FX-1 acutance

[Mani_Reshad]

Hey everyone!
The other day I mixed up some FX 1 for my Kentmere Pan 400 since I heard its acutance is really good for traditional film and I developed it for 11 minutes. I came out pretty good but judging by my bare eyes I couldn’t see that special edge-effect that I wanted to see from this developer but I should say that I haven’t had the chance to scan it thoroughly. I was wondering if this developer stands up to the promises of this so-called highest acutance and is it even a good developer for Kentmere films? I also know that it works ideally with slow to medium speed films so does that mean it‘d work better on Kentmere Pan 100? And finally is it really that sensitive to agitation(less agitation=more acutance)?

I should also mention that I‘m not looking for recommendations on other developers and films because I’m really concerned about FX-1(and ultimately FX-2) on Kentmere films.
Here are a couple of less-than-review-quality scans from the developed Pan 400(ignore the water marks these are from an undried negative strip.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey everyone!
The other day I mixed up some FX 1 for my Kentmere Pan 400 since I heard its acutance is really good for traditional film and I developed it for 11 minutes. I came out pretty good but judging by my bare eyes I couldn’t see that special edge-effect that I wanted to see from this developer but I should say that I haven’t had the chance to scan it thoroughly. I was wondering if this developer stands up to the promises of this so-called highest acutance and is it even a good developer for Kentmere films? I also know that it works ideally with slow to medium speed films so does that mean it‘d work better on Kentmere Pan 100? And finally is it really that sensitive to agitation(less agitation=more acutance)?

I should also mention that I‘m not looking for recommendations on other developers and films because I’m really concerned about FX-1(and ultimately FX-2) on Kentmere films.
Here are a couple of less-than-review-quality scans from the developed Pan 400(ignore the water marks these are from an undried negative strip.

Decrease the amount of time between agitation cycles. Back in the 90's, with HP5, I was doing constant for the first minute, then 10sec every 3 minutes. HP5 is noticeably grainier, and so was acutance.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I would not use FX-1 with fast films. I recently (2022) tried it, and found rather nasty adjacency effects. You won't see much without magnification. Use FX-39 instead.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I would not use FX-1 with fast films. I recently (2022) tried it, and found rather nasty adjacency effects. You won't see much without magnification. Use FX-39 instead.

I was using large format, so it's not an issue.

 

[Rudeofus]

If I look at your test pics: I think I do see strong Mackie lines in transitions to dark, e.g. the leaves in that plant at the window, and the tree trunks in the other pic seem to have them. I do not see such lines in transitions from bright to very bright (e.g. the building behind those trees), so FX-1 may have the largest effect in weakly exposed areas.

 

[Mani_Reshad]

Decrease the amount of time between agitation cycles. Back in the 90's, with HP5, I was doing constant for the first minute, then 10sec every 3 minutes. HP5 is noticeably grainier, and so was acutance.

Thank you so much! I did actually suspect that I‘ve probably agitated a bit too much(every minute, 5 inversions). As you see it was probably way more than it should be. I’ll be testing your agitation method, thanks.

 

[Mani_Reshad]

I would not use FX-1 with fast films. I recently (2022) tried it, and found rather nasty adjacency effects. You won't see much without magnification. Use FX-39 instead.

What if I use Kentmere Pan 100 instead? Is it still too fast? And as I said I‘m just wondering about FX-1 with Kentmere films.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Controls in black and white photography : Henry, Richard J. (Richard Joseph) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

270 p. : 28 cm

archive.org

Dr Henry has a couple of diagrams explaining the acutance of old version Tri-X if you are interested.
But note that for some time now the iodide content of films has been increased and they now get their sharpness built in and don't get the same amount of adjacency effect sharpness that the old films used to get.

 

[Mani_Reshad]

Controls in black and white photography : Henry, Richard J. (Richard Joseph) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

270 p. : 28 cm

archive.org

Dr Henry has a couple of diagrams explaining the acutance of old version Tri-X if you are interested.
But note that for some time now the iodide content of films has been increased and they now get their sharpness built in and don't get the same amount of adjacency effect sharpness that the old films used to get.

Yes I was aware of that before I mixed up my own batch of FX-1 so I decided to cut the potassium iodide out of the formula since it didn’t contribute much to the modern films, was it a mistake?

 

[Alan Johnson]

Not a mistake. When I wrote to him Geoffrey Crawley replied "There is indeed no point in adding iodide to FX-1 with modern films".

 

[koraks]

by my bare eyes I couldn’t see that special edge-effect that I wanted to see

Maybe that's a good thing.

High acutance due to edge effects is ideally a fairly subtle thing and will be hard to see with the naked eye on 35mm film. If it's easy to see, count on the end result after enlarging the negatives being far too oppressive to be of use. Here's an example: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/to-a-crisp-an-extreme-example-of-edge-effects/

so-called highest acutance

Certainly not the highest possible - by a stretch. See examples in link above for something far more pronounced. Far beyond what's usable, in fact - even for contact printing!

I think I do see strong Mackie lines in transitions to dark, e.g. the leaves in that plant at the window

You may be right, but it's just as possible we're just looking at sharpening applied by the phone (?) that took the lowish-res photos of these negatives. All bets are off as far as I'm concerned; I'd wait for proper scans or enlargements.

