peter_metelerkamp Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Regrettably, I have had similar experiences. I say regrettably because I would like to be able to support a small local (to me) company. Briefly, after a disaster with my first attempt at using, it, I tried two more new batches of FX50 - the last bought direct from Paterson as I suspected the previous one might have sat on the shop shelves for a while - and ALL gave me unacceptably thin, grainy, and foggy negs - which would simply not build contrast at all even under controlled tests with very extended time/temp conditions. I also wondered whether this was just a peculiarity with Tri-X but got the same results with HP5, and Tura 400. So at the cost of several films and batches of developer, I ask myself why I bother with novelty when I know what IDll 1+1 will do. (I have conducted controlled tests with many film/dev combinations and increasingly suspect that if D76/ID11 were introduced today we would all acclaim it as a hitherto undreamed-of wonder.....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jorge_oliveira2 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Yesterday I've developed a test strip of PX (I was testing a camera that went back from repair) in 4 months old, partially filled glass bottle of Patrick's vit C in Prop. Glycol formula. Still going full strenght. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m m Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 This brings back not too fond memories of my two failed attempts to use FX-39. Developed half of each roll in another more familiar developer as a control with normal results. TMZ in FX-39 failed. APX400 in FX-39 failed. Developer came out of bottle a golden hue. Is this golden hue I have observed sound the same as the "yellow" of the above stated oxidized developers? I would like to give FX-39 another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 17, 2004 Author Share Posted February 17, 2004 FX-39 has kept very well for me, better than Acutol, in my estimation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 >Hans Beckert , feb 16, 2004; 09:38 p.m.Jon: >When I came to the part 'keeping properties', I skimmed it. I was not worried about 'keeping properties' on a just-opened bottle of fresh product. 'Caveat Emptor' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 >John Stockdale Photo.net Patron, feb 17, 2004; 02:13 a.m. >Jon, Perhaps you have experience in an industry in which failures are expected and where the contract with the customer makes it clear that the product might fail. <p> Actually, John, I'd like you to show me a manufacturing industry that <i>doesn't</i> have any failures. Remeber, just because you haven't experienced it, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. <p> >But in the world of B&W photography, most products are pretty robust and work well, and have for a long time. <p> Like 1 litre packs of X-tol? <p> >This is not rocket science. <p> Yeah, I used to work in the aerospace industry, so I know what is and what isn't 'rocket science'. <p> >Almost all of the reports that I have read about developer failure and short shelf life have been about ascorbate developers. In my opinion, these products are not ready for sale, and do their manufacturers much harm. <p> I don't use them. Wanna know why? Give it a guess. I research first. Something I recommended to Hans. <p> >How yellow would be yellow enough to not use it? <p> A quick phone call to the manufacturer--or email--would have answered that with complete accuracy. <p> >Would you have picked it? <p> I would have done EXACTLY what I have done every time I try a new chemical. I would have research it, asked others using it, and shot a few unimportant sheets or rolls and tried it out. No important film--no upset, panicked posting to photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
everheul Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Hans: �AFTER I ran the film, I read all the way through the instructions This was my second - and last - trial of ascorbate developers. My Xtol trial was similar: almost blank negatives. I am certainly not a enemy of the scientific method: quite the contrary. I did read the instructions all the way through, but I did not really pay too attention to the last statement about 'keeping properties' because I have just received the product on special order. It should have been fresh, and I should not have to worry about 'keeping' when I am just opening supposedly fresh product! I wish to emphasize that this was special-ordered and should be as fresh as one can get. No more acorbate attempts for me! There is no date on either package. I am going to get my money back! Having had two trials with ascorbate, and two failures, I shall refrain from further trials. Back to metol and phenidone....� You say you are not an enemy of the scientific method. Since when has the scientific method involved giving up? You have not really focused on possible processing errors. Gasp..you may have made a mistake. Worse yet, you may have made the same mistake TWICE. I had a similar thing happen when X-tol first came out. My Tri-x was very thin. OH NO!!! THE DREADED X-TOL FAILURE!!! Wrong...it was MY mistake. When I re- examined the solution, I noticed some precipitate, and also noticed the solution was a bit cloudy. The chemicals did not look grossly abnormal as far as color or consistency prior to mixing. I figured there were three possibilities: 1. Bad batch of developer (not likely), 2. Mixing temp was to low, thus some of the ppt. 3. Impure tap water, which could also contribute to ppt, and possible oxidation. The next batch (1 liter package also) was mixed with distilled water, 100 deg F. I liked the 1:3 dilution and have used it since 1998 with no more �failures� Relax: Exercise some scientific methodology Grashopper. Oh, by the way; if your lenses are giving you all the WOW factor you need, as stated in a previous thread, why are you putzing around with experimenting with new film/developeer combinations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 18, 2004 Author Share Posted February 18, 2004 Eric: The developer was bad. No doubt about it. It was not 'my mistake'. Given that others have reported the problem with both this developer and Xtol, I see no reason to make any further attempts to use them. The roll was a test roll, but I did not expect total failure. I was aware that there had been a problem with this product, and supposedly it had been solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emmett_s Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Note to Jon Witsell - could you be any ruder? Hans knows what he's doing and had a failure...no need to be so critical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Note to all: reel it in before I hafta do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roger krueger Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Again Hans, was your XTOL failure with distilled water or tap water? I know of ZERO failures with XTOL that didn't involve either the now-discontinued 1-liter package, or the use of tap water. Everyone I've encountered mixing with distilled water has had success. But thanks for bringing the FX-50 problem to wider attention; it was next on my list of things to try. Given the number of people ringing in with defective-from-the-factory bottles, I think I'll steer clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_stockdale2 Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 Jon wrote: "I would have done EXACTLY what I have done every time I try a new chemical. I would have research it, asked others using it, and shot a few unimportant sheets or rolls and tried it out. No important film--no upset, panicked posting to photo.net." We all do something like that. But what Hans and others don't like is that this particular developer is far more failure prone than almost all others, some of which have been in use for 50 years+. What is your opinion of a company that continues to sell such a product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 19, 2004 Author Share Posted February 19, 2004 Roger Krueger , feb 18, 2004; 11:53 p.m.<i>Again Hans, was your XTOL failure with distilled water or tap water? I know of ZERO failures with XTOL that didn't involve either the now-discontinued 1-liter package, or the use of tap water. Everyone I've encountered mixing with distilled water has had success.</i> <p> It was the 1-litre package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 19, 2004 Share Posted February 19, 2004 I had the same problem with a 1-liter packet of Xtol, mixed in distilled water. All the negs developed with it at any dilution for any length of time were thin and grainy. Then there's the relatively short shelf life of Ilfosol-S after opening - (tho' reportedly it can be lengthened considerably by keeping the container topped up to minimize oxidation). Between 'em it kinda put me off developers using an ascorbate component. OTOH, lotsa folks report success with these and with Mr. Gainer's formulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 19, 2004 Author Share Posted February 19, 2004 I took it back today and got my money back. No more ascorbate experiments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 >Emmett S , feb 18, 2004; 11:38 a.m. >Note to Jon Witsell - could you be any ruder? Hans knows what he's doing and had a failure...no need to be so critical. Note to 'Emmett S': take a cursory glance through some of the poor advice Hans has given--especially to newbies--and you will grasp why your comments make no sense. Talk about something you know about, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
__jon__ Posted February 22, 2004 Share Posted February 22, 2004 Hi John, <p> >John Stockdale Photo.net Patron, feb 19, 2004; 12:09 a.m. <p> >John wrote: <p> >What is your opinion of a company that continues to sell such a product? <p> I don't hold a very high opinion of them--and I was going to try their products a few months ago. You know why I didn't? Research. Threads such as this <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005DqB">one</a> which I found using google--amongst MANY others. If Hans had been methodical and done a <i>brief</i> search, he wouldn't have had this unpleasant experience. <p> I don't have much patience for companies doing what this one appears to be doing--and instead of just returning the product like Hans did, I would return the product AND send part of the ruined film (with proof of purchase) and ask for compensation. They may ignore it, but they can't forever. This thread alone has lost them some business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 23, 2004 Author Share Posted February 23, 2004 I had been aware of the problem, which according to one post had been solved. It has not. Apparently the stuff goes bad sitting in the warehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrylewis747 Posted February 23, 2004 Share Posted February 23, 2004 If I paid attention to every thread, expert, photo-chemist's bad mouthings of developers (in print, in lecture, or on the internet)- I'd never have any fun finding out the truth for myself. Of course, if I had a nickel for all those times, I could afford a lot more chemicals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_gainer Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 I was once of the opinion that dividing an ascorbate developer, in fact into phenidone-ascorbic acid and activator parts, would preserve the A part by its acidity. The trouble is that ascorbic acid is an antioxidant that is more powerful than sulfite. Ascorbic acid removes oxygen from the solution by giving two of its hydrogen atoms for each oxygen atom to make water, becoming dehydroascorbic acid. In the human body, this process is reversible, but not by a simple reaction with something like sulfite. Adding sulfite to the stock A solution does not help to preserve the ascorbic acid. Dehydroascorbic acid is about as acidic as ascorbic acid, is also an antioxidant, but I do not know if it is a developer. By dissolving phenidone and ascorbic acid in propylene glycol to make the A solution, ionization of the ascorbic acid and its reaction with dissolved oxygen, if in fact there is any in the glycol, are precluded and the life of the solution is extended greatly. If sulfite or other modifiers are needed, thay can be included in the B solution. Had Paterson done this, or Kodak for that matter, there might never been a problem with early decay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 All of Paterson's other developers are just fine, and I would not stop using them for any reason, but this FX-50 stuff, as well as Xtol, is a bust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patrick_gainer Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Hans, I have had no experience with FX-50 and little with XTOL. If you have any communication with someone at Paterson's who is willing to listen, perhaps you could expres to them my opinion of why stock solutions of ascorbic acid in water do not keep, whether you add sulfite or not. In fact, it may be that if you put the sulfite in first to scavenge the dissolved oxygen, you may find the ascorbic acid reduces the sodium sulfate back to the sulfite. The simple cure is to put them in a glycol, or even an ethanolamine. The process of autooxidation is not the same for PQ or MQ developers. However, you will note that the PQ developer concentrate with the longest storage life is HC110. It has no water in the concentrate, and will not develop or darken exposed film until you add water. The solvents in HC110 are glycols, the alkali is diethanolamine, and the sulfite required for the synergism between The phenidone derivative and hydroquinone is a diethanolamine-sulfur dioxide complex. I gather from what you said about the reliability of FX-39 and the unreliability of ascorbate developers that FX-39 is not an ascorbate developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Patrick: FX-39 and Acutol are not ascorbate-based. I bought the FX-50 for TMZ and Delta 3200. I have picked up some Ilford DDX and will try that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now