Best high acutance developer.

[Alan Johnson]

I suppose this also depends on how you define acutance. Are you talking about traditional acutance (edge sharpness) or including edge effects? The other thing is emulsions have changed since the old rules were codified.

They don't make Mackie lines like they used to in the good old days. The Efke thin film emulsions, Plus-X, Agfa APX and others that gave strong edge effects are replaced by films that have a higher native acutance but give less adjacency effect. I believe FP4+ still shows the effect of acutance developers pretty well.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They don't make Mackie lines like they used to in the good old days. The Efke thin film emulsions, Plus-X, Agfa APX and others that gave strong edge effects are replaced by films that have a higher native acutance but give less adjacency effect. I believe FP4+ still shows the effect of acutance developers pretty well.

HP5 does, as well.

 

[brian steinberger]

HP5 does, as well.

HP5 in Ilfosol-3 is very crisp.

 

[Milpool]

They don't make Mackie lines like they used to in the good old days. The Efke thin film emulsions, Plus-X, Agfa APX and others that gave strong edge effects are replaced by films that have a higher native acutance but give less adjacency effect. I believe FP4+ still shows the effect of acutance developers pretty well.

I think over the years a lot of assumptions have been made about emulsions, developing agents etc. with respect to image structure and edge effects which may or may not have been valid, and there has been little evidence.

Results can sometimes be surprising. For example I recall an RIT paper (from the early 1980s, I think) which examined edge effects, including proper microdensitometry. POTA produced strong edge effects.

And, emulsion characteristics have changed since the days of Beutler, pyro etc. The old rules about solvency and such do not necessarily apply when it comes to acutance/sharpness. Sometimes an increase in graininess can be mistaken for increased sharpness.

 

[koraks]

And, emulsion characteristics have changed since the days of Beutler, pyro etc. The old rules about solvency and such do not necessarily apply when it comes to acutance/sharpness. Sometimes an increase in graininess can be mistaken for increased sharpness.

When going through my last pieces of Fomapan 100, I ran into something pretty extreme. I can imagine this being a fairly old-fashioned type of emulsion and therefore probably a little more prone to this sort of thing.

Full 35mm frame (scan)

Zoomed in a little.

From here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/to-a-crisp-an-extreme-example-of-edge-effects/

Pyrocat HD 1+1+100, 12 minutes with an agitation cycle every 3-4 minutes.

 

[Paul Howell]

Yep that's a good list. But there are hundreds are very sharp lenses out there, especially considering that some of the current ones designed for digital cameras with 50MP sensors can be mounted on film SLRs. I never saw the need to buy Leica stuff, even the Soviet copies of German lenses are pretty good optically most of the time. As are quite a few Japanese designs... with a lot of third party lenses included. My sharpest 28mm lens is an Osawa... who ever heard of them? When it works it works.

As noted by MattKing, OP question is not about the lens. OP wants a developer that in the style of Berry Thornton es prints with high apparent sharpness or acutance. A very sharp lens when paired with a fine grained film such as Tmax 100 developed in a fine grain developer will be less "apparent sharp" as opposed to a faster film with larger grain developed in an acuance developer although will show less fine detail will appear shaper.

In terms of how sharp does a lens need to be, unless shooting microfiches at 800 LPM, if it can resolve Tmax 100 at 200LPM it is sharp enough.

 

[mshchem]

I don't know about terms,

I do know for printing I love TMY-2 and XTOL.

 

[Milpool]

When going through my last pieces of Fomapan 100, I ran into something pretty extreme. I can imagine this being a fairly old-fashioned type of emulsion and therefore probably a little more prone to this sort of thing.

Full 35mm frame (scan)

Zoomed in a little.

From here: https://tinker.koraks.nl/photography/to-a-crisp-an-extreme-example-of-edge-effects/

Pyrocat HD 1+1+100, 12 minutes with an agitation cycle every 3-4 minutes.

That’s an interesting example. Extreme, indeed. Is this the negative or an inversion? If it’s inverted (positive) it’s even more surprising since it would mean we’re seeing very pronounced “fringe” effects.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

FX-39. Easily!

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

HP5 in Ilfosol-3 is very crisp.

I would agree with that , my problem is Ilfosol is not on the shelf in these parts so I use ID11.
I have to ask ; in the pursuit of accutance are other features lost such as film speed or shadow and highlight detail?
Is accutance the holy grail of film exposure and development?

Ilfosol is, IMHO, the forgotten developer.

 

[Paul Howell]

D76 (ID 11) and Microdol X when diluted reduces silver solvency in increasing acutance, Berry Thornton in Edge of Darkness discusses using the Ilford version of Microdol X diluted 1:3.

 

[JL Nims]

The right shutter speed to avoid camera shake, or mirror lock on a tripod

Correct exposure and development

The right film/developer combination

The right choice of lens

The optimal aperture


It comes down to craft, Geoffrey Crawley stated that the best lens for high acutance work was the 50mm f2 Summicron. My experience backs that up, I was amazed when I shot my first images with a Leica M3 & 50mm Summicron in the late 1980s, I showed some photographer friends some prints and they thought I'd bought a new MF camera.

What's missed is there are sweet spots in film/developer combinations.

Ian

Perfectly well said Ian! I'll just leave it here.

 

[koraks]

That’s an interesting example. Extreme, indeed. Is this the negative or an inversion? If it’s inverted (positive) it’s even more surprising since it would mean we’re seeing very pronounced “fringe” effects.

