Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Fa-1027

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    224

    Fa-1027

    I thought there was a thread on this already, but I was not able to find it. I know that many people have taken issue with Anthony Guidice's perhaps overwrought prose in describing thei developer, but I just wanted to add my personal experience here.

    Currently FA-1027 is available from Photographer's Formulary. They picked up this item when they took over Fine Art Photographic Supply. They tell me they intend to stock it for the foreseeable future.

    I had been working though several developer options to use with Ilford FP4+. Many years ago, I had been happy with the tonality I got from FP4 and HC110-B. Having left the photo world (as a shooter) for 15 years, I was a bit dismayed to find out how much things had changed when I decided to take up shooting again in the late '90s.

    I found that FP4+ and HC110-B gave me a very dense negative. I tried Xtol, which seemed to give very fine grain and decent tonality, but very low accutance.

    Hearing the widespread praise for pyro among members of this forum as well as from other photographers, I tried PMK. I found it hard to work with (uneven development regardless of care in agitiation) and, to my subjective standards, poor shadow detail unless I shot at a speed of about 24. The accutance was superb, however.

    I tried Pyrocat HD in Glycol. I found it was easier to work with - more even development and a slightly better film speed (about E.I 50) but still not the shadow separation and tonality I was looking for.

    Finally, for whatever reason, I tried the FA-1027. I found that it gave me the negative I was looking for. Decent film speed (E.I. 64) great shadow separation, smooth tones and delicate high values. I don't really care that it may not be an original idea or that the copy describing it is full of hyperbole, it is giving me 11X14 prints from 4X5 that look like contact prints.

    Now, I know I could compound my own developer from scratch - I've done it before - but I prefer a premixed, liquid concentrate which allows me flexibility in temperature control in mixing, I feel.

    So, to each, one's own. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change, just reporting my own experience.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    65

    Re: Fa-1027

    I know this is a VERY old post but wonder who else is using FA-1027. I had a bottle sitting around and ran out of Pyro HD can had a bad batch of D-76 so I thought I'd try it. I was surprised at the tonal graduation on TriX and the quality of negative I got from both 8x10 and 617 formats. I'm trying to get information on if it is an issue using it in rotary processing due to possible oxidation.

    Brian

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    1,160

    Re: Fa-1027

    Anyplace we can see comparison testing with other developers like Xtol or Pyrocat HD?
    "My forumla for successful printing remains ordinary chemicals, an ordinary enlarger, music, a bottle of scotch - and stubbornness." W. Eugene Smith

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Downtown Dallas
    Posts
    60

    Re: Fa-1027

    I just got a bottle of Clayton f76, supposedly the same thing. Also interested to hear what people's experience with it is and if others have had problems.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Suwanee, GA
    Posts
    912

    Re: Fa-1027

    I'll save y'all some googling and provide some direct links.

    https://stores.photoformulary.com/fa...ilm-developer/. $14.95 to find out. Read the tech info sheet - promises the world but does not give the ingredients. It seems to have been introduced around the same time as Pyrocat HD was becoming popular. Most of the descriptions out there are the same article or paraphrased. FA eventually sold their formula to PF. The only details I could find is that it uses two restrainers instead of just Pot. Bromide alone which supposedly works separately in shadows and highlights. Clayton F76+ is apparently the same developer formula.

    Comparison of negatives: https://www.thedarkslides.com/a-path...stent-results/

    examples of images - while sharp, they all look a little flat or compensated to me, but with bright mid-tones. Blacks and highlights seem depreciated creating open feeling for shadows and no highlight blowout. this might be a good developer for roll film shot in bright sunlight.

    http://www.alexluyckx.com/blog/index...no-13-fa-1027/
    https://www.flickr.com/groups/1908226@N25/pool/
    https://merefilmphoto.com/category/materials/fa-1027/
    https://negative-development.com/202...h-clayton-f76/
    Adventure is worthwhile in itself. ... Never interrupt someone doing what you said couldn't be done. -- Amelia Earhart
    http://www.searing.photography

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    65

    Re: Fa-1027

    I think your comment about using it brighter light fits in well with my experience thus far. I would not necessarily call it a compression (based on film curves) but have noticed that the overall "creaminess" of the midtones does provide a balance in the overall image. Visual comparison between test shots using Pyrocat HD and 1027 show a greater edge effect on the Pyro but that may be changed with higher dilutions of 1027. Tonally, the FA-1027 (so far) looks to be more natural.

    Brian

  7. #7
    Gary L. Quay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Fairview, OR
    Posts
    553

    Re: Fa-1027

    I just started using this developer, and, I like it so far. I'm interested in the comparison to Clayton F76+, which i have used in the past. I looked on the Massive Dev Chart, and the times are slightly different on most films for the two developers. I have a bottle of FA-1027 right now, and I am interested in whether I can use the F76+ development times if a time for FA-1027 does not exist on the site, at least as a starting point.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    65

    Re: Fa-1027

    I'm about to do a full run of tests (BTZS) for both 4x5 and 120 and I'll post the data. I like the combination with both HP5+ and TriX. The mid-tones are especially interesting as is the overall negative sharpness. We'll look at curves next for speed data.


    Brian

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Feb 2022
    Posts
    27

    Re: Fa-1027

    Try FX-39

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    65

    Re: Fa-1027

    Here are the sensitometric results for FA-1027 diluted 1:14, 72F (I'm in Texas)

    120 Roll tank manual agitation, 500+ml of solution
    1 minute pre-soak
    1 minute agitation initially with 5 seconds every minute there after

    Development Times for Zone System

    N-2 5 minutes Effective Film Speed (EFS) 160
    N -1 7:30 Minutes EFS 320
    N 11:45 Minutes EFS 400
    N+1 18 Minutes EFS 400
    N + 1.5 24 Minutes (developer starts to exhaust) EFS 400

    All solutions were mixed with distilled water due to the hardness in our (filtered) water. All film was processed using archival methods and read with calibrated densitometers. Exposure by The View Camera Store (Thanks Fred!)

    I like the overall tonal balance of this combination along with the sharpness of the image. A few quick test shots proved out the times. I'm a huge HC110B/TriX fan but find the variations in HC110 these days to be pretty annoying. This combination also retains full rated film speed at normal development times and standard SBR of 7. I'm a 4x5 and 8x10 shooter but will be using 120 film and a 617 Fuji camera due to space restrictions on an upcoming trip. I'll post images upon my return.

    Brian

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •