Eduardo Benavidez (benavi@impsat1.com.ar)
Mon, 24 May 1999 15:52:58 -0300
Steve, thanks for your efforts and interest on explaining how the FX-2 works.
I'm a real FX-2's lover.
But please be as clear as we can. As you said, there is no a formula for the
FX-2 in the DRC by S. Anchell. Maybe you read this formula from the July 95
issue of the Camera & Darkroom mag, also by Anchell. In this mag, Anchell detail
the a formula por mixing the FX-2. There are ONLY ONE difference between this
formula and such provided by the same Anchell and Troop in the FDC. This
difference is:
-Different accelerator in the solution "B": 123 g. of potassium carbonate
ANHIDROUS for a liter of stock Sol. "B" in the C&D formula; 75g. of potassium
carbonate CRYSTALS for a liter of stock Sol. "B" in the FDC.. Wich translated to
a WORKING SOLUTION OF THE MIXED FX-2 (straight) is as follows: 6.15 g. of PURE
pot. carb ANHIDROUS (C&D), over 7.5 g. of PURE pot. carb. CRYSTALS (FDC).
So, all we might do is to ask if 6.15g. of PURE pot. carb. anh., has the
same effect on the working solution as 7.5 g. of pot. carb. crystals. Please
chemical gurus answer the question.
There another APARENT difference, wich is SAME amount of solution "C" in
the working solution, on spite DIFFERENT amount of stock solutions "A" and "B".
But not a real difference, because the stock A and B solutions are HALF strenght
in the FDC formula, but the direction is to mix TWICE the amount of A and B
than in the C&D formula.
My pinch of carbonate.
Eduardo.
Steve Shapiro escribió:
> Having followed what Mr. King posted without my own research, I apologise to
> the list and having read the two books again, apologise to the authors
> mentioned below.
>
> The FX 2 formula listed on page 127 of the Film Developing Cookbook may have
> an error in the amount listed for working solution. In my Formulary
> instructions, it clearly states Sol A plus Sol B at equal porportions plus
> 3.5 ml Sol C or Pk Yellow for the working solution.
>
> On page 59 of the FD Cookbook there is only a comparison of the ingredients,
> not the formula. In the DR Cookbook, there is NO formula for FX 2.
>
> Now, I'm puzzled about what in the Formulary ratios makes for such great
> negatives, if the porportions are actually stronger than the formula
> published in the FD Cookbook.
>
> While I'm waiting for the facts, I offer prints from the negatives;
> shamelessly I direct you to the Photography Gallery West in Carmel, or Sarah
> at Weston Gallery or Karen at Gallery Sur. In the meantime, I'm in the dark
> hoping not to fog any negatives while blushing badly for again I write that
> I apologise.
>
> S. Shapiro, Carmel, CA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Shapiro <sgshiya@redshift.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
> Sent: Sunday, May 23, 1999 9:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Question about FX-2
>
> > 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
> > results.
> >
> > 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,
> > very well.
> >
> > 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.
> > 59)
> > > and a concentrate formula for stock solutions. (p. 127). The stock
> > solution
> > > formula in the FDC is apparently different from the original Crawley
> > > formula, which was much more concentrated (see earlier message from
> > Richard
> > > 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
> > anyone
> > > >have any suggestions?
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: Richard Knoppow <dickburk@ix.netcom.com>
> > > >To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> > > >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
> > use
> > > >>>of potassium carbonate crystals, not anhydrous (the crystal form is
> > said
> > > >to
> > > >>>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
> > and
> > > >>I think the preference for both the Potassium salt and the crystaline
> > form
> > > >>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
> > it
> > > >>is not delequescent. Potassium carbonate is very delequescent so must
> be
> > > >>stored very carefully to prevent moisture absorption and consequent
> loss
> > of
> > > >>strength.
> > > >> Again it is this very quality which makes potassium crystals
> desirable
> > > >>for highly concentrated developers like FX-2.
> > > >>----
> > > >>Richard Knoppow
> > > >>Los Angeles,Ca.
> > > >>dickburk@ix.netcom.com
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:35