Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,714   Posts: 1,483,032   Online: 786
      
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Wally H's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    NW Washington State, USA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    160
    Images
    15

    Kodak TMX100 / TFX vs Ilford Pan-F / FA-1027

    I am considering changing my film / developer combination from Kodak's TMX100 (120) and Photographer's Formulary TFX-2 developer to Ilford's PAN-F (120) and Photographer's Formulary FA-1027. I develope using a JOBO ATL2000 rotary processor. Does anyone have any experience or comments that might be appropriate?

    I'll do testing and densitometry, but thought other's may have further insite.
    Regards,

    Wally

    Member:
    National Sarcasm Society
    (like we need your support)

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Wally H View Post
    I am considering changing my film / developer combination from Kodak's TMX100 (120) and Photographer's Formulary TFX-2 developer to Ilford's PAN-F (120) and Photographer's Formulary FA-1027. I develope using a JOBO ATL2000 rotary processor. Does anyone have any experience or comments that might be appropriate?

    I'll do testing and densitometry, but thought other's may have further insite.
    I'd be more inclined to go with Kodak's TMX100 AND Ilford Delta 100 developed in Crawley's FX-2 or the Formulary version of FX-2 (TFX-2). For my own work I use both of these films developed in Pyrocat-HD or Pyrocat-MC.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    I googled FA-1027 and found this FA- 1027 Developer thread: http://photo.net/bboard/uploaded-fil...ad_id=18259384

    I downloaded the associated FA PDF file. FA-1027 developer is a FINE ARTS product and the FINE ARTS description of FA-1027 is long on fluff, bombast and hyperbole - it set off my BS detector many times. Whoever wrote this spent a lot of time badmouthing Kodak D-76 and they didn't do their homework first!

    I'd stick with Crawley's FX-2 or PF's TFX-2.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,399
    Images
    3
    Paterson FX39 is also a good choice with these films. It yields surprisingly fine grain for a high definition developer.

  5. #5
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,237
    FX-39 is now hard to find in the US, where the OP lives. See the APUG non-staining developers section for the FX-37 formula, posted by Gerald Koch, which Crawley says is the published formula closest to FX-39. FX-37 was formulated for T-grain type films, but is said to work well for slower traditional films or higher speed traditional films at enlargement factors less than 12.

    I like Rodinal 1:100 and reduced agitation with slower traditional films, and have had good results with Gainer's suggested addition of sodium ascorbate for this application.

    Lee
    Last edited by Lee L; 07-21-2007 at 09:42 AM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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