Paterson FX-50 - Anyone?

[carbonado]

Is anyone using Paterson's FX-50 developer? I saw the recent article

in Shutterbug and have a kit coming in the mail, but I'm curious if

anyone has any experience with it -- especially in Tri-X pushed to

either 800 or 1600.

 

I understand from the Shutterbug article that it's super-flexible --

one-bath, two-bath, you name it.

[m0002a]

This has been discussed in several threads previously. Check out the older threads (developers). I don't know if anyone posted about their experience with Tri-X (and definitely not the "new" Tri-X), but there have been several threads on the developer.

[carbonado]

Actually, Mark, there aren't a whole lot of threads here on FX-50. I found two, both of which ask essentially the same questions I asked above.

 

If you know some FX-50 threads with information, please point them out.

[m0002a]

I didn't say there were a lot of threads, but there were some that answered your question about whether anyone was using it. I admitted that no one might have answered your question about Tri-X, especially pushed 1 or 2 stops. Don't forget there is a new Tri-X coming (if you haven't already got it) with different development times than the old stuff.

[jerry_hyman2]

I just started using FX-50 a few months ago with 4X5 TMAX100 and HP5+ and like the results I get. It's very easy to use and is suppose to last a long time in it's concentrated form. I did not push the films but rated them at their normal speed and used Paterson's suggested development times. I got similar results with Xtol but I really prefer a liquid concentrate. Mr. Crawley who developed it and other developers (I really like FX-39) has a very good reputation.

 

Hope this helps.

 

-Jerry

[rontoolsie]

Ive processed maybe 15 20 rolls including Tri-X, HP-5, Delta 400 in both 35mm and 120 format. I have found the results to be uniformly quite a bit poorer than X-tol, ID-11, Microdol, Ilfosol and Rodinal, all of which I have used extensively in the past. The grain is not particularly small, and even worse, the grain pattern is quite unattractive. In spite of it being ascorbate-based it lacks the wonderous luminosity that X-tol seems to bestow with ease.

I bought 3 packs of FX-50. I am now halfway through my second. Unless I find some magical trick I will not be buying any more. Why oh why did X-tol have to disappear from 1L sizes; I never had any failures or inconsistency problems with it.

 

Ron

[rontoolsie]

I forgot to give the link that has my comparison of different film/developer combinations. The last two images on this page are with HP5 in both 35 and 120 format. They are technically far less good than about any other film/developer combination I have tried. I have had similarly poor results with Tri-X too which has a legendary intolerance to malprocessing.

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=118273

[david_mooradd]

I bought three packages of FX-50 from B&H last month thinking it was the answer to my dreams, a liquid version of XTOL. I used it to develop 3 rolls of Agfa 400 (120) using the "regular" method and the times recommeded by in the instruction sheet. All three rolls came out very under developed, essentially unprintable. I was very careful with time, temperature and mixing so it wasn't me. Perhaps there was an error with the recommended time and with some experimentation it may provide good results but I'll leave that to the technicians out there. I won't use it again.

[philippe_tempel]

I've tried it and have four films tested so far with it. What little images I have made with it seem to come out fine for me. The times on the sheet are way off, IMO. I have the following times at 75F (24C):

 

Ilford Pan F+ EI 50, 7:45; Ilford FP4+ EI 125, 9:45; Ilford HP5+ EI 400, 18:00; Bergger BRF 200 EI 160, 15:00.

 

The Bergger is the same film as Fomapan 200, AFAIK. I used a densitometer and tested for Zone I to be from 0.10 to 0.15 and Zone VIII to be from 1.30 to 1.35 (for diffusion enlarger). The Bergger was originally tested for a lower Zone VIII. So you may need another minute added to the dev time to bring it up a little. I tried to use a table for the data above but found out it was messed up when I try to submit it... :-\

[donald_nealious]

I have used it with Plus-x, Plus-x Pro, Delta 400, Pan-F, and Bergger 200. All came out extremeley thin. The Bergger was the least thin. I NEVER have had thin negatives with any other developer. I usually am trying to tone done the contrast (wacking off 10-15% of dev time)usually printing at #1 or less with Forte polywarm tone RC. With these negatives I'm printing with #4!

 

I just bought a used RB67 Pro with a 150mm soft focus lens and was real excited about the first roll of Plus-x Pro 220 I ran through it. YUCK! All the frames were thin. I shot some in the studio with strobe and some outdoors.

 

I used the FX-50 in the normal mode. I'm afraid to waste any more time with it. Film is cheap!