Experiences with Paterson FX-50?

Hello all,

 

It looks as though Paterson's new FX-50 developer is available in the

US now, after a bit of a wait. Before I order some I would be

interested in anyone's experiences with it.

 

For those who haven't read about it, this is a new developer

formulated by Crawley that comes as two liquid concentrates that are

mixed and diluted just before use. The proportions can be modified to

give different characteristics or can be adapted to divided

development. Appears to be ascorbic acid-based.

 

Thanks for any and all responses.

Here you go:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003dUd

Thanks for the link, missed that one on my search -- I managed to only turn up older posts asking when it'll be released.

I searched too but it didn't turn up; I got the same results you did. I guess the search gizmo is goofy.

I've decided to post this under both threads in the hope of responses or advice: please forgive the doubling up...

I have used fx50 to dev. 6 films of fuji neopan 400 (35mm). The first film developed gave very nice results (albeit with one frame showing a weird "posterisation" effect in the light shadows). I then sprayed Tetenal "protectan" in the bottles and stored for 5 days. I developed the next 5 films confidently enough only to get disasterous results. The negs have come out with the grain of tmz and very odd tonality. I imagine that what happened is that the protectan had run out or something and failed to do its job of preventing oxidation. There does seem to be a very slight discolouration to solution A. In any case, I thought I'd better warn others. (btw, I used the same bottled waters both times). I'd love to hear others' comments.

Since Paterson claims on their web site that the FX-50 parts A & B have an almost indefinite life span when stored as liquid concentrates in the original separate bottles, I don�t know why you would want to use protectan. I personally would not use it on any chemical, especially a photographic developer. I doubt your theory about �the protectan had run out or something and failed to do its job of preventing oxidation.� It probably altered the chemistry of the FX-50 developer so it could no longer do its job.

 

You also made mention of �bottled water�. I hope you were referring to distilled water and not bottled drinking water or spring water, etc. The thing that makes drinking water so tasty is the extra minerals in the water, the worst thing you can use for mixing a developer solution (even worse than tap water).

 

Your idea about posting in both threads may elicit more responses, but is likely to just create more incoherent discussions of this subject, and is therefore not advisable in my opinion.

Mark, sorry to have upset you. Your remarks about the water make no sense since (as I wrote before) the same water was used (and has been used, btw, for many hundreds of successful films) both in the successful development and in the unsuccessful one. As for the life of the dev., once again I must disagree. The product instructions actually stress the short life of solution A and recommend immediate decanting into smaller bottles. I await some of the "incoherent" responses...

<p>I am not in the least upset, just trying to ensure a coherent thread (not the same as a coherent response). Unless everyone posts their responses in both threads, someone is liable to miss something, which I don't think you intended. I could understand posting in multiple forums, but it makes little sense to me to post the same thing in two threads in the same forum which have almost identical thread titles. My post about staying in one thread was a suggestion, and everyone is free to follow or ignore that advice as they please.</p>

 

<p>It's hard to argue with what you said about the instructions since I don't have a copy and you do, but here is a quote from the Paterson web site:</p>

 

<p>�FX 50 is a new type of developer, which produces negatives with the fine grain and tonal qualities of Aculux together with the definition normally associated with acutance developers such as FX 39. ECO friendly it contains no hydroquinone or metol and in concentrate form has a virtually indefinite shelf life.� <a href=http://www.patersonphotographic.com/chemistry/developers.html>Paterson FX-50</A></p>

 

<p>Now, even if the folks at Paterson have exaggerated things a bit (or a lot) on their web site, I personally think it is very unwise to add any chemical to a developer, even if the intent of that chemical is to reduce oxidation. I would use a combination of marbles and/or decanting into a smaller bottle if I thought there was a problem with oxidation. I think this would be particularly true for FX-50, which as an XTOL clone operates a pH that is perilously close to being inoperative as a developer, and therefore might react adversely to the slightest change in chemical balance that would not affect other developers.</p>

 

