Anyone Else Developing w/ Acufine?

[momus]

About 6 weeks ago I caught a bad cold when our weather plunged from the 80's and 90's down to the 70's and 80's (I know, I know). I was hesitant to mix up any more D76, as it goes bad pretty quickly in our heat, so I mixed up a batch of Acufine. During those 6 weeks, I've made just the occasional photo here and there, and finally finished off a couple of rolls of Tri-X yesterday. I pulled out the developer and got my temps right, then noticed that the times that Acufine gave didn't really fit my film. All they showed for Tri-X was if you shot it at 1000 or 800, but I had shot it at box speed. Since I already had the chemicals at 70 degrees, I just winged it and gave it 6 minutes of development, and used the agitation regime for D76, not for Acufine.

While reading the film chart in between agitations, I noticed they recommended constant agitation for the fixer, but no times! Hmmm, constant agitation....not sure if I like the sound of that. OK, lets wing that one too. So I fixed it just like I would for D76 using Kodak's agitation scheme for 5 minutes. The negs came out perfect. They look different than D76, but they also look really, really good. They have a sort of very clean, high gloss to them. Anyone else using this developer? It seems to be pretty idiot proof. And unlike my D76, the 6 weeks under my sink didn't seem to affect it at all.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Yes, long time user of Acufine. You might find your negs are on the contrasty side when you print them, if you used the D76 agitation scheme. I generally am aiming for a neg that prints well at grade 3 with Acufine and getting a 1 to 1.5 stop boost in speed (TX 400 at EI1000). So at 70F, I would develop TX400 for 5 minutes, but exposed at EI1000, agitating the first 15 sec, and then 5 sec at the beginning of each minute.

It will crash at high temperatures, so if you don't use it for a while, it's a good idea to test it with a film leader to be sure it turns black in about 30 seconds or so at 70F. I discovered this once when I was traveling for about a month in the summer, leaving the developer in the apartment with the air conditioning off, so it could have gotten over 100F indoors at some point, and the developer was completely dead when I got back and cost me about six sheets of 4x5". It's happened once since, but at least the second time, I didn't lose anything, because I tested.

If you use the replenisher, it gives very uniform results.

Follow the fixer manufacturer's instructions for fixing. I'm not sure why the developer should include fixing instructions.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Baumann Chemical who originally developed the Acufine formula published a booklet on their developers They were very insistent that you follow their agitation scheme for the best results. I have been told that this booklet is available on the web.

 

[momus]

Thank you for the feedback and info. Yes, I wondered why the fixing would be different too, but there it is in the Acufine instructions. To my mind, this is a very flexible developer (they suggest keeping temps + or - 3 degrees, so that's a pretty wide latitude), but then so is Tri-X, my usual developer. I think it worked so well w/ the D76 agitation scheme because 1- I like contrasty negs anyway, and 2- my agitation scheme is very gentle and slow. To tell you the truth, I can't tell a print that was developed w/ Acufine from one that was developed w/ Tri-X, even though the negs look different. You never really know on these things, as it may be specific to my personal water, agitation scheme, thermometer, etc, and the printing part throws in a whole slew of different variables. I'm just happy they turned out so well w/ no fussing around. Simple is good around here. Once again I forgot to turn the A/C on when I left the house this morning and it got around 78 degrees when I came home, so I'll see how the next rolls come out using the same camera/lens/film.

 

[momus]

OK, here's some samples, and the results are so interesting that I may make another thread some other time. It illustrates how it's nearly impossible to determine what did what. These were taken within a half hour of each other w/ the same camera, lens, and film, and were obviously developed the same way on each frame. It shows how different light and different exposure can give drastically different results, to put it mildly. The bird shot was done in a hurry at the wrong exposure due to limited time & fear (I thought he was going to fly away, possibly at me. This was a BIG, angry Osprey w/ about a 7' wingspan and huge talons), the T-bucket was shot in lousy shaded light, and the others were in good strong light. Pretty neat. View attachment 78346 View attachment 78347 View attachment 78348 View attachment 78349 View attachment 78350

What does it all mean? Darned if I know. I think it means that if you meter things right, this Acufine is pretty foolproof (no comments from the peanut gallery on who exactly that might be, ahem), and if you don't meter it right, it looks lousy. Not much of a surprise.

 

[jim appleyard]

I've found that the smaller the push with Acufine, the better. It does quite well with 1 or 2 stops, but after that it start to get very contrasty.