Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Sat, 22 May 1999 08:22:26 -0700
My point, perhaps poorly expressed, brought to light that Atget used a stand
alone developer. Good eye, though.
I don't know if that proves Crowley was not the first to come up with a
stand alone developer or the historic account I read was in reference to
Atget's washing technique. But I believe it was the former.
BTW, what's the BJP?
Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Marshall <petermarshall@cix.co.uk>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Cc: <petermarshall@cix.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 1999 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: Question about FX-2
> > FX-2 was not available in the late 1800's, and Atget certainly would not
> > have fooled around with it. Crawley's FX formulas were created in the
> > mid
> > 1900's and published in the British Journal as well as the BJ
> > Annuals.
>
> Just to add a little to what Sil says. Crawley was for quite a long time
> Editor of the BJP and still contributes regularly (I think he is described
> as Technical Editor) mainly reviews of equipment and materials which are
> notable for their thoroughness and practical testing - not just the
> re-hashes of press packs that appear in so many publications.
>
> His formulae are still published in the annual BJP 'The Big Book' which is
> an essential reference for UK professional photographers, listing studios,
> repairers, organisations, agencies etc.
>
> The current edition includes his FX-1,1b,2,4,5,5b,11,15,19 and FX 37
> formulae for b/w film along with other formulae including film and print
> developers, fixers and toners (there is also a colour section).
>
> Paterson market a number of his developers (they are available in the USA
> as well) which I think generally have similar properties to the published
> formulae but are all solutions generally used 1+9 or so, using added
> components (alcohols?) to increase the solubility. The most interesting of
> these to me is FX39 as this is specially formulated to get the best
> results with TMax and Delta films. I tested this against T-Max, D76 and
> Xtol for TMax 100 film and was amazed by its clearly superior sharpness
> and also smoother grain. Although there wasn't any real difference in
> grain size - it isn't a fine-grain developer- when I looked at high
> degrees of enlargement so that the grain could clearly be seen the FX39
> seemed to give less 'noise'. It also lets you rate the film at its ISO
> speed or even slightly above.
>
> FX37 (and I think I've posted the formula here before, but will dig it out
> again if it isn't in the archive and anyone requests it) is I think a very
> similar formula but for use at 1+3 only, but I haven't tried it.
>
> Peter Marshall
> _________________________________________________________________
> London's Industrial Heritage: http://www.cix.co.uk/~petermarshall
> The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/
> Also on Fixing Shadows: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s
> and elsewhere......
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:34