Acutol S - Crawley's fx15 developer

[Ballinderry-Michael]

The information which appears on <this webpage> discusses the chronology of Patterson's...

Only one t in Paterson.

 

[runswithsizzers]

A much easier/cheaper place to get started with home mixed stuff would be something like D-23.

I have not tried FX-15 myself so I can't say. But you could try one of the simpler DIY formulas to start with if you are nervous or don't want to pony up the money up front for all those ingredients.

For me, the goal is not to try DIY developers. In fact, I wish to avoid that for now - but not because I am nervous about the difficulty or cost. I am pretty sure I can aquire the skills and afford the ingredients, but I would prefer to keep my time spent processing film to a minimum. I don't hate processing my own film, but I can't say I really enjoy it, either.

But, I was thinking about trying FX-15, specifically. I am very much interested in speed enhancing developers, because I am exploring the idea of shooting Ilford FP4+ or Delta 100 at EI160 while avoiding extra grain, if possible. (35mm)

The only thing that might persuade me to DIY a batch of FX-15 would be if I thought it might superior to whatever ready-made speed enhancing developers are available. But the fact that Paterson seems to have stopped promoting Acutol S in favor of some of their later products makes me suspect that FX-15 might not be all that special??? [see my post #23]

I have some Ilford Microphen on hand, ready for when I finish up a roll of FP4+ (at EI160). If I like the results, I won't feel the need to complicate my life with DIY developers. If not, I'll keep looking.

 

[pentaxuser]

I have some Ilford Microphen on hand, ready for when I finish up a roll of FP4+ (at EI160). If I like the results, I won't feel the need to complicate my life with DIY developers. If not, I'll keep looking.

I have neither seen or heard of anything that suggests that FX15 is a better speed enhancing developer than Microphen.

pentaxuser

 

[Alan Johnson]

Acutol-S was a re-useable solvent developer which probably deposits dissolved silver between uses, causing negative spots if not filtered.
Very soon after it was discontinued, Aculux, a one shot potassium sulfite based solvent developer, was introduced. This being one shot avoids the deposition of silver particles.
Just a guess at the reason for Acutol-S being discontinued.

Paterson 'Acu' Range

Paterson, Chemicals

www.photomemorabilia.co.uk

 

[runswithsizzers]

I have neither seen or heard of anything that suggests that FX15 is a better speed enhancing developer than Microphen.

pentaxuser

Acutol-S was a re-useable solvent developer which probably deposits dissolved silver between uses, causing negative spots if not filtered.
Very soon after it was discontinued, Aculux, a one shot potassium sulfite based solvent developer, was introduced. This being one shot avoids the deposition of silver particles.
Just a guess at the reason for Acutol-S being discontinued.

Paterson 'Acu' Range

Paterson, Chemicals

www.photomemorabilia.co.uk

Thanks to both for the additional information. I think I can cross Acutol S / FX-15 developer off of my list, for now.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Thanks to both for the additional information. I think I can cross Acutol S / FX-15 developer off of my list, for now.

Why? It's excellent, better than D-76.

 

[john_s]

Does anyone know why Paterson discontinued FX-15? I'm wondering if it was a decision based on economics, packaging, marketing of a powder etc, or a performance issue. Some reports have been glowing, and although I'm settled on ID-68 when I need a bit more speed, I'm curious to try FX-15.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Why? It's excellent, better than D-76.

see my post #27 above

 

[Augustus Caesar]

see my post #27 above

I did. It's better than Microphen or D-76. UFG was very good, but it is now history.

 

[relistan]

Does anyone know why Paterson discontinued FX-15? I'm wondering if it was a decision based on economics, packaging, marketing of a powder etc, or a performance issue. Some reports have been glowing, and although I'm settled on ID-68 when I need a bit more speed, I'm curious to try FX-15.

See post #29 above.

 

[john_s]

See post #29 above.

Maybe Alan's guess is correct. But there are other well known "re-useable solvent developers" that have survived in the market. Anyway, I don't generally reuse film developers, and since it's cheap to mix I'll give it a try and compare it with ID-68.

Maybe FX-15 doesn't need as much as 100g of sodium sulphite. I'll try it with the same amount as in ID-68.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Does anyone know why Paterson discontinued FX-15? I'm wondering if it was a decision based on economics, packaging, marketing of a powder etc, or a performance issue. Some reports have been glowing, and although I'm settled on ID-68 when I need a bit more speed, I'm curious to try FX-15.

Only speculation here, but perhaps Paterson wanted to go to all-liquid developers. FX-15 is a very good developer, probably among the best solvent types.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have never used FX15, but it obviously gives excellent results as can be seen in the photo by Kevin Caufield in this thread. Peter Elgar (Pentax Pete)has also used FX15 with excellent results, so it's well worth trying if you have the dry components to make it.

Aculux as already mentioned was probably the closest liquid developer to FX15, rather than its name sake Acutol (Liquid).

 

[relistan]

Maybe Alan's guess is correct. But there are other well known "re-useable solvent developers" that have survived in the market. Anyway, I don't generally reuse film developers, and since it's cheap to mix I'll give it a try and compare it with ID-68.

There are, but most people use the PQ or MQ re-usable solvent developers one shot, at higher dilution (1+1, 1+2, etc), instead. Presumably, one could do that with FX-15, though I don't see anyone referencing that. I would probably try that before I cut the sulfite. You will need to re-tune the pH balance and buffer if you mess with the sulfite level.

 

[john_s]

There are, but most people use the PQ or MQ re-usable solvent developers one shot, at higher dilution (1+1, 1+2, etc), instead. Presumably, one could do that with FX-15, though I don't see anyone referencing that. I would probably try that before I cut the sulfite. You will need to re-tune the pH balance and buffer if you mess with the sulfite level.

Thanks, good point. The formula has lots of sulphite and quite small amounts of borax and carbonate. If I reduce the sulphite to, say, 80g/L I don't think I'd need to increase much the other alkalies, but I'd consider adding 0.25g of carbonate.

I'm more concerned with accuracy in measuring some stock chemicals due to absorption of atmospheric humidity, even though they have been stored reasonably well in containers with close fitting lids. I found that my potassium carbonate has to be used at 1.25x formula amount. I'm not sure about my sodium sulphite which is in a plastic tub with plastic lid but is 15 years old. I'm not really equipped to do precise analysis. Maybe I'll buy some fresh sodium sulphite for film developers and retain the old stuff for rinse aid etc.

 

[relistan]

Thanks, good point. The formula has lots of sulphite and quite small amounts of borax and carbonate. If I reduce the sulphite to, say, 80g/L I don't think I'd need to increase much the other alkalies, but I'd consider adding 0.25g of carbonate.

It is pretty carefully tuned and has both borax and sodium carbonate and a small amount of sodium metabisulfite for additional buffering and further pH tuning. You should definitely experiment with it, but honestly the main difference between this and e.g. D-76 is going to be in the fine details like this.

I'm more concerned with accuracy in measuring some stock chemicals due to absorption of atmospheric humidity, even though they have been stored reasonably well in containers with close fitting lids. I found that my potassium carbonate has to be used at 1.25x formula amount. I'm not sure about my sodium sulphite which is in a plastic tub with plastic lid but is 15 years old. I'm not really equipped to do precise analysis. Maybe I'll buy some fresh sodium sulphite for film developers and retain the old stuff for rinse aid etc.

Yeah, I hear you. The thing is that if you do it the same way with the same ingredients each time, it will at least be repeatable and your tests will bear out when you actually run a few rolls for real.

 

[john_s]

It is pretty carefully tuned and has both borax and sodium carbonate and a small amount of sodium metabisulfite for additional buffering and further pH tuning. You should definitely experiment with it, but honestly the main difference between this and e.g. D-76 is going to be in the fine details like this.
.............................

Thanks again. Yes, it is obviously very finely tuned. I will start by following the instructions!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

For me, the goal is not to try DIY developers. In fact, I wish to avoid that for now - but not because I am nervous about the difficulty or cost. I am pretty sure I can aquire the skills and afford the ingredients, but I would prefer to keep my time spent processing film to a minimum. I don't hate processing my own film, but I can't say I really enjoy it, either.

But, I was thinking about trying FX-15, specifically. I am very much interested in speed enhancing developers, because I am exploring the idea of shooting Ilford FP4+ or Delta 100 at EI160 while avoiding extra grain, if possible. (35mm)

The only thing that might persuade me to DIY a batch of FX-15 would be if I thought it might superior to whatever ready-made speed enhancing developers are available. But the fact that Paterson seems to have stopped promoting Acutol S in favor of some of their later products makes me suspect that FX-15 might not be all that special??? [see my post #23]

I have some Ilford Microphen on hand, ready for when I finish up a roll of FP4+ (at EI160). If I like the results, I won't feel the need to complicate my life with DIY developers. If not, I'll keep looking.

after 40 years of trying all kinds of developers, including DIY, I concluded that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate anything better than Rodinal or D76/ID11. Don't waste your time hunting for the miracle developer; it doesn't exist!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

after 40 years of trying all kinds of developers, including DIY, I concluded that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate anything better than Rodinal or D76/ID11. Don't waste your time hunting for the miracle developer; it doesn't exist!

Well, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. D-76 is a well-balanced developer, giving a nice compromise among speed, graininess, and sharpness, with good stability. Nonetheless, it is possible to formulate developers that are superior in some respects, and in the case of FX-15, I believe that it is slightly superior in all respects. But it (D-76) is not the developer of choice for the slowest films (unless diluted) or the fastest (Kodak recommended DK-50 for Royal-X). Kodak recommends other developers for T-Max 3200P.

The Adox MQ borax formula (which is only slightly different from D-76) is to be recommended.

Digitaltruth Photo - Photographic Chemical Formulas and Technical Data

www.digitaltruth.com

Digitaltruth Photo - Photographic Chemical Formulas and Technical Data

www.digitaltruth.com

You must remember that D-76 was released in 1927, and was intended for motion-picture film. The films we have now are vastly superior to those of the 1920s, and newer formulations are available that are better adapted to the films of today.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

after 40 years of trying all kinds of developers, including DIY, I concluded that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate anything better than Rodinal or D76/ID11. Don't waste your time hunting for the miracle developer; it doesn't exist!

D76 and ID11 are developers I have been using for the last 30+ years too.
I've seen very good results from home-brewed FX37 though which can give a slight speed boost to some films.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. D-76 is a well-balanced developer, giving a nice compromise among speed, graininess, and sharpness, with good stability. Nonetheless, it is possible to formulate developers that are superior in some respects, and in the case of FX-15, I believe that it is slightly superior in all respects. But it is not the developer of choice for the slowest films (unless diluted) or the fastest (Kodak recommended DK-50 for Royal-X). Kodak recommends other developers for T-Max 3200P.

The Adox MQ borax formula (which is only slightly different from D-76) is to be recommended.

Digitaltruth Photo - Photographic Chemical Formulas and Technical Data

www.digitaltruth.com

Digitaltruth Photo - Photographic Chemical Formulas and Technical Data

www.digitaltruth.com

You must remember that D-76 was released in 1927, and was intended for motion-picture film. The films we have now are vastly superior to those of the 1920s, and newer formulations are available that are better adapted to the films of today.

You are right about D76 being a nice compromise, which I prefer over specialized developers, optimizing one characteristic while sacrificing others for it.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

You are right about D76 being a nice compromise, which I prefer over specialized developers, optimizing one characteristic while sacrificing others for it.

That's why I have used D76 for so long. It's a good all rounder.

 

[Mal Paso]

I just took the plunge and spent $193 for chemicals and $42 for a used scale. I wanted the lowest cost per liter so I bought larger sizes where it made sense like a full pound of Metol. I added up the cost including tax and shipping and it's $1.91 per liter for stock solution. I'll probably weigh the Phenidone on a grains scale.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I just took the plunge and spent $193 for chemicals and $42 for a used scale. I wanted the lowest cost per liter so I bought larger sizes where it made sense like a full pound of Metol. I added up the cost including tax and shipping and it's $1.91 per liter for stock solution. I'll probably weigh the Phenidone on a grains scale.

I have two digital scales, one for tiny amounts (see below) and one for larger amounts.

 

[removedacct3]

I just took the plunge and spent $193 for chemicals and $42 for a used scale.

Money well spent I would say. Mixing developers and toying around with them is jolly good fun. Enjoy!