Best high acutance developer.

Paul Howell said:

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?

Click to expand...

It gets complicated as definitions have evolved over time and both objective and subjective characterizations of “sharpness” have sought to factor in more parameters.

Historically “acutance” was a measure of how steep the slope is between two densities. Think of a hard edge in a negative (how to expose a hard edge is a sub-topic). If you magnify that hard edge it is never a perfect “instantaneous” change. There is always a transition. The steeper the average slope of that transition, the greater the acutance.

The problem is that is not all there is to it when it comes to how sharp that boundary appears. That’s where contrast/edge effects come in. There is also granularity. These things mess with perceptions versus just a straight measure of traditional acutance (edge sharpness).

DREW WILEY said:

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.

Click to expand...

Adding to what you are saying Drew, a 35mm shot on AP or APX 100, developed in Rodinal, & printed around half plate or even 10x8 might look sharper than a print made from a 5x4 negative using the same film & developer, printed just over10x8. And as you say, viewing distance is critical. Blow the 5x4 negative up to 20x16 and then the "Acutance" and definition of a 5x4 negative becomes far more apparent.

Ian

Sometimes even the same developer can be diluted differently in order to obtain a different kind of edge response, along with tweaked grain growth. Since I work with multiple formats, multiple films, and even a variety of developers, I think of this as a big toolbox full of all kinds of options as needed. There is no one answer. A smooth complexion portrait might call for lovely microtonality, but minimal edge effect. On the other hand, a dramatic landscape shot is going to be favored by a different strategy.
What is best for the specific image itself, in its final enlarged fashion?

Having a full arsenal of options is, of course, dependent upon quite a bit of experience and practical testing. Certainly not everyone seeks to do that, or needs to. It's OK to land on a simple single preferred film and developer combination. But that simplified approach still doesn't provide any kind generic answer to this particular thread. It just tells other people what your favorite flavor of ice cream is.

I'm not going to complicate the thread by discussion of staining pyro developers or supplemental masking techniques. There's been plenty of discussion of those strategies elsewhere, earlier.

retina_restoration said:

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..

Click to expand...

All true. But OP, cleverly sidestepping the unwritten rule never to use the word "best" if the title of a post is in the form of a question , asked "What do folks here consider to be the best high acutance film developer you have used?" (emphasis mine). Subjective answers, based on experience, however limited or extended, is what seems to be called for.

After reading Edge of Darkness, I decided to try BTTB specifically in an effort to get high actuance and edge effects in my 35mm negatives.

To that point, I was fairly happy with the combination of Delta 100 and Mytol (basically XTOL) stock. It is extremely fine-grained and high-resolution, but I believe that it is lacking in acutance, and certainly has no edge effects. When I have printed 5x7 or 8x10 enlargements from those Delta-100-in-Mytol negs, I've been quite happy with them.

Recently I printed one at 11x14. I took the photo on a tripod, with a sharp 35mm prime lens near its sweet spot (f/5.6 or f/8, thereabouts), using mirror lockup and a self timer. I have no reason to believe that I introduced any apparent unsharpness with my technique or equipment. The photo looks phenomenal as an 8x10. But I was not happy with it as an 11x14. It has the resolution. I can just barely start to see grain when I stick my nose up to it. But it just doesn't look as bitingly sharp as I want it to.

I wonder if Mytol 1:1 would have improved this by introducing a hair more grain and perhaps a bit more acutance as well.

Currently playing with FP4+ in BTTB, HP5+ in BTTB, and Delta 100 in Mytol 1:1 to see which combo gives me the best "definition" (as Barry Thornton refers to it) in