Acufine with FP4 and/or Tri-X

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm curious about Acufine. If I shoot film at normal speed, FP4 at 125 and Tri-X at 320 or 400, will it give accurate contrast anyway? Or does it have to be at the recommended EI? Will shooting at normal speed actually be considered overexposing then?
Will it also affect grain size?
Thanks,
Thom

 

[jim appleyard]

Acufine is for increasing the "speed" of a film. I use it for indoor shots at weddings where I can shoot Tri-X at EI's of 1000 to 3200.

Yes, shooting Tri-X or FP-4 at or near their rated speed and then souping in Acufine would be way too much; unless you cut way back on the time, and then you risk inconsistant results because the film was in contact with the developer for a long enough time.

If you want to use these films at or near their rated speed, I'd go for D-76 or another "normal" dev. If you want to shoot these films at higher EI's, Acufine is a good one.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you Jim for your insight. It's curious that the Diafine is time/temp insensitive, and that it will develop negs to desired contrast, but it appears that a 1-2 stop overexposure would cause problems.
That doesn't make sense to me. I'll have to test it I think to understand it. I've used Rodinal for so long now that it's hard for me to imagine how other developers would work.

Thanks again,

- Thom

 

[Foto Ludens]

Just to make sure, Acufine and Diafine are different developers. Overexposing with Diafine would probably result in a high contrast negative, since underexposing it leads to low contrast negs.

 

[df cardwell]

Just to make sure, Acufine and Diafine are different developers. Overexposing with Diafine would probably result in a high contrast negative, since underexposing it leads to low contrast negs.

Diafine's results depend on the peculiar nature of a film. In other words, depending on the film, with Diafine you get different results. Test, test, test.

 

[df cardwell]

I'm curious about Acufine. If I shoot film at normal speed, FP4 at 125 and Tri-X at 320 or 400, will it give accurate contrast anyway? Or does it have to be at the recommended EI? Will shooting at normal speed actually be considered overexposing then?
Will it also affect grain size?
Thanks,
Thom

Acufine gets a bit of its speed increase from being a phenidone developer. Depending on your time and agitation, it will slightly exxagerate the natural curve of the film. Test it.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I use Acufine quite a bit. I rate conservatively--EI 800 for TX, EI 640 for TXP/TXT and J&C Classic 400. I generally target my Acufine negs to print on grade 3. I keep it in a 5-quart 5x7" deep tank so it's always there ready to use, and I replenish with Acufine replenisher.

 

[David Brown]

Back in the "day" (actually, the 1980's), I spent several years maintaining film surveilence (sp?) cameras in banks. The company I worked for had hundreds of them. All were loaded with 100 ft rolls of Tri-x and I used two developers. For the cameras that were not in bright enough areas for ISO 400, I set them for ISO 1000 and developed the film in Acufine.

The negs were fine for our purposes (our purposes being the FBI prosecuting felons) but were contrastier and grainier than the negs souped in D76.

YMMV, of course :rolleyes:

Alas, those days are gone. Long before d******, banks were switching to videotape ... Videotape looked like crap compared to film.

David

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thank you everybody for your help and insight. I am planning to try out Acufine, and just to clear up my mistake mentioning Diafine, I meant Acufine all along.

It seems that most people use this developer to push film. I want to experiment exposing film at normal EI.
Since the claim is that the developer is not time/temp sensitive, over- or underexposure shouldn't be much of a problem either, according to my logic. I guess I'll find out.
Thanks again everybody,

- Thom

 

[Foto Ludens]

Thom, Diafine is not temp/time sensitive (to a great degree, at least). Acufine, to the best of my knowledge, IS. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[BradS]

Back in the "day" (actually, the 1980's), I spent several years maintaining film surveilence (sp?) cameras in banks. The company I worked for had hundreds of them. All were loaded with 100 ft rolls of Tri-x and I used two developers. For the cameras that were not in bright enough areas for ISO 400, I set them for ISO 1000 and developed the film in Acufine.

The negs were fine for our purposes (our purposes being the FBI prosecuting felons) but were contrastier and grainier than the negs souped in D76.

YMMV, of course :rolleyes:

Alas, those days are gone. Long before d******, banks were switching to videotape ... Videotape looked like crap compared to film.

David

What a cool story. I wonder what happened to all those orphaned "real film" surveillance cameras...

 

[jim appleyard]

Thom, Diafine is not temp/time sensitive (to a great degree, at least). Acufine, to the best of my knowledge, IS. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have used Diafine at 90 degrees at 3 mints with Tri X, Plu X and HP5 in the same tank standard 3mints per bath. Until I make a chiller I used Diafine every summer because my tap water is so warm.

 

[David Brown]

What a cool story. I wonder what happened to all those orphaned "real film" surveillance cameras...

My guess is that they are all long gone. (Although I did actually see one on Ebay a few years back.) Their usefulness would be marginal.

They were big, metal boxes, about 8 x 8 x 16 inches. They had a generic 35mm (focal length) slr lens. The film was in a cartridge about the size of a cigar box. The rest of the space in the housing was the motor, which advanced the film and the shutter. The "focal plane" shutter was a rotating disk with a slit - only one shutter speed - I think (IIRC) circa 1/125th.

There was no (repeat, no) viewing or framing ability. We "aimed them" using a cardboard sportfinder thing that just sat on top of the camera. Then you took test pictures to see if you had aimed - and guess focused - well enough.

The camera was tripped by a momentary closure, such as a button under a teller cage, or by the alarm being tripped - which locked down and would run whatever was left of the 100' of film out.

Hey, it was a job ...

 

[Foto Ludens]

You are correct.

Cool, I just wanted to make sure.

Thom, Diafine is a 2 bath developer, with Hidroquinone and Phenidone in bath A, but the activating chemicals on bath B. That means that only so much developer can be present when the activators (or whatever you call them) come into to play.

Acufine, however, is a more traditional developer, with everything mixed in one bath. Therefore, overdeveloping is as possible as with D-76 or Rodinal, for example.

Hope this helps, and good luck with your work.

André

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I understand now that Diafine is the way to go. I usually have two different types of film going at once, most often FP4+, but will run Tri-X, APX100, Efke through the camera, and it would be a lot easier logistically if they could be mixed all in one developing tank.
I can't wait to see the results with various films.

- Thom

 

[Paul Howell]

I suggest that you test each film for its true ASA with your camera. I rate Tri X at 1200, Tri X professional at 650. I also print higher contrast, grade 4, with negatives developed in Dinafine. My local photo shops no longer carry Dinafine so I have not used it in a few years. When I was a working photojournalist I always traveled with a 1 quart kit along with a can of fix, a SS tank and reel for emergancies.

 

[Gerald Koch]

The ratings published for Acufine represent a speed for each film which will produce the thinnest possible negative with good shadow detail. Such a negative will show the least amount of grain. However, the average user will likely be more comfortable with a denser negative and will want to expose at a lower EI.

Since Diafine is a two bath developer the film speed and contrast for a particular film are "built in" and cannot be adjusted. Attempting to pull a film in Bath A will not produce acceptable results. Neither will extending the time in Bath A cause much, if any, speed increase.