I have been so inspired by your darkroom work the past couple days of watching your channel I pulled my Beseler 45M out of storage and set up my darkroom again. 🎉
I like FX55 for films with that clear base that do not work well with Pyrocat. After yout video I gave the FX55 1+1 a try with Delta 400. Negatives were not sharp? The other half of the roll I used Pyrocat HD and were OK. I canot account for the softness, 2/3rd of frames were taken on a trypod at 1/125th with an easy focus. I am confient that all solution were easily within +-2 deg C. My small working container of Sodium Ascorbate has been used for a while but looked normal. The negatives looked developed OK. So the lesson is to test any combination before using it. This was a test of lens vignette so nothing lost.
Very enlightening again, I had some beautiful skies to. To me the scan and print from the 14 minute development looked just a bit darker. That could also give the improvement in tonality.
Thanks John, another very interesting video. I'm so impressed with my results with FX 55. I was so excited with my first 2 rolls of film, and how sharp and clean the negatives were. I thought at first my negatives were a bit thin until i realised that I didn't add the 10% to 15% time you mentioned on page 206 in your book when using FX-55 part B Mod. Have a great holiday, with plenty of great images.
When working out details of a modified developer I started using about 15 years ago, I discovered this same effect of a greatly diluted developer. Greater sharpness, finer grain, more evenly spaced tones, and greater micro-contrast. I felt like I had repealed the laws of photo-chemistry. I've never explored the technicalities, but my guess has always attributed it to the great reduced concentration of sodium sulfite in the working solution. (My result was unexpected. I found my modification to require unacceptably short developing time, which I countered by increasing dilution. In the final result, I went from a 1:3 to a 1:9 dilution, just to get to a 6-minute developing time. These experiments were all done with step wedges and a densitometer to reach a set of target film densities, so I didn't discover these "side effects" until my first roll of images, which were quite a surprise.)
I could certainly see an improvement with dilution of 1+1 whereas I had more difficulty in detecting worthwhile improvements in either of the 2 bath versions. In this one I suspect that other viewers of the persons prints who were not conversant with FX55 would be able to say the same. Often I do wonder if non aficionados of developers see any real differences that are sometimes claimed Once again the format of the presentation actually delivers the proof. Thanks again
As always - very useful information. The chemistry for making FX55 is in the post - looking forward to testing it. Have a nice trip to wonderful Copenhagen.
Cheers John. Dilution does seem to enhance the effects you get. I often used ID-11 diluted 1:3 with HP5 for studio work - it produces great skin tones. I now have a copy of your book to peruse and enjoy - and I'm also awaiting delivery of some 510 Pyro. You are certainly giving me plenty of excuses to go play in the darkroom. As always - best wishes from The Rhondda.
Very informative, as usual. Based on your videos and my own recent use of FX-55, it seems to be a very versatile developer, indeed. I'm very interested in trying the 1:1 dilution. Please pass along any info on amount of stock developer needed, once you've played around with full rolls of film. Thank you.
Great video, very interesting. Really makes me want to try FX55. I'm looking forward to your next exploration. I'm also really interested in how FX55 compares to other developers.
Great comment! Thank you, CD. Yes, what's next? The excitement, but I can't say. I have a lot of fun demonstrating these things in the hope it will peak interest. Thanks again!
This is interesting. I always liked best D76 1+1, Xtol 1+1 and Rodinal in 1+100 (not stand, turns or two every minute). After years of digital and coming back to film your videos give food for thought. I really should shoot a test roll with suitable subject as soon as choose a way to include a gray scale for densitometer measurements too (to measure film speed and correct development). I think reasons for dilution varied based on my old notes, it often is a compomise. They included grain, sharpness, reasonable developing time (not too short, not too long like 20min) and probably cost too.
Hi John, when you speak of FX55 1+1 you mean to use 50 ml of part A per liter and also half part B (i.e. 10 ml of part B of Gainers modification per liter)
I probably will once I settle my personal times on the regular dilution first. Thanks for bringing us all these interesting videos and enjoy your break.
@@PictorialPlanet Oh yes. I think that would be very useful. Even if we would have to "sacrifice" a lot of the light sensitivity in the process, it would be interesting to know that the film can be used for serious photography (or in worst case cannot).
Some questions that i can't seem to find a good answer for. Do you need some ventilation system when developing on photopaper? or is it just for some type of developers? I have a "dehumidifier" thats pretty big. Will that help with the "fumes"? if there are any that will say. Really nice tutorials, im soon starting with developing on paper aswell. Regards Johan
There are no fumes to speak of with paper development except sometimes the stop has a slight vinegar smell and the fix can smell a little of ammonia. Ilford Hypam fix is a good commercial fixer that doesn't seem to smell to me.
Hi, thanks for the video, I love using stand and seni stand developemenr, unfortunately I can only get my hands on fx-39 type II from Adox, where I live, I can never get good results using it in the 1+19 dilution....negatives always come out way underdeveloped, and there's very little information about using this developer online. Is there any chance you might talk about this developer in the future ?
I don't cover commercial developers. Why don't you make one of the ones I cover? You'll be very happy with it. I recommend Pyrocat for stand and semi-stand. Also 510-pyro and Rodinal.
@@PictorialPlanetThank you for your reply, much appreciated. I live in a small non EU country, extremely difficult to get a hold of some of the chemicals needed, I always end up with at least one that's impossible to ship here. I have seen recepies for Rodinal using pipe cleaner and crushed up paracetamol tablets.. I dont know how I feel about such concoction though....
@MrFilipFabulous You might try D23 which uses just two chemicals, metol and sodium sulphite. It's a lovely, soft working developer so you wouldn't need to semi stand develop. I wonder if you can get those two chemicals?
@@PictorialPlanet Thanks a lot! As a beginner, I like to keep costs as low as possible (shipping costs for different chemicals from different sellers adds up quickly). I also like keeping things simple, which is why I prefer stand with Rodinal, developing time is the same for all films, doesn't get any simpler than that! However, there are shipping restrictions for Rodinal, its classified as hazardous. I managed to get it shipped by buying a kit, I've been developing for 6 months now and the 100ml bottle is not even half empty! I can develop 2 films with the same 'concoction' just fine, it keeps in the fridge for a few days too! I've been printing and scanning them with no noticeable loss in quality. I'm glad i discovered your Rodinal videos, it gets a lot of hate but honestly I don't see why, grain is quite fine at 1:100 or 1:200, sharpness and tonality are great, they turn out bit flat, but I like to think it gives me more options when printing. If i could get my hands on more of it, I wouldn't bother with anything else. I'll definitely be trying my hand at D23, thank you so much!
