Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,716   Posts: 1,514,792   Online: 823
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott. View Post
    Isn`t TFX-2 the FX-2 formula with the Potassium Carbonate replaced with x1.5 it`s weight with Sodium Metaborate?
    AFIK it is Goeffrey Crawley's FX-2 formula with no Pinacryptol Yellow.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  2. #12
    Dave Krueger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    388

    Used it with Pan F+ 35mm

    I shot some Ilford Pan F under intentionally contrasty studio lighting and was pleased with it, but will be repeating the experiment at more optimal apertures. I was stopped down to f22 for max depth of field which does not yield the best perfformance of the lens I was using.

    In any case, the negatives looked good and seemed to give a slight increase over box speed (I shot the roll at AI 64). The tonal quality was good, though not remarkably better than what I get from other developers. I agitated every third minute, but I don't have my notes in front of me so can't tell you what the development time was for sure. I think itwas 27 minutes at 69F. I will be trying more of it to see if there's a reason for continued use.

    -Dave

  3. #13
    DJGainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    151
    Images
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    AFIK it is Goeffrey Crawley's FX-2 formula with no Pinacryptol Yellow.
    That is what I understood from the Film Developing Cookbook. I think the T indicates the developer has been modified to better suit Tabular grain films. If I recall correctly the Pinacryptol Yellow was causing problems with the sensitizing dyes found in T-grain films.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by DJGainer View Post
    That is what I understood from the Film Developing Cookbook. I think the T indicates the developer has been modified to better suit Tabular grain films. If I recall correctly the Pinacryptol Yellow was causing problems with the sensitizing dyes found in T-grain films.
    I have always assumed that the "T" in TFX-2 meant Troop (as in Bill Troop's modification of FX-2).

    My own Test results (and the results reported by many others) confirm to me that Crawley's FX-2 without the Pinacryptol works very well with tabular grain films.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #15
    DJGainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    151
    Images
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    I have always assumed that the "T" in TFX-2 meant Troop (as in Bill Troop's modification of FX-2).

    My own Test results (and the results reported by many others) confirm to me that Crawley's FX-2 without the Pinacryptol works very well with tabular grain films.
    Have you noted any difference in results from using FX-2 v. TFX-2? I have been interested in this developer and was planning on running my own test when I run out of my current supply of HC-110.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by MMfoto View Post
    I had a similar experience when I first tried TFX-2. Using the supplied development times (long!). Slow films worked fine, but the roll of TX 400 was very thin. I assumed it was me, and it may well have been, but I wondered if it may work best with slow films. Not sure.
    It's noted in the Cookbook that it's suppose to work better with slow traditional films under 200ISO but Crawley apparently also wrote that both FX2 and TFX2 are popular with tabular grain films. Apparently from the threads above TFX2 is the better choice. Crawley also came up with FX37, a developer optimized for tabular films.

    I think that Tmax 400 should be overexposed at least a stop if not possibly two. At two stops one may as well shoot the 100 speed version. I did tho get more detail then I thought I would get and I suspect that if one is using a condenser enlarger then perhaps a 1 stop overexposure might do the trick. Unfortunately box speed looks to be out of the question. Perhaps FX37 would be the developer to use?

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    I have not compared FX-2 with TFX-2.

    I mix my own FX-2 without adding pinacryptol yellow and it has worked very well for me with Kodak TMX and Kodak TMY.
    It also worked very well for me with Ilford's Delta Films. I have not tried it yet with Fuji Acros.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    415
    I put a roll of Acros through TFX-2 using half the normal dilution and semi stand for 90 min. I havn't printed yet, but contrast came out just right and the negs are visually extremely sharp. The few frames with people in them look unpleasantly sharp, but I'm excited to print the film.

  9. #19
    DJGainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    151
    Images
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by waynecrider View Post
    It's noted in the Cookbook Crawley apparently also wrote that both FX2 and TFX2 are popular with tabular grain films.
    I checked the Cookbook last night because after I read Tom's response, I thought I had somehow made it up in my mind that TFX2 was preferred for T-grain. Turns out in the Cookbook it is mentioned that Crawley indicated the TFX2 was indeed preferable for the T-grain films, but never explains why...

    In light of the comments here, it seems like the difference in formulae is of little consequence...

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Hoskinson View Post
    I have not compared FX-2 with TFX-2.

    I mix my own FX-2 without adding pinacryptol yellow and it has worked very well for me with Kodak TMX and Kodak TMY.
    It also worked very well for me with Ilford's Delta Films. I have not tried it yet with Fuji Acros.
    Tom, any remarks on Delta films with this developer compared to Kodak's? What speeds were you using?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin