Steve Shapiro (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 23 May 1999 21:24:20 -0700
Subject: Re: Question about FX-2
The close reading of both volumes shows there are two formulas for 1 liter
in the DR Cookbook versus the Film Developing Cookbook.
First, you mix two solutions that can be stored, seperately with pk yellow
as a third solution; thusly storage in Sol A, Sol B and Sol C. It is in the
DR Cookbook and the kit sold by the Photographers' Formulary that I have
been using all weekend and for several months, now; and with supberb
I mix 50ml Sol A with 50 ml Sol B and 3.5 ml Pk Yellow; actually I didn't
notice the double of that and same PK Yellow was in the Film Developing
Cookbook. I wouldn't recommend that formula.
So, we're talking about two formulas, and the discussions about diluting it
for extended developing times and all that seem silly to me, too; because
the DR Cookbook formula, which is the same sold by Ph. Formulary works very,
I have found several things, now in the Film Developing Cookbook that are
causing bad results; a 'new' way of agitating and extending development
times caused me to ruin some negs. They make no attempt to explain how to
recover from some of th emost common mistakes, errors from their advice that
has taken ME through many offices, now and much inquirery. Bleach and
redevelopment formulas, the understanding about swelled grain from
development extended too long; and a load of film development lore sorely
missed by following this book alone as though it were the Darkroom Cookbook
that has -- by comparision -- proven to be well written without flaw.
In the end, I have still found Edwall FG 7 to be the most faithful, economic
and offering consistent results with a bonus of being consistent in various
temperatures, changes without notice in results. I still don't know how it
behaves in the Jobo, though.
In the end, I am having a ball with this FX 2 that remains true to the
description and if for no other reason will probably remain using it because
at thispoint, I can count on ultra fine results.
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
It is my pleasure to help alleviateany frustration in choosing a film
developer, as I was helped when I found this FX 2 in the books, too.
> The Film Developing Cookbook contains a working formula for 1 liter (p.
> and a concentrate formula for stock solutions. (p. 127). The stock
> formula in the FDC is apparently different from the original Crawley
> formula, which was much more concentrated (see earlier message from
> Knoppow). And a slightly different version of the formula was given by
> Anchell in Camera and Darkroom (July 1995).
> Sandy King
> >Is the FX-2 formula in the Film Development Cookbook a concentrate? I
> >thought it was a working solution. Also, I don't believe any developing
> >times were given in that book for FX2 with Tri-X or T-Max 400. Does
> >have any suggestions?
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Richard Knoppow <email@example.com>
> >To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
> >Date: Sunday, May 23, 1999 3:59 AM
> >Subject: Re: Question about FX-2
> >>At 03:30 PM 5/21/99 -0500, you wrote:
> >>>Does any one on the list use Crawley FX-2 developer? If so I would
> >>>appreciate your comments about its qualities.
> >>>In The Film Developer Cookbook the directions to mix FX-2 call for the
> >>>of potassium carbonate crystals, not anhydrous (the crystal form is
> >>>give a slight bicarbonate buffer effect). What does this mean, and how
> >>>might the same effect be gotten with the anhydrous variety?
> >>>Sandy King
> >> The original FX-2 formula is for a highly concentrated stock solution
> >>I think the preference for both the Potassium salt and the crystaline
> >>stem from their greater soluability.
> >> In a developer the carbonate slowly hydrolizes to produce both the
> >>hydroxide, which is the actual accellerator, and bicarbonate. Because of
> >>the large resevoir of hydroxide in the carbonate it act as a good buffer
> >>and the pH of the solution tends to remain constant
> >> Sodium carbonate is usually preferred over the potassium salt because
> >>is not delequescent. Potassium carbonate is very delequescent so must be
> >>stored very carefully to prevent moisture absorption and consequent loss
> >> Again it is this very quality which makes potassium crystals desirable
> >>for highly concentrated developers like FX-2.
> >>Richard Knoppow
> >>Los Angeles,Ca.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:35