 makes a very good print developer; very similar to Ansco 120 which in itself works well as a film developer. Dan > Hi, I recently purchased an FX-2 kit from the photographer's formulary. > After unsucessfully googling for times with Tri-x and/or HP5+, I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Any help/pointers/comments would be appreciated. The whole point of using FX2 was extended dilute development using minimal agitation fot enhanced adjacency effects. From my site : "For stand development try 15ml A,15 ml B and 1ml C per liter which will develop TMX-100 in about 2.0 hours."  SignatureRegards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org I'm primarily interested in the sharpness/speed aspect of the developer. I fear that the enhanced or 'interesting' (instructions dixit) adjacency effects, while appropiate for static subjects (rocks, trees, the works) , could get in the way/distract from other, more dynamic ones (street). I'm fully aware of the effect of mackie lines and acutance to our perception of sharpness, but sometimes too much of a good thing detracts from the whole. I was also looking at the 'pushability' of the developer[1], in order to cope with situations where any image is better than nothing, and I don't know if I can go this route with stand development. I'll probably shoot a roll and let it soaking in the tank for two hours tonight. Greets, Santiago [1] pushing in the sense of moving a zone i (i=I,II,III,IV) to V. I repeated my last test, the one that gave me 0.44 CI, increasing agitation as suggested here to 4 inversions every minute. All other parameters kept constant. The CI surged to 0.56, from 0.44. There's a small speed increase, to 200. Zone I 0,10 over fbf, Zone V at 0.60 over fbf, Zone VII at 1.23 over fbf. This suggests to me that there's an issue with local exhaustion of the developer, and that this developer is much more sensitive to agitation than my older ones. That's much better; yet I still fail to see the one stop filme speed claimed with this developer. The negatives are SHARP. I'll try to print some tonight. > The CI surged to 0.56, from 0.44. > There's a small speed increase, to 200. > Zone I 0,10 over fbf, Zone V at > 0.60 over fbf, Zone VII at 1.23 over fbf. That 0.60 I think a little low and the 1.23 at Z VII a little high. I've not seen pointed out the early loss of strength of dry glycin. I've not used the stuff but have read many comments of that nature. Some of P. Formulary's kits have the composition and use spelled out, all via the WWW. Have you checked against the S. Anchell formula I posted this thread? Dan Hi Dan, I've checked the PF formula, and it's exactly the same as the Anchell one you cite, giving one liter of stock solA and one liter of stock solB. I take 50 ml from each sol to make 1liter of working solution, as directed by the kit instructions. To test the film I mount my F3 on a tripod, pointing to a featureless white wall, and let autoexposure select shutter speed - it's continuous and accurate enough to find datapoints spaced 1/3 stops apart. I vary the ISO of the film from 12500 to 12, obtaining the following densities in each negative: Density ISO Comments 0,00 fb-f fb-f density = 0.24 0,01 12500 0,01 6400+2/3 0,02 6400+1/3 0,03 6400 0,05 3200+2/3 0,07 3200+1/3 0,10 3200 Zone I -> film speed is 200 0,11 1600+2/3 0,14 1600+1/3 0,19 1600 Zone II 0,24 800+2/3 0,28 800+1/3 0,34 800 Zone III 0,38 400+2/3 0,42 400+1/3 0,49 400 Zone IV 0,53 200+2/3 0,56 200+1/3 0,60 200 Zone V 0,68 100+2/3 0,76 100+1/3 0,82 100 Zone VI 0,89 50+1/3 0,96 50+2/3 1,01 50 Zone VII 1,09 25+1/3 1,16 25+2/3 1,23 25 Zone VIII 1,30 12+2/3 1,37 12+1/3 1,45 12 Zone IX Yes, zone V seems low, should be about 0.7. If I lower film speed to 160, zone v goes to 0.68, VIII to 1.30 and I to 0.11; maybe that's the real speed of the film with these parameters. I was not aware that glycin can lose its thunder with storage. I'll try to duplicate the kit buying the chemicals separately from a local supply house and report on the results. That'll take some time. Thanks for your comments, Santiago > Hi Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Thanks for your comments, Santiago Loss of thunder MAY BE ALL that is wrong with your Kit. You may buy glycin else-where but I think the source is P. Formulary. I've read that via the net and S. Anchell in his now ten years ago article believed P. Formulary to be "The only remaining manufacturer ..." And more yet! To ensure delivery of the freshest glycin order ahead with P. F.. I would'nt be surprised to find out that they use a back order build up to judge the amount to be made. As for your current stock, on a liter basis, try 100ml of each and/or up the temperature. You do want shorter processing times for those SHARP results? Well, a nice improvement with that last roll. A 160 EI is still slow but some what better contrast at Zs 1 & 2. I think P. F. has an 800 number. I order only from them as they are the ONLY source for a number of chemicals, and they do sell in SMALL quantities. Dan > Loss of thunder MAY BE ALL that is wrong with your Kit. I think that any glycin that was compromised would be immediately apparant at it turns pure black when oxidized.Perhaps second only to Amidol in this regard. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org Mmhh.. all ingredients in the kit were white powders, so that'll rule out glycin oxidation. That leaves a) Operator error. Who knows, bad hair day. b) Half strength dilutions, as suggested by a comment from Greg Gallagher. c) Real EI is halved, and Crawley was smoking funny stuff when he claimed that EI is raised. Greets, Santiago Hi Dan, I found that a local drug supply house has glycin listed. It's listed as made by Sigma-Aldrich (fluka). I'll give it a try; it'll be fastaer than the shipping + customs time to Uruguay. Greets, Santiago > Hi Dan, I found that a local drug supply house has glycin listed. It's > listed as made by Sigma-Aldrich (fluka). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Greets, Santiago Make sure it's the correct glycin. Several chemcicals use the same or similar name. SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org > Hi Dan, I found that a local drug supply house has glycin listed. It's > listed as made by Sigma-Aldrich (fluka). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Greets, Santiago Chances are that the stuff at the drugstore it not glycin. Similar names (glycine?) but it is not photographically active. >> Hi Dan, I found that a local drug supply house has glycin listed. It's >> listed as made by Sigma-Aldrich (fluka). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chances are that the stuff at the drugstore it not glycin. Similar names > (glycine?) but it is not photographically active. Right on the money Bert. http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/search/ProductDetail/FLUKA/14832 SignatureJohn - www.puresilver.org Gack! thanks for saving me from a major oops. Greets, Santiago Didn't catch the thread till now but here's my take. I have been using FX2 for about five years.I never have ordered the kit but prefer to mix my own. (Old habits die hard) Have tested it on Tmax100, FP4 and just finished running the tiring process on Tmax 400(TMY). I've never seen the speed increase that is mentioned in Anchell's book but that wasn't what I was after from the beginning. My E.I. on all three films is one stop less(or close to) then the manufacturers rating. But what's in a rating?(hee,hee) Here's my results for Tmax400(TMY). E.I. : 200 for "N" development Zone V: .78 density over fb/f Zone VIII: 1.30 density over fb/f Development time @ 20c : 10min, 15 Seconds Two notes: 1)the film being tested is sheet film, not roll. I do believe there are some differences as in film base,etc. 2)not sure of PF's mix but by Anchell's formula it requires 100ml sol. A, & 100ml sol. B to make "1" liter This doesn't answer your questions but I thought maybe you would be interested in others results. Greg Gallagher > I repeated my last test, the one that gave me 0.44 CI, increasing > agitation as suggested here to 4 inversions every minute. All other [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > claimed with this developer. The negatives are SHARP. I'll try to print > some tonight. Hi, it's good to hear another ones's experience. So, by Anchell's formula I needed 100mL each of sol A&B to make 1 liter; that's double the strength of the PF kit's instructions , and would account for the longer development times. The reduction of about one stop speed is also consistent with my experiences, both in HP5+ and tx400. Did it work well for you with Tmax100? I have some rolls laying around of this stuff, but as I had noticed that's there's a variation of this developer for tabular grain films (TFX-2), I assumed that results would not be optimal. Anybody has some idea/inkling of the differences between FX-2 and TFX-2 (chemical composition)? Greets, and thanks for the comments, Santiago I ran the tests on Tmax100 a number of years ago. Will have to do some digging to find my notes but for one reason or another I didn't stick with this combination. I forgot to mention that I also tested HP5(sheet film) on "N" development only, results as follows: EI: 200 Zone V: .78 density over fb/f Zone VIII: 1.35 density over fb/f Development @ 20c : 11min 0 seconds More notes: all development was done with constant agitation in a "Jobo" processor. Greg > Did it work well for you with Tmax100? I have some rolls laying around > of this stuff, but as I had noticed that's there's a variation of this > developer for tabular grain films (TFX-2), I assumed that results would > not be optimal. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.