 

[Mani_Reshad]

Not a mistake. When I wrote to him Geoffrey Crawley replied "There is indeed no point in adding iodide to FX-1 with modern films".

Exactly! I think I actually read your comment on another thread about FX-1 that I omitted the iodide

 

[Mani_Reshad]

Maybe that's a good thing.

High

You may be right, but it's just as possible we're just looking at sharpening applied by the phone (?) that took the lowish-res photos of these negatives. All bets are off as far as I'm concerned; I'd wait for proper scans or enlargements.

acutance due to edge effects is ideally a fairly subtle thing and will be hard to see with the naked eye on 35mm film. If it's easy to see, count on the end result after enlarging the negatives being far too oppressive to be of use. Here's an example: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/to-a-crisp-an-extreme-example-of-edge-effects/



Certainly not the highest possible - by a stretch. See examples in link above for something far more pronounced. Far beyond what's usable, in fact - even for contact printing!



You may be right, but it's just as possible we're just looking at sharpening applied by the phone (?) that took the lowish-res photos of these negatives. All bets are off as far as I'm concerned; I'd wait for proper scans or enlargements.

You're probably right since it's actually just an iPhone 13 mini with a macro clip lens on it so I wouldn't count on it to show the exact results as of a decent scan. My scans will be ready by Monday and I'll see if it's OK. But I'm actually looking for the effects on the link you shared since I'm doing a fine-art architectural project on 35mm and 120 so I'd probably opt for less agitation to bring out that crisp quality you pointed out in your pictures.
Thanks for sharing the link.

By the way you use pyrocat-HD; is it possible to yield such crisp quality of acutance with 510-pyro? I've seen pictures on the net showing a bit less dramatic acutance but still showing sings of edged subjects.

 

[koraks]

is it possible to yield such crisp quality of acutance with 510-pyro

I haven't tried, but it wouldn't surprise me. In all honesty, I don't really know why the effect came out so extreme in the example I posted; it's probably a rather specific combination of developer and film. I do t have any more fomapan100 currently, but maybe I'll try replicating the effect on some other film. If I do, I'll see if I can give 510 a try, too. I don't use it much because it gives so much fog/general stain.

 

[Mani_Reshad]

I haven't tried, but it wouldn't surprise me. In all honesty, I don't really know why the effect came out so extreme in the example I posted; it's probably a rather specific combination of developer and film. I do t have any more fomapan100 currently, but maybe I'll try replicating the effect on some other film. If I do, I'll see if I can give 510 a try, too. I don't use it much because it gives so much fog/general stain.

Would it be an inconvenience for you to share the results with me whenever you do so? I’m really eager to try 510-pyro since I have easier access to it rather than Pyrocat-HD.

 

[koraks]

Would it be an inconvenience for you to share the results with me whenever you do so?

Certainly not; I'll try to remember it when/if I get round to it!

 

[pentaxuser]

Have a look at Analogue Andy's ( Andrew O'Neill here on Photrio) videos as well. I think he has a video on 510 Pyro

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I do, actually! There's a link too my channel in my signature. 510-Pyro is quite a nice developer. Ready to make and lasts indefinitely. You can play around with edge effects with it, but I find (very dilute) Pyrocat-HD better in that regard.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I was using large format, so it's not an issue.

Huh? The OP is showing 35mm negatives.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Huh? The OP is showing 35mm negatives.

And I'm well aware of that. I said I was using large format negatives (when I tested FX-1), and "nasty adjacent effects" were/are not as noticeable. I hope I cleared that up for you...

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here is an example following the procedure detailed by Crawley, BJP Jan 27 1961 p41. The Efke 100 film is believed very similar to the original Adox 17 DIN film he mentioned.



I don't think it is meant to resolve fine detail but is intended to look sharp at normal print size.

 

[pentaxuser]

What if I use Kentmere Pan 100 instead? Is it still too fast? And as I said I‘m just wondering about FX-1 with Kentmere films.

Have look at this recent video from John Finch involving FP4+ and FX1. The pics look good to me but unfortunately there are no comparison shots with say Rodinal. I could see the Mackie line that he refers to but I found it impossible to gauge how much grain there was

What was interesting is that he found his film speed to be 200 rather than 125 by testing it he had done a film speed test earlier in his series of videos and found it to be 80 I am unsure of what developer was involved in the test that produced 80 but clearly FX1 according to his test produced 200 with FX1

What wasn't clear was why FX1 seems to have this speed enhancing ability. Maybe others who have experience of FX1 will comment

Anyway here it is :

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

If you want a acutance developer, I don't think you can beat Rodinal at 1:50.

​

 

[Augustus Caesar]

If you want a acutance developer, I don't think you can beat Rodinal at 1:50.

​

Yes, you can.

 

[koraks]

I could see the Mackie line that he refers to

You could? I didn't notice it. I did hear him talk about it around 7:30, but frankly, I don't see anything of the sort in the video. I'm also not quite sure how I'm supposed to see any Mackie lines in a YouTube video of a negative. I do see all sorts of compression and digital sharpening artifacts. Whereabouts did you see any Mackie lines?