ADOX FX-39 / Paterson FX-39

Olivinyl · 2014-02-16T10:09:39+00:00

Die Haltbarkeit würde mich auch mal interessieren. Die Angaben im Netz sind da sehr widersprüchlich. ? Grüße Wolfgang

Olivinyl

Hello everyone, ? It sounds interesting, and so does the price. Can anyone give a completely subjective description of the FX39?

How similar is it to Neofin Rot?
How well does it work with Tmax 400 in 35mm format?
Comparison with D74/RHS and A49 and the balancing effect
film grain and sharpness with classic emulsions from 100 to 400 ASA (e.g. old APX, Silvermax, CHS 100 II, Kentmere 100 & 400)
Curve shape
Shelf life of the concentrate
Tipping rhythm and the consequences....
Metol or Phenidone?

? So I’ve been using D74 as a compensating developer and have also tested films with it. I only really liked D74 with Foma 200... Otherwise, I only use Adonal and Xtol. (I also like A49 for aerial photography films and am looking for a replacement for that) ? I had a bit of a ‘googling’ but didn’t find anything useful (example curves, comparisons,...) ? Best regards, Oliver

Gast

I’d also be interested to know how long it keeps. The information online is very contradictory. ? Best regards, Wolfgang

MirkoBoeddecker

I’d also be interested to know about the shelf life. The information online is very contradictory.

FX-39 has a good shelf life when stored correctly for liquid developer concentrates, which means always above 13 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, hardly anyone sticks to this, so there are often unpleasant surprises. The developer contains a great deal of buffer/stabiliser/antioxidant and is close to saturation. If the buffer/stabiliser/oxidation inhibitor crystallises out, everything happens very quickly and it goes off.

MirkoBoeddecker

Comparison with D74/RHS and A49 and the balancing effect

Film grain and sharpness with classic emulsions from 100 to 400 ASA (e.g. old APX, Silvermax, CHS II, Kentmere 100 & 400)

Then those might also be the wrong films, just like the TMAX 400. For high-speed films, stick with the tried and tested. ? But do give the FX-39 a go for the 100s.

Gast

€ <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"> I’d also be interested to know about the shelf life. The information online is very contradictory.

FX-39 has a good shelf life when stored correctly for liquid developer concentrates, which means always above 13 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, hardly anyone sticks to this, so there are often nasty surprises. The developer contains a lot of buffer/stabiliser/oxidation inhibitor and is close to saturation. If the buffer/stabiliser/oxidation inhibitor crystallises out, it all happens very quickly and the solution goes off. € </blockquote> Always above 13°C? You never stop learning! € Regards Wolfgang

AntiLynd

Metol or Phenidon?

? FX-37, “the closest published formula to FX-39”: <pre class="_prettyXprint"> Distilled water (50°C) ................. 750 ml Sodium sulphite (anhydrous) .................. 60.0 g Hydroquinone ........................... 5.0 g Sodium carbonate (anhydrous) ................ 5.0 g Phenidone .............................. 0.5 g Borax .................................. 2.5 g Potassium bromide ...................... 0.5 g Benzotriazole, 1% ...................... 5.0 ml Distilled water to make ................ 1.0 l </PRE>

Olivinyl

Ah, so phenidone and hydroquinone! Best wishes, Oliver

Quinquaginta

Ah, so phenidone and hydroquinone! ? Best regards, Oliver

? Hi Oliver, ? No, in the FX-39, it’s metol and hydroquinone that do the job (a quick look at the bottle label and the safety data sheet will clear that up ;-) ). ? Best regards, Henning

jochen53

Hello Henning, The safety data sheet only needs to list substances that 1. are hazardous and 2. are present above a certain concentration, which in turn depends on the H-statements for the substance in question. In some cases, the quantities of substances with the same H-statements are added together. There are two concentration thresholds: if the lower threshold is exceeded, the substance is simply listed in the safety data sheet as a hazard trigger with its chemical name, CAS registry number, etc.; if the upper threshold is exceeded, the container must also be labelled with a hazard symbol (GHS pictogram), the name of the hazard-causing substance and the wording of the H- and P-phrases. When specifying the concentration present, it is permissible to state a range, e.g. 5–25% of substance XYZ.... It is therefore not correct to say that all ingredients must necessarily be listed in the SDS. If, for example, the threshold for listing in the SDS is >/= 1%, it is advisable for the manufacturer to use only 0.99%, thereby avoiding the need to list and disclose this formulation component. Since phenidone (whose SDS I am not familiar with in detail at present) is usually used in very low concentrations, it does not necessarily follow from the SDS that it is not contained in FX-39. In my day-to-day work, for instance, I have found that safety data sheets can vary considerably in ‘quality’; for example, I am aware of an SDS for a German selenium toner that definitely contains ‘incorrect’ information regarding ingredients (sodium selenate instead of sodium selenite).

Quinquaginta

Hi Jochen, ? Sorry for the late reply, but I was on holiday and offline. What you say is, of course, absolutely correct, and I’m well aware of it. ? I deliberately kept my reply to Oliver short and sweet ;-), to make it clear that hydroquinone and metol are the key developing agents in the FX-39. The FX-39 follows in the tradition of the Neofin developers and, according to its creator G. Crawley, is a further development / improvement on Neofin Rot. And it is metol in particular that is responsible for the excellent sharpness performance of this type of developer (metol is also found in many other developers designed to deliver excellent sharpness reproduction). ? Best regards, Henning