<p>With regard to the bottled water, I agree that it might not by itself have caused the problem you encountered. I said previously that I suspected the problem you had with FX-50 might be the protectan, but obviously I don�t know for sure. But clearly, it is not advisable to use bottled drinking water for mixing a developer solution, unless your tap water is even worse and you don�t have access to distilled water. In the US, distilled water is as cheap as, and in most cases cheaper, than bottled drinking water, and distilled water has far fewer minerals. So even if the bottled water did not cause the problem, it seems like a strange idea to me to use bottled drinking water instead of distilled water or tap water. And given the history of XTOL problems, I would be extra cautious about how I mixed FX-50 working solutions.</p>

> grain of tmz and very odd tonality.

 

I feel reasonably certain there's something else going on. If a developer's dying it'll give a much lower CI than normal, one of the characteristics of which is decreased graininess.

 

I think the film's been fogged, perhaps not by light but an overall fog by heat, radiation or age (combination of the former).

The MSDS for Protectan can be found <a href="http://www.tetenal.com/daten/sidauk/105193.pdf">here</a> and indicates that it is composed of a mixture of propane and butane to 90-100%. Not sure what the "rest" of it is -- possibly other hydrocarbons or maybe an additional propellant (not sure if that would be required in this case). I would highly doubt that these light hydrocarbons would react with any developer constituents -- if they did, I know a lot of organic chemists who would be very interested. In fact, someone from Jobo (which distributes Tetenal products in the US) specifically recommended the use of Protectan to me for extending the shelf life of E6 first developer. I'm quite sure the stuff just functions by displacing air from the containers it's used in.<p>

All that said, and given what Paterson claims, I would have to concur that it seems unusual that your solutions would die so quickly. As previously mentioned, I'm not aware of cases where dying developer gives rise to weird grain effects.

FX-50 (like XTOL) is probably different than almost all other developers with regard to its stability. Some developers are so stable, you could probably piss into them and not change their effectiveness. I am not a chemist, by I would leery of adding anything to FX-50 or XTOL which might affect the pH, even if no other chemical reaction took place.

 

I also wonder if Stephen prepared a stock solution of parts A & B and kept them around for 5 days, instead of always mixing directly from the concentrate shortly before development. That might account for the difference in statements from Paterson regarding the shelf life (instructions vs. website). It might also explain the problem he encountered.

In response to above: no, I made fresh solution from concentrate. Something funny is going on - I would also have expected thin negs from a dying developer but that's not what I got. Infact the negs were very thick. I even tried reducing some with ferri but the grain and weird curve was still there. I can't see that they were exposed to heat/radiation (although of course I can't be absolutely sure) - they were stored with other films that I developed in ilford ddx which show no problems. One final thought - perhaps I contaminated one solution with the other after the first (successful) batch..?

Mark,

Your quote from Paterson including the words "virtually indefinite" made me chuckle. It reminded me of some of the "weasel words" that I saw in other places, shall we say. "Virtually" has a sort of indefinite meaning which we usually take to be "almost" and indefinite means "not defined." It's pretty hard to see how they could be accused of lying when we don't know what they meant in the first place.

 

Pat GAiner

If it only lasts 5 days, I would have no qualms about accusing them of lying, but we don't really know what happened to cause Stephen's negatives to go bad.

The instructon sheet which comes with FX-50 reads-

Keeping Properties: Solution B keeps indefinitely even after

opening and part use. Solution A, once opened has a life similiar

to a conventional developer, but avoid leaving long in a half-used

container-pour into smaller ones. Discard when a yellow tint

appears. Paterson claims that FX-50 allows Fuji Neopan Acros

100 film to be rated at between (EI 200-250) whilst retaining the

films exeptional sharpness and granularity. Now getting that

speed and quality without resorting to a push would certainly be

nice. Gotta try it.

> contaminated one solution

 

Maybe not that, but perhaps you got the mix wrong. It happens; I once completely forgot to add the Rodinal to the water.....