Aculux3 and 125PX devo time?

[mr.datsun]

Paterson have left out the dev time for 125PX from the tech sheet for Aculux 3.

Basing my first attempt on a spot between a recommendation that I found for Aculux2/125PX and a time on the massive dev chart I found that 6.5 mins was very thin for 125PX rated at 125. I'm guessing 8 mins but wonder whether anyone had a more reliable time for Aculux 3 and Kodak 125PX*, please.

*I'm not convinced that any of the times for the old Plus-X found in massive dev chart and elsewhere really count when it comes to the newer Kodak 125PX film. I say this as their 6m time for 125PX appears to be very wrong.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

If you go this web site and look for a little button to click on it will download PAterson's developing instructions for this product. They don't mention Plus x 125 specifically but there are enough films there listed to enable a sensible interpolation. <http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/paterson-aculux-3-360-p.asp>

 

[mr.datsun]

If you go this web site and look for a little button to click on it will download PAterson's developing instructions for this product. They don't mention Plus x 125 specifically but there are enough films there listed to enable a sensible interpolation. <http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/paterson-aculux-3-360-p.asp>

Thanks for the link, Leigh but as I implied I have got the Paterson tech sheet already. The trouble is that if you compare 2 100 ASA films dev'd the same developer you get no clear pattern - for example Plus-X in RO9 is 6m whilst FP4 is 9m. So interpolation just becomes more guess work. Hence my plea for some experienced based figires before I develop another roll.

 

[mr.datsun]

After a chat with the technical support person at Paterson (who was mildly surprised that Aculux 3 does not detail Plus-X times), I found out that the times should be the same as D76 or ID11 as 'the Aculux times are based on them'. (This confused me a little as the times for Plus-X in both are 5.5 and 8 respectively.) Nonetheless he was surprised that a 6.5 min time was producing thin negs and suggested out of date developer. I ran again tonight with an increased time of 8m, and again got thin negs with even the neg leader (that I thoughtfully included) being semi-transparent. The long and short of it is that the 'new' bottle of dev looks to be out of date and I will call the supplier and get a replacement before attempting Aculux 3 again.