FX 2 introduction

Whereas FX 1 was based on Beutler’s formula and enhanced to be a sharpness first developer, FX 2 was uniquely formulated for more pictorial results.

The objective of this formula is to give less biting sharpness and more balanced mid-range tonality. When dialled in to your personal EI and development time FX 2 gives easily printable negatives, especially with slow to medium speed films. FX 2 works well with modern emulsions, even tabular grain films like Delta and TMax. It also works with ISO400 films albeit with some obvious grain. Not a problem with 120 format but might be with 35mm.

Tip – Glycin used to be a more popular developing agent

Glycin, as a developing agent, used to be more popular but with the advent of metol and the increasing expense of making photographic glycin its popularity waned.

Some formulators saw its benefits and perpetuated its roll, such as Barry Thornton with his Dixactol, and Geoffrey Crawley, here with FX 2.

Compressed tonality

Acutance developers can often tend towards soot and chalk contrast¹. Their inclination is to compress the mid-tones and this can be seen in FX 1, Beutler², Rodinal at strong dilutions, and D-76 1+3 (if these developers are not carefully tested and used). One of the main reasons for this mid-tone compression is over development. By allowing the developer to push up the highlights, with excessive development times, the contrast quickly becomes too high and can make printing delicate mid-tone gradation difficult, especially if delicate highlights are not to be burned out. Another way of describing the above named acutance developers could be ‘hard developers’ as opposed to ‘soft developers’ i.e. hard contrast rather than soft contrast.

Crawley knew this and designed FX 2 acutance developer to use the softer photographic glycin³ as its main developing agent. Glycin is known to provide soft, long tonality with finer grain⁴, together with good sharpness under certain conditions and resistance to bromide drag.

This latter property, resistance to bromide drag, is very useful for stand development, something FX 2 is good at.

So, by choosing glycin Crawley achieved a more pictorial tonality whilst maintaining his requirement of high sharpness. This combination is particularly useful for landscape photography, especially when using miniature format 35mm films that need higher enlargements and therefore lose sharpness quickly.

Stand development

Using FX 2 for stand development enhances sharpness even more and could not be easier. By doubling the dilution (using 1+1+18) you can, after an initial minute’s agitation, let the developing tank stand for up to an hour or more. This achieves even sharper negatives with enhanced micro-contrast.

Tip – Keeping Glycin Fresh

Glycin is expensive so keeping it from oxidizing is important. I found that freezing it, in it’s original packaging and then inside a freezer bag with the air squeezed out, keeps the chemical fresh for a long time.

Thinner negatives are better
negatives

To get the very best from FX 2 and other acutance developers Geoffrey Crawley encouraged us to make thinner negatives than was traditional⁵. There was (and still is) a common misconception that optimum negative density is achieved when negatives are quite rich and “well developed”. It was taught that you should just be able to read newspaper print through the thickest part of the negative (sky for instance). This, it was said, was a negative of good density. This is far too thick! Thinner negatives will always provide better sharpness and finer grain. This idea of thin negatives is still controversial today with some photographers, especially in countries that didn’t follow, or even know of Crawley’s philosophy.

There’s no doubt to me that Crawley’s advice was correct! My best prints have always come from thinner negatives.

So, why do thinner negatives make sharper and less grainy negatives?

When light tries to pass through the thicker negative it bounces around the silver grains and becomes diffused. By the time it leaves the negative and heads towards the enlarging paper the image is softened reducing print (or scan) sharpness. This problem is exacerbated by grain clumping that longer development encourages, especially with solvent developers.

The idea of thick negatives might have been great in the early days of photography, when negatives tended to be large format, needing higher contrast, and often contact printed, but now, with smaller formats, thinner negatives are to be much preferred. With their inherently smaller, less dense grain there is less diffusion and so they are sharper.

So, the best negatives are the thinnest negative that print on the optimum grade of paper for your film size, that is grade 2 for 120 and larger, and grade 3 for 35mm.

When tabular films were released Crawley suggested they needed a slightly thicker negative than classic cubic grain films, “slightly thicker”! If your using a newspaper you’ve cooked them.

Tip – Why Grade 3 for 35mm

*Apparent grain increases with longer development times due mainly to clumping. Longer times also increase the likelihood of infectious development and physical development. Conversely, developing negatives for less time reduces their apparent grain and reduces sharpness-killing infectious/physical development.

35mm negatives by their nature need higher enlargements. So anything that can reduce apparent grain and increase sharpness is useful. However, reducing development reduces contrast in the negatives.