It's inverted; scan from negative and then flipped in GIMP. Here's a bit from the same negative:

It's the most extreme example I've had on hand; I'm still not quite sure why it came out this extreme.

 

[Ian Grant]

It is important to remember that acutance is not the same as resolution. In many cases, procedures that enhance acutance actually result in reduced resolution, because the emphasis on the factors that increase the perceived sharpness relate to the edges of detail, rather than the entire contents of that detail.
That is why Tri-X in Rodinal looks "sharper" than T-Max 100 in X-Tol.

Crawley's views were:

" Sharpness "-the overall impression of a print or projected image, measured scientifically as "acutance ", seen from normal viewing distance.

" Definition "-the extent to which fine detail is recognisably rendered in a print, etc. When acutance of fine detail is good, then definition is good.

" Acutance "-the contrast at the edge of significant detail, a scientific measurement of the density gradient at that point.

" Resolving Power "-the scientific measurement of the actual fineness of detail recordable by a lens, film, or developer, or any combination of these three.


As photographers we may want different things in terms of image quality, fine grain, sharpness, tonality etc. Personally I want good negatives with excellent sharpness, fine grain, and a good tonal range, and above all consistency. It's about finding the right balance.

It is important to remember that acutance is not the same as resolution. In many cases, procedures that enhance acutance actually result in reduced resolution, because the emphasis on the factors that increase the perceived sharpness relate to the edges of detail, rather than the entire contents of that detail.
That is why Tri-X in Rodinal looks "sharper" than T-Max 100 in X-Tol.

You see the difference though when negative are enlarged more and you can appreciate the finer detail of the slower film. I used Tmax 100 in Rodinal & Xtol (replenished) andthe resuts are remarkably similar, 35mm, 120, & 5x4.

Ian

 

[brian steinberger]

I would agree with that , my problem is Ilfosol is not on the shelf in these parts so I use ID11.
I have to ask ; in the pursuit of accutance are other features lost such as film speed or shadow and highlight detail?
Is accutance the holy grail of film exposure and development?

Ilfosol is, IMHO, the forgotten developer.

I too use ID-11 diluted 1:1. Gives better film speed than Ilfosol. I’ve only experimented a little with Ilfosol. It’s a very active developer and gives short development times. I know the previous version Ilfosol-S had issues with shelf life which supposedly have been fixed with Ilfosol-3. ID-11 gives good shelf life too and I think ilfosol-3 going bad suddenly scares me a bit as well though I did store it in small amber bottles and seemed to keep ok. I need to get another bottle and experiment more.

 

[jim appleyard]

Rodinal, but I haven't tried anything else that would be considered sharper, yet.

 

[Chuck_P]

I use TMX and am currently using Xtol. Initially, years ago, I used HC-110 (H). But in following this thread I have just about have come to the conclusion that I must check out Rodinal.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

FX-39. Easily!

Adox FX-39 II? I only saw an increase in grain size with HR-50. Which film?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I just developed a roll of Foma 200 35mm in Pyrocat-HDC at 21 C for 13 1/2 min. with agitation intervals of 2 1/2 min. and the negatives look to have all the acutance I'll ever need. I usually use Adox XT-3-R for this film and that works fine too, but these negatives look to be a bit better. My Nikon LS8000 scanner is down, but I'll try a scan this evening on an old Epson 3200 flatbed and post them.

 

[retina_restoration]

I’m guessing that many folks who say “developer X is the best!” haven’t really put in the time to compare different developers. If you’ve taken the same photo, shot it over and over, cut it into pieces, and developed each in a different developer, then you’ve got some real experience to back up your claim. But I bet most people have only used one or two developers and never done a proper test, so they’ve just come to the conclusion that one developer is “the sharpest” without really knowing for sure.

I’ve often compared different film rolls and developed them with various developers to see how they perform. The differences are usually only noticeable at the extremes, like comparing a soft developer like D-23 with something like Pyrocat HD. In the middle, the differences are much less noticeable. But many people keep chasing the idea of the “perfect negative,” and that’s okay if that’s what you want. Just remember that these “best” recommendations are extremely subjective and sometimes based on limited experience..

 

[Milpool]

It's inverted; scan from negative and then flipped in GIMP. Here's a bit from the same negative:
View attachment 383180

It's the most extreme example I've had on hand; I'm still not quite sure why it came out this extreme.

I can’t offer an explanation for anything this extreme (beyond the boilerplate film-developer-technique combination) but if nothing else it’s great for illustrating what is meant by edge effects or unsharp masking.

 

[Paul Howell]

OP is asking about a high acutance developer, not all developers, in this case there is no reason comparing a soft developer as he citied Berry Thornton who is not know for using soft developers. But Retina Restoration is right, even when limiting recommendations to high acutance developers the results are pretty much subjective. Unlike contrast, film speed or grain,, acutance is very hard to objectively measure. Some text called acutance perceived sharpness.

Then I thought, is there an objective measurement of acutance?

 

[koraks]

if nothing else it’s great for illustrating what is meant by edge effects or unsharp masking.

Yeah, that's what I mostly use it for. I had a couple of rolls come out similarly, processed in pyrocat and parodinal. It's nice to have these examples, even if I doubt I'd be able to replicate what happened here.

 

[DREW WILEY]

There can be no generic answer per developers. You need to be application (film) specific as well. What might seem to work best with one film, might not work so well with a different type. You also have to factor the degree of magnification in the print as per perceived acutance, along with contrast level. There are numerous variables to contend with, even after you've landed on a suitable terminology.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Rodinal.
Or maybe Unicorn P. ....if you can get some.