Has anyone tried FX-39 developer?greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
I would like to hear your opinions on it. They claim that it's well suited for Tmax and Agfa APX films.
-- Patric (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 27, 2000
In couple of tests in some of previous numbers of Britain's "Practical Photography" magazine Paterson's FX 39 was proved as very good developer for Ilford and Kodak films. I don't ramember what is said for Agfa films, but i don't see why it will be diferent with Agfa. Why don't you try it yourself?
-- Dobardzic Haris (email@example.com), May 30, 2000.
I've used it with Delta in both 35mm and 120 and HP5+ 220, and had excellent results
-- John Henry (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 30, 2000.
I use to use it with Delta films but am now using Ilford DD-X. However I still use FX39 for Tech Pan, as diluted 1+19 it gives a compensating effect which produces negs with a normal contrast range. How it compares with Technidol I can't say as technidol is an unreasonable price in UK. However, tests in Amateur Photographer back in the early 80s demonstrated that Paterson Acutol (FX14) was equal to technidol for tech pan and Paterson now recommend FX39 for that film. FX14 was/is more of an acutance developer like Rodinal, whereas FX39 is a fine grain developer specifically designed for Tmax/Delta films. The Paterson line is that Tech Pan is closer to modern Hi-tech films than FP4/PlusX, therefore FX39 suits better.Incidentally, that test in Practical Photography, ( a magazine I wouldn't wholly trust on objective measurement) thought ID11 best of all with "modern" films.
-- Nigel Craig (email@example.com), May 30, 2000.