That’s why making grade 3 your standard contrast grade for 35mm makes total sense. Less development, less obvious grain and sharper prints!*

The impact of the print

FX 2 prints have significant impact. They possess a striking contrast between deep blacks and bold whites. The highlights are well rendered and can show a subtlety reminiscent of FX 55 or PMK. These prints impart a palpable sense of dynamism, a 3d quality, setting FX 2 apart from numerous other developers. This characteristic transforms ordinary days into sunny days or dreary days into pleasant ones.

If there was a developer that the famous FX 14 Acutol was based on then I think this would be it. Again though, I must stress, that you need to dial in the development. But this can be done through trial and error and through testing development times so shouldn’t put the prospective user off. If you find yourself consistently printing on too low a grade, dial back the development time by 20% and try again.

If you find yourself consistently printing on too high a grade (4-5), increase development time by 25% and try again. This can be done over a few films to perfect your personal print look and feel.

Tip – 25% Rule

*Changing your development time by 25% will change your grade by one step.

For instance, if my negatives keep printing at grade 2 but I want them to print at grade 3 reduce development time by 25%. This is an approximation but will get you in the ballpark.*

One thing I would strongly advise is not to over develop with FX 2. I develop my 35mm FP4+ for 8 to 9 minutes at 1+1+8. The lower time is for sunny, more contrasty days and the longer time for flatter lighting. With 120 FP4+ I find 9 to 10 minutes is a good time also at a dilution of 1+1+8. Crawley’s original times were for a different dilution (see later) so my times will get you nearer your optimum.

Experimentation and agitation

Crawley remarked that this was a developer designed with experimentation in mind. It offers a wealth of possibilities for photographers who are willing to delve deeper to uncover its remarkable capabilities. One of the ways you might experiment is with agitation.

Glycin’s resistance to restrained development by bromides enables a reduced agitation strategy. With this developer I usually agitate for 5 seconds every minute but this can be extended to once every two minutes or even every three minutes quite safely. Just remember to extend the development time by an appropriate amount to retain the recommended print contrast grade. Crawley suggests a 30% to 50% extension in developing time and this seems appropriate.

Stand development, both semi-stand and full stand, can be used to enhance edge effects even more. This also brings the added benefit of compensation. For stand development dilute the working solution 1+1 with water (i.e. double the dilution). With stand development I recommend you double the volume of developer so for a 35mm film use 600ml diluted working developer. For a 120 film use 1 Ltr. This ensures you have enough developing agent to fully develop the film and will provide the best results.

Experimentation is of the essence here, not just with agitation techniques but also with dilutions. Crawley originally suggested a dilution, for 35mm film, of 1/2 oz A + 1/2 oz B + 10 oz water with the addition of 1ml Pynacryptol yellow. This corresponds to 15ml + 15ml + 295 ml, considerably less than is recommended these days at 30ml+30ml+240ml. I tried Crawley’s dilution and the results were very thin negatives (even by Crawley’s standards I suspect) but very good prints at grade 4. So don’t be afraid to try different dilutions to make this developer your own.

Grain and sharpness

Using 35mm film I found the grain to be sharp, very even, and visually pleasing. It was not noticeable at normal viewing distances and even close inspection only showed grain in large areas of similar tone, such as the sky. The grain is of a similar size to PMK but not as fine as FX 55.

Using 120 film I could not see the grain in prints at all with optimum enlargement.

As you can see above sharpness and detail are very good and the grain is even and pleasing. Compared to FX 1 this developer is not as bitingly sharp but the tonality is much improved and the grain is considerably more controlled. This 35mm photograph has less grain than a 120 format photograph with FX 1 (see page 10 in FX 1 section). Note also that this photograph looks decidedly more sunny than the FX 1 equivalent on page 21. The FX 1 examples were made later on the same sunny day but this look quite different with better contrast and rich tonality.

Impressive!

FX 2 Formula

The FX 2 formula is quite simple. The only tricky chemical to obtain is glycin but I have provided 2 places that sell it internationally. Put it in the freezer to extend its life to years. Let’s look at the differences in the two acutance formulas FX 1 and FX 2:

Differences between FX 1 and FX 2 working solutions

Chemical	FX 1	FX 2
Metol	0.5g	0.25g
Glycin		0.75
Sodium sulphite	5g	3.5g
Potassium carbonate Anhyd		6.2g
Sodium carbonate Anhyd	2.5g
Potassium iodide 0.001%	5ml
Pincryptol Yellow		3.5ml

