Takkun
Ian M.
Weather changing, still waiting on a replacement tripod: time for fast film. I've never got on well with Ilford's faster emulsions (HP5/D400) but with the comparably high cost of TMY and sake of variety, giving them another shot.
Paterson/Adox FX-39 comes up a lot so giving it a try as well.
What's throwing me is how all over the board times are on Massive Dev, between the original Paterson 1+9 times and the alternative 1+14 times published by one Michael Scarpitti. Some of his are shorter at higher dilutions.
Compounding this: both sets suggesting a 20% increase for roll/sheet film. Not sure what purpose that is intended to serve.
Also compounding this: past forum posts here/APUG/what have you are ancient or dead ends on info.
I understand Scarpitti's times were meant to be very low-contrast for condenser enlargers and higher paper grade. I'm DSLR scanning using a video hot light as a source, so I suppose the digital equivalent of a diffusion enlarger.
Trying to understand the relationship between dilution and time. Some seem to find the box times far too long.
Derek Watkins's early review mentions higher film speed at longer times. Seems like this film behaves very differently than most I've used.
I know everyone's got a different opinion on what's 'right' (especially as I've gotten to learn Rodinal!) but just looking for a good jumping off point for experimenting.
Paterson/Adox FX-39 comes up a lot so giving it a try as well.
What's throwing me is how all over the board times are on Massive Dev, between the original Paterson 1+9 times and the alternative 1+14 times published by one Michael Scarpitti. Some of his are shorter at higher dilutions.
Compounding this: both sets suggesting a 20% increase for roll/sheet film. Not sure what purpose that is intended to serve.
Also compounding this: past forum posts here/APUG/what have you are ancient or dead ends on info.
I understand Scarpitti's times were meant to be very low-contrast for condenser enlargers and higher paper grade. I'm DSLR scanning using a video hot light as a source, so I suppose the digital equivalent of a diffusion enlarger.
Trying to understand the relationship between dilution and time. Some seem to find the box times far too long.
Derek Watkins's early review mentions higher film speed at longer times. Seems like this film behaves very differently than most I've used.
I know everyone's got a different opinion on what's 'right' (especially as I've gotten to learn Rodinal!) but just looking for a good jumping off point for experimenting.
Takkun
Ian M.
And an update: went out and finished off a roll of FP4 at box speed and souped it 1+9 for 7:30. That's about halfway between the 'low-contrast' and 'high-contrast' times found on a 2002 Paterson data sheet. Shadows look a bit thin for a traditional-grain film but highlights don't look too bad; but we'll see once I can get them scanned.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Ignore all advice. Start with Adox’s recommended time: 14 min in FX-39 1+9 for HP5+. Then, if it is too contrasty, increase exposure (~1 stop) and decrease development (~10-20%). If it is too flat, decrease exposure and increase development. Work from there . . .
This is not that difficult, but the overload of development times for which you have little or no background and no examples or data (curves etc) makes things harder, not better or easier.
All I ever saw from Michael Scarpitti was an unremarkable photo of a rhinocerous at a zoo, but for almost a decade he was insistently inserting himself into internet threads in several places using several names and asserting that the only way to shoot B&W was to use acutance developers, develop to low contrast and print on grade 3 paper with a condenser enlarger. There is always more than one way to do anything, and in art anything goes. Decide for yourself.
Marty
This is not that difficult, but the overload of development times for which you have little or no background and no examples or data (curves etc) makes things harder, not better or easier.
All I ever saw from Michael Scarpitti was an unremarkable photo of a rhinocerous at a zoo, but for almost a decade he was insistently inserting himself into internet threads in several places using several names and asserting that the only way to shoot B&W was to use acutance developers, develop to low contrast and print on grade 3 paper with a condenser enlarger. There is always more than one way to do anything, and in art anything goes. Decide for yourself.
Marty
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've never heard of Michael Scarpitti
I agree with you on everything else, Marty. I have my own tested developing times on my website for a lot of film and developer combinations, but people often email to ask me about something I've never tried. My recommendation in those cases is to follow the manufacturer's instructions as a starting point. I know that developing times supplied by Kodak and Ilford for their films and chemicals are almost always spot on for me.
If someone asks about something obscure that the manufacturer of either the film or of the developer does not give directions for, I ask them to think about what, exactly, they hope to get from the film-dev combo that they wouldn't get from a more conventional film and/or developer. There is so much silly folklore in photography about films, chemicals, processing techniques, and equipment; and people desperate to find a 'magic bullet' that will make them creative and talented, and it just doesn't work that way.
Most great photographers in recent decades used common films and developers. Richard Avedon used Tri-X developed in D-76 1+1. John Sexton uses Tmax 100 developed in D-76 1+1. David Vestal liked Tri-X in D-76 1+1.
Takkun
Ian M.
Marty—always sound advice starting with the basics, and I’m well versed in such....but as you said, it was the challenge of where to start, period, with a mass of contextless data.. Rather than supply a data sheet, Adox’s site points to Massive Dev, where Mr Scarpitti’s strange higher-dilution-but-shorter times are mixed in with other off-label brews. Not how I usually think of developer curves working.
Once I found that archived Paterson data sheet I gave it a shot with something close to the recommended time. Still not sure why a higher CI/gamma for MF is suggested, but it looks good on the light table.
And of course there’s the fact that a number of emulsions have changed in the last two decades. I suppose I should have titled the post “are Paterson’s times still valid”. Hopefully this thread is of use to future users.
As for our friend Mr. Scarpitti: sounds like a few people that used to hang around here more frequently, evangelizing an unorthodox technique or pointless contrarianism ( I like to think my contrarianism has purpose, at least). It’s funny, the name only came up in this specific context and I couldn’t find more than one or two forum posts attributed to that name. I did see he drama over assuming different pseudonyms. Fascinating how online legacies manifest themselves decades on.
Chris— ditto on manufacturers times being more or less spot on for most purposes. Seems that occasionally there are those who think if you haven’t done exhaustive sensitometry testing on every camera/format/film/developer combo you’re not learning or contributing anything, as though it’s a shortcut.
Definitely did give Scarpitti!s methodology a thought on his intentions, and it partly seemed in response to a popular complaint that the manufacturer times were far too long, but as I said, I didn’t know what those initially were.
As for standard combos and so called magic bullets—not looking for one here, just looking to branch out. I’ve standardized more or less on D100/TMY in Xtol over the past decade and it’s served me well. There’s a bigger world of films and specialty developers out there and it’s nice to have options at my disposal.
Once I found that archived Paterson data sheet I gave it a shot with something close to the recommended time. Still not sure why a higher CI/gamma for MF is suggested, but it looks good on the light table.
And of course there’s the fact that a number of emulsions have changed in the last two decades. I suppose I should have titled the post “are Paterson’s times still valid”. Hopefully this thread is of use to future users.
As for our friend Mr. Scarpitti: sounds like a few people that used to hang around here more frequently, evangelizing an unorthodox technique or pointless contrarianism ( I like to think my contrarianism has purpose, at least). It’s funny, the name only came up in this specific context and I couldn’t find more than one or two forum posts attributed to that name. I did see he drama over assuming different pseudonyms. Fascinating how online legacies manifest themselves decades on.
Chris— ditto on manufacturers times being more or less spot on for most purposes. Seems that occasionally there are those who think if you haven’t done exhaustive sensitometry testing on every camera/format/film/developer combo you’re not learning or contributing anything, as though it’s a shortcut.
Definitely did give Scarpitti!s methodology a thought on his intentions, and it partly seemed in response to a popular complaint that the manufacturer times were far too long, but as I said, I didn’t know what those initially were.
As for standard combos and so called magic bullets—not looking for one here, just looking to branch out. I’ve standardized more or less on D100/TMY in Xtol over the past decade and it’s served me well. There’s a bigger world of films and specialty developers out there and it’s nice to have options at my disposal.
Takkun
Ian M.
and a followup, since, as I said, very few threads I'd researched were followed up much—
One thing I was hesitant toward was Kodak's introduction of TMY2 and slight changing of other stocks since that 2002 sheet was published. Also found on the fantastic Photo Memorabilia site: a more contemporary 2008 data sheet. A number of times appear to split the difference between 'normal' (gamma 0.57) and 'high contrast' (gamma 0.7) times.
I ran a batch of TMY2 I had lying around—very 'thick' negs as a former professor would say. Much more so than I'm used to with Tmax in general, but they didn't look too particularly overcooked.
One thing I've noticed DSLR scanning versus with a Coolscan is the ability to really pick up well-defined grain, and to pull a lot more detail out of the extreme ends of exposure; I've run into more negatives being too flat than too contrasty (though transparencies are a different story)
Got around to scanning it all yesterday. Box speed, shot with Rolleiflex + 80/2.8, plus a X0 (yellow-green) filter, very gray New Years eve. No adjustments other than inverting levels.
FP4. Very smooth, sharp fine detail. Given the lighting condition, it probably could have been souped a little longer.
Ditto; I can pull a lot out of those shadows but decreasing midtones. All in all, about in line with how FP4 has behaved for me.
TMY was completely unexpected. Early afternoon Seattle gray, metered off of the twisty building down the block. I would have expected these shadows to be totally gone. I guess this really does give a bit of a speed boost at standard time dilution.
Wouldn't be a film test without a pet shot. I've spent much of my time indoors photographing the cats, mostly on Tri-X...
This is just basic overhead LED T-4 (fluorescent tube replacement) lighting, but at screen resolution (as opposed to pixel peeping) it pops in a way I haven't seen before, especially under bland kitchen lighting. Very different tonality than what I'm used to with TMY.
The tradeoff:very prominent, albeit sharp, grain. Almost as much as HP5/HC110 in 35mm. I see now why the imperative to reduce grain for small format.
Very interesting results and quite different look than what I've been accustomed to—as mentioned, I pretty much exclusively shoot D100 and TMY in Xtol but like branching out. I'm eager to try this with more varied lighting, particularly in studio or once the sun comes out. As well with D400, which I've liked okay pushed in DD-X in low-light but always found it a bit 'dirty' looking at lower EIs, for lack of a better word.
For a while I was experimenting with Rodinal in search of its fabled tonality and sharpness but never got along with it beyond Fomapan 100 (which is lovely in it for people in natural light, IMO). I shoot mostly architecture and (urban) landscape on MF and this may very well replace DDX, Rodinal and HC110 for most specialist purposes.
Also worth noting: it hadn't occurred to me to search Flickr, as I don't think I'd signed in for probably 10 years over there, but quite an active scene with many photos tagged with film/developer combinations. For a product that is often recommended but little discussed its nice to see real results from others.
One thing I was hesitant toward was Kodak's introduction of TMY2 and slight changing of other stocks since that 2002 sheet was published. Also found on the fantastic Photo Memorabilia site: a more contemporary 2008 data sheet. A number of times appear to split the difference between 'normal' (gamma 0.57) and 'high contrast' (gamma 0.7) times.
I ran a batch of TMY2 I had lying around—very 'thick' negs as a former professor would say. Much more so than I'm used to with Tmax in general, but they didn't look too particularly overcooked.
One thing I've noticed DSLR scanning versus with a Coolscan is the ability to really pick up well-defined grain, and to pull a lot more detail out of the extreme ends of exposure; I've run into more negatives being too flat than too contrasty (though transparencies are a different story)
Got around to scanning it all yesterday. Box speed, shot with Rolleiflex + 80/2.8, plus a X0 (yellow-green) filter, very gray New Years eve. No adjustments other than inverting levels.
FP4. Very smooth, sharp fine detail. Given the lighting condition, it probably could have been souped a little longer.
Ditto; I can pull a lot out of those shadows but decreasing midtones. All in all, about in line with how FP4 has behaved for me.
TMY was completely unexpected. Early afternoon Seattle gray, metered off of the twisty building down the block. I would have expected these shadows to be totally gone. I guess this really does give a bit of a speed boost at standard time dilution.
Wouldn't be a film test without a pet shot. I've spent much of my time indoors photographing the cats, mostly on Tri-X...
This is just basic overhead LED T-4 (fluorescent tube replacement) lighting, but at screen resolution (as opposed to pixel peeping) it pops in a way I haven't seen before, especially under bland kitchen lighting. Very different tonality than what I'm used to with TMY.
The tradeoff:very prominent, albeit sharp, grain. Almost as much as HP5/HC110 in 35mm. I see now why the imperative to reduce grain for small format.
Very interesting results and quite different look than what I've been accustomed to—as mentioned, I pretty much exclusively shoot D100 and TMY in Xtol but like branching out. I'm eager to try this with more varied lighting, particularly in studio or once the sun comes out. As well with D400, which I've liked okay pushed in DD-X in low-light but always found it a bit 'dirty' looking at lower EIs, for lack of a better word.
For a while I was experimenting with Rodinal in search of its fabled tonality and sharpness but never got along with it beyond Fomapan 100 (which is lovely in it for people in natural light, IMO). I shoot mostly architecture and (urban) landscape on MF and this may very well replace DDX, Rodinal and HC110 for most specialist purposes.
Also worth noting: it hadn't occurred to me to search Flickr, as I don't think I'd signed in for probably 10 years over there, but quite an active scene with many photos tagged with film/developer combinations. For a product that is often recommended but little discussed its nice to see real results from others.
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
I've been using FX-39 for years, as I wanted something similar to Tetenal Utrafin Plus but one-shot. I'm also cheap so I use it in 1+19 dillution, with Jobo 1510 tank it's 12.5ml of chemistry per 35mm roll. It handles higher dev temp without problems, usually my home temp is 24C and I cut dev time using Ilford chart I found inside a box of a developer, probably Perceptol (but first I double the 1+9 time from digitaltruth, never bothered with Mr. Scarpitti table). I think this combo is quite forgiving, never had a too thin negative but I always tend to overexpose when in doubt.
Here are few samples straight from flatbed scanner, only downsized (and I do quite alot of PP later)
HP5
HP5
Delta 100
expired FP4
expired FP4
it's also a good developer for half frame, below some Delta 100 after bit of PP.
and Tri-X 400
one thing I can't say anything about is pushing in FX-39, maybe I used it one for HP5@800 but I can't recall now.
I've done some printing from those negatives and with split-grading they work beautiful.
Here are few samples straight from flatbed scanner, only downsized (and I do quite alot of PP later)
HP5
HP5
Delta 100
expired FP4
expired FP4
it's also a good developer for half frame, below some Delta 100 after bit of PP.
and Tri-X 400
one thing I can't say anything about is pushing in FX-39, maybe I used it one for HP5@800 but I can't recall now.
I've done some printing from those negatives and with split-grading they work beautiful.
Peter_S
Peter_S
FX-39 is nice. I used it a bit, sadly it is too long ago to remember what I chart I went by. Some shots have 1+19 noted and the Delta 100 shot below says 8 min. That hints at Scarpitti`s chart.
On Ushba (4710 m), Georgian Caucasus.
Leica M7, ZM Planar ZM 2/50, Heliopan yellow filter and Ilford Delta 100 (in FX-39 1+19, 8 min, 20-21°). Hasselblad X1 Scan.
On Ushba (4710 m), Georgian Caucasus.
Leica M7, ZM Planar ZM 2/50, Heliopan yellow filter and Ilford Delta 100 (in FX-39 1+19, 8 min, 20-21°). Hasselblad X1 Scan.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Peter_S
Peter_S
Leica M7, Zeiss ZM C-Biogon 2.8/35mm, Heliopan yellow filter and Ilford FP4+ (in FX-39, 1+19, 8 min, 20°). Hasselblad X1 scan.
Takkun
Ian M.
Peter— I saw your essay on the Ilford blog, including the above photo, and that was one of the inspirations to try this combo. Congrats are in order!
It's been a while since I've been alpine backpacking but I've been itching to as of late. Certainly a challenge photographing up there but the rewards are immense.
It's been a while since I've been alpine backpacking but I've been itching to as of late. Certainly a challenge photographing up there but the rewards are immense.
charjohncarter
Veteran
You were never better than on this one. Well, maybe not 'never better' but at least (or maybe close to your very best) very, very sensible.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Thank you, really. I often fear my best is far in the past. These days I strive for adequacy, but I do feel supported by experience.
Mori Tower, Roppongi, Tokyo. Neopan 400, Xtol 1+3 (sorry, I don't have any FX-39 scans), e58 Noctilux.
"Memory, he added in a postscript, often strikes me as a kind of dumbness. It makes one's head heavy and giddy, as if one were not looking back down the receding perspectives of time but rather down on the earth from a great height, from one of those towers whose tops are lost to view in the clouds." W.G. Sebald, The Emigrants.
Marty
Takkun
Ian M.
Thanks for the contributions of photos with this developer. I have a few more rolls under my belt with it, and I'm loving it so far.
2008 data sheet times, box speed, shot with the 6008:
Definitely a keeper with Delta 400. Obviously lighting helps. But my past experiements with it in HC110 and Xtol left me underwhelmed in the highlights—and cutting development lost separation in the mids. This is getting there. Negs look far more dense than I remember; might try cutting time slightly with this.
And of course I love it with my usual Delta 100.
And that's damn sharp. That's a 100% crop of that little tiny dot at the bottom of the 'your business is appreciated' sign.
Excited to try it with a few more films, namely HP5 and Foma 100, the latter of which I've grown to love for people photos in Rodinal (and that's the only film I like in rodinal). That said, seeing as these days I'm mostly photographing buildings and landscapes on MF, I appreciate squeezing out a bit more sharpness/definition out of T-grain films. This might definitely displace Xtol as my go-to for those purposes, and we'll see how it pushes so I can replace DD-X for that.
With a Jobo tank (inverted, not rotary processed) I can get 2 rolls per 500ml, so about 20 rolls a bottle. Not as economical as Xtol 1+1, but not bad price wise especially compared to DD-X. Shame my local shop doesn't carry it.
Any thoughts on dilutions? From what I gather, higher dilutions introduce a compensating effect (as with HC110), but what is the corresponding tradeoff?
2008 data sheet times, box speed, shot with the 6008:
Definitely a keeper with Delta 400. Obviously lighting helps. But my past experiements with it in HC110 and Xtol left me underwhelmed in the highlights—and cutting development lost separation in the mids. This is getting there. Negs look far more dense than I remember; might try cutting time slightly with this.
And of course I love it with my usual Delta 100.
And that's damn sharp. That's a 100% crop of that little tiny dot at the bottom of the 'your business is appreciated' sign.
Excited to try it with a few more films, namely HP5 and Foma 100, the latter of which I've grown to love for people photos in Rodinal (and that's the only film I like in rodinal). That said, seeing as these days I'm mostly photographing buildings and landscapes on MF, I appreciate squeezing out a bit more sharpness/definition out of T-grain films. This might definitely displace Xtol as my go-to for those purposes, and we'll see how it pushes so I can replace DD-X for that.
With a Jobo tank (inverted, not rotary processed) I can get 2 rolls per 500ml, so about 20 rolls a bottle. Not as economical as Xtol 1+1, but not bad price wise especially compared to DD-X. Shame my local shop doesn't carry it.
Any thoughts on dilutions? From what I gather, higher dilutions introduce a compensating effect (as with HC110), but what is the corresponding tradeoff?
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
Acros 100 + FX39 II 1+9, 7 minutes + Helios 44-4
(I do not really have times worked out for this developer yet, and have only used it on T-grain films, has been hit or miss, but there is potential there I hope to tap eventually.)
jbielikowski
Jan Bielikowski
HP5 in 1+19 has smooth tones but quite pronounced grain, IMO it's bit bigger than when using 1+9 dill. Also it looks like 1+9 handles better pushing and underexposure.
Foma 100 in 120 format is super smooth with 1+19.
Foma 100 in 120 format is super smooth with 1+19.
Peter_S
Peter_S
Hi Ian, many thanks for the kind words, truly appreciated. Good luck with FX-39, looks like it delivers so far!
Takkun
Ian M.
Still working through the bottle, which is sadly nearing its end, and Freestyle estimates April as an in-stock date. At least I have my standby Xtol, and a bottle of Ultrafin, which appears to be a similar acutance developer.
But I'm learning to love Ilford's fast films in it.
HP5 is just creamy, without the grit I ordinarily associate it with. I've developed that film in just about everything, and have only ever loved it in D76 1+1, and seasoned Xtol at a lab, neither of which are particularly convenient for me.
And it's absolutely stunning with TMX100.
I'm less impressed with Foma 100. Not quite the tonality as I get with Rodinal, but seemingly just as grainy. It was also a poor lighting day. Seattle winter gray, as usual...
I also ran through a few rolls of 35mm TMY at box speed. Dug out the Nikon and a longer lens and had fun at a wildlife park I used to work. But less impressed; quite grainy albeit sharp, and highlights came in hot.
Bit of a challenge, and likely not the right developer for the job. Ideally I would have liked to use a contrast filter (which I realize I have none that fit my few 35mm lenses, go figure) and pushed a bit more, but that would have certainly increased grain.
Those last two were with 1+9 at 11 mins, 20ºc of course. Perhaps diluting and keeping the time, as some have suggested, might have aided.
But I'm learning to love Ilford's fast films in it.
HP5 is just creamy, without the grit I ordinarily associate it with. I've developed that film in just about everything, and have only ever loved it in D76 1+1, and seasoned Xtol at a lab, neither of which are particularly convenient for me.
And it's absolutely stunning with TMX100.
I'm less impressed with Foma 100. Not quite the tonality as I get with Rodinal, but seemingly just as grainy. It was also a poor lighting day. Seattle winter gray, as usual...
I also ran through a few rolls of 35mm TMY at box speed. Dug out the Nikon and a longer lens and had fun at a wildlife park I used to work. But less impressed; quite grainy albeit sharp, and highlights came in hot.
Bit of a challenge, and likely not the right developer for the job. Ideally I would have liked to use a contrast filter (which I realize I have none that fit my few 35mm lenses, go figure) and pushed a bit more, but that would have certainly increased grain.
Those last two were with 1+9 at 11 mins, 20ºc of course. Perhaps diluting and keeping the time, as some have suggested, might have aided.
gnuyork
Well-known
Hi all, I just received my first bottle of FX39 this morning from Freestyle. I have only ever used Kodak developers (D-76, Xtol, and TMaxRS) so I do not know what to expect. I don't even know why I decided to order it other than to try something different (that was liquid).
I have quite a backlog of film to develop, mostly expired T-max 100 and 400 on 120... but this mother's day I decided to shoot some old Tri-X 320... would the FX39 be appropriate for older Tri-x (I shot it at 400) for portraits? Or should I mix up some Xtol for that?
Thanks!
I have quite a backlog of film to develop, mostly expired T-max 100 and 400 on 120... but this mother's day I decided to shoot some old Tri-X 320... would the FX39 be appropriate for older Tri-x (I shot it at 400) for portraits? Or should I mix up some Xtol for that?
Thanks!