Aculux 3 - opinions?

[Lachlan Young]

Has anyone tried out the new Aculux 3? If so, what do you think of it compared with Aculux 2? Finally, are the developing times given on the Paterson website for a gamma of 0.7 or 0.6?

Many thanks,

Lachlan

 

[BradS]

WOW! First I've heard of it. I used to love Acculux-2. Can't wait to get my hands on some of the new stuff. I wonder if it is being sold by anybody here in N. America?

 

[Matt5791]

Great to see these products back.

As regards the US - send them a message:

http://www.patersonphotographic.com/

 

[Snapshot]

I looked at the Acculux 3 description and it looks promising. I didn't see times, however, for APX films. I know that this film isn't be produced but there is still enough of it around to merit a comment. I see Rollei film (which I believe is APX) but nothing for ISO 100. I guess I'll just have to experiment and base times off of Acculux 2.

 

[Black Dog]

Great to see it back-didn't know it was in the shops yet. Snapshot-the Massive Dev Chart on digitaltruth.com should be able to help you out.It's never failed me yet

 

[Moopheus]

I wonder if it is being sold by anybody here in N. America?

Maybe some of our friends in the UK would be willing to sneak some across the border in the boot of their cars.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Has anyone tried out the new Aculux 3? If so, what do you think of it compared with Aculux 2? Finally, are the developing times given on the Paterson website for a gamma of 0.7 or 0.6?

Many thanks,

Lachlan

Paterson`s used to give times for a G-bar 0.55-0.57 as a starting point for condenser enlargers and times for a G-bar of 0.7 for diffuse light-source enlargers. AFAIK, their current times are for an averaged contrast of G-bar 0.62, as is Ilford`s standard which probably conforms to the ANSI/ISO-6:1993 standard.
Start with the times supplied and then adjust them if necessary to suit your own requirements.

 

[FrankB]

Leon Taylor did an Aculux 2 vs 3 comparison in B&WP UK recently (Issue 74). Without wanting to steal his thunder I think it's fair to say that if you use the same times, temps and dilutions for each you won't be disappointed.

All the best,

Frank

 

[Leon]

yup - in my very unscientific opinion, it is exactly the same as the older version. I found no perceptible evidence to show it was any different without empirical testing and scientific instruments (and which "Joe Camera" uses them in their everyday photography???)

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I thought the change from 2-3 had somethign to do with shelf life only?

 

[Leon]

I thought the change from 2-3 had somethign to do with shelf life only?

tom - it's supposed to give an improved and more even grain texture that makes it better for scanning and subsequent digial manipulations. Roger Parry from Paterson didnt mention anything about shelf-life when I contacted him about the improvements - infact there is nothing in the literature about shelf-life at all.

 

[Lachlan Young]

yup - in my very unscientific opinion, it is exactly the same as the older version. I found no perceptible evidence to show it was any different without empirical testing and scientific instruments (and which "Joe Camera" uses them in their everyday photography???)

Thanks for the info!

Lachlan

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Leon,

cheers for the info. Aculux 2 is certainly a great dev and I will certainly be trying the new version...at some point!

 

[Chazzy]

I just hope that Paterson either brings back Acutol or publishes the formula.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I just hope that Paterson either brings back Acutol or publishes the formula.

Very unlikely.

 

[Black Dog]

The formula for Acutol-S (FX15) has been published-you can find it in the Film Developing Cookbook (Anchell and Troop) and BJP annuals.

 

[Laserboy]

If this is the same Aculux that I have been dealing with I'd seriously rethink purchasing from them. Their product might be o.k. but thier customer service rates a big ZERO.

 

[JPD]

Their product might be o.k. but thier customer service rates a big ZERO.

True. I have emailed Paterson twice, but they never responded. :rolleyes:

 

[Matt5791]

dont be too hard on them - they are just a manufacturer and dont really have a customer service department - this is handles through their authorised distributors - try contacting them.

If you do want to speak to Paterson, best way os to contact them by phone.

They really are a great company, and manufacture their darkroom products all here in Birmingham UK (except the chemistry which is made in Germany)

Aculux is a great developer.

Matt

 

[Prarry]

To second Matt5791's comment, I have called them a couple of times to get spares, new sticky-backed foam-rubber for a contact frame and for something else (that I can't now remember). Helpful, knowledgeable, can't fault them. They are, as Matt5791 says, a manufacturer who has been able to rely on a dealer network, but as we all know the analogue photographic shop (i.e. Paterson's dealers) are becoming a most rare breed.
Aculux is my preferred developer, I don't stick to it religiously, but if I wander, I always comeback. It is simple, reliable and not fussy.

 

[lawrenceimpey]

Just wondered if anyone's been using Aculux 3 since the last post on this thread a year ago? If so, I'd be interested in your experiences...

 

[Peter Schrager]

used to use aculux and it is a great developer but being a liquid has a tendency to die if not all used up...would recommend rodinal;xtol; pyrocat ;which can be used over a longer/indefinate period
Best, Peter

 

[lawrenceimpey]

rodinal: too grainy
xtol: too mushy
pyrocat: I think this is a staining/tanning dev. -- tried in the past and don't like them

Thanks anyway.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

rodinal: too grainy
xtol: too mushy
pyrocat: I think this is a staining/tanning dev. -- tried in the past and don't like them

Thanks anyway.

Xtol 1+2 or 1+3 has quite good bite in my experience. certainly with 35mm. I mixed up from 1+1 and was pleased with the subtle but noticeable improvement in crispness.

Try mixing Xtol 1+2 with Rodinal 1:100 with films like D100 and you might just find the Goldilocks solution: not too grainy, not too soft, just right. its lovely with some films in 120 too. The possibly to be discontinued Neopan 400 being one that responded very nicely to this combo. Gives a bit more glow/sparkle to the high values too without sending them into the stratosphere as can happen with Rodinal in harsh light.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

I should add that I used some ancient (sealed bottle) Aculux 2 recently on HP5+ and some Foma 200 and was reminded of what a lovely developer this is. The prints looked great too! Its also handy that it delivers about the same speed as Pyrocat HD which means one has the option of a staining or non-staining dev at the same speed. For now though, Xtol 1+2 and rodinal, sometimes mixed, are doing all I need. When I run out the DDX is there as back up.