• Crawley lowered the metol amount, from FX 1 to FX 2, but this was probably because he used glycin as the main development agent and less metol would be required. However, as we know, high alkalinity from the carbonate and low metol levels means the metol may help create more sharpness through edge effects.
• Also of note is the fact metol and glycin are not supper-additive. Neither agent regenerates the other the way hydroquinone regenerates metol for instance. This lack of regeneration might also enhance sharpness because we don’t want the developing agents being regenerated.
• This might be also why the sulphite is kept so low. Sulphite, in higher concentrations, can support metol as it oxidizes so keeping it low enhances sharpness.
• The carbonate level is higher in FX 2. This supports contrast with glycin which had been shown in the early part of the 20th century (or even earlier) to give good sharpness when used with carbonate alkalinity.
• Finally, just as FX 1 used potassium iodide as a super dilute restrainer so FX 2 uses pinacryptol yellow. It’s a sensitive anti-fog chemical, restraining the development of halide crystals that have not been exposed to light. This property improves definition of fine detail and could also help contrast at boundaries of light and dark. This yellow dye, Crawley said, is better at discerning between exposed halide crystals and un-exposed crystals therefore helping stop infectious development. Pinacryptol yellow’s use with tabular grain films is debatable and if I used T-Grain films I’d test its effectiveness or not use it at all. I’ve been continuously using it with cubic grain films and there’s been no adverse effects. As always, I recommend you test if you are not sure of its efficacy with your particular film.
  

⠀

Although FX 2 can be made as a working solution as required it’s usually made into a concentrated stock. This stock should last 6 months in a sealed bottle, similar to D-76.

The concentrated stock is made in three parts. Part A containing the developing agents as well as some preservative. Part B is the alkaline accelerator. Part C is the special restrainer, pynacryptol yellow.

Chemical	Amount
Metol *	2.5g
Sodium sulphite	35g
Glycin **	7.5g
Water to make	1 Ltr

* Remember to add a pinch of sulphite first so as not to oxidise the metol.

** Available internationally from The Photographer’s Formulary, Montana, USA. ~https://stores.photoformulary.com/glycin/~ and Fototechnik Suvatlar, Hamburg, Germany Email: ~[email protected]~

Chemical	Amount
Potassium carbonate Cryst. *	75g
Water to make	1 Ltr

* I use 62g potassium carbonate anhydrous. Crawley thought crystallised was best but don’t let this put you off. The prints are still excellent!

Chemical	Amount
Pinacryptol yellow (1:2000)

Available internationally from The Photographer’s Formulary, Montana, USA. ~https://stores.photoformulary.com/pinacryptol-yellow-solution/~

Making the working solution

To make working solution for regular agitation dilute from concentrate 1A + 1B + 8 parts water.

Part A	Part B	Make up to w/w	Amount of part C to add
30ml	30ml	300ml	1ml
40ml	40ml	400ml	1.4ml
50ml	50ml	500ml	1.75ml

For stand development

FX 2 can be used as an effective stand or semi-stand developer. Crawley encourages experimentation here. Using the dilutions below try agitating for the first minute and then letting the tank stand, completely undisturbed, for 1 or 2 hours. You might want to agitate half way through or even twice, once at 30% of the time and once at 60% of the time. Experiment to get the negatives you want.

Part A	Part B	Make up to w/w	Amount of part C to add
15ml	15ml	300ml	0.5ml
20ml	20ml	400ml	0.7ml
25ml	25ml	500ml	0.9ml

Conclusion of FX 2 testing

I’ve really enjoyed this developer with Ilford FP4 plus. Once I had dialled it in to my process it became a first class acutance developer. I’ll admit, I’ve had poor negatives with it in the past, but it’s clear to me now what I did wrong. FX 2 doesn’t give up its secrets easily until dialled in properly to ones workflow. Then good things happen.

I’m definitely going to use this developer more. To me it’s a better developer than FX 1. Yes, it’s not as sharp but plenty sharp enough and FX 2 has far more attractive pictorial rendering than FX 1 any day. The tonality of FX 2, and its bold contrast, are pleasing to the eye in both 120 and 35mm with grain being very well controlled. 35mm negatives enlarged to 10 x 8 inches make high quality prints with grain that’s barely noticeable, even inspected in the hand. Not at all bad for an acutance developer!

1. Strong highlights and deep shadows but poor mid-tones creating too much contrast ↩
2. The two bath is less prone to soot and chalk contrast than the single ↩
3. See ~https://tinyurl.com/2nw6u446~ for suppliers of photographic glycin in the USA and Europe. ↩
4. Possibly used in Thornton’s Dixactol for this reason. ↩
5. I can’t find my reference for this statement but it’s corroborated by the likes of The Film Developing Cookbook and others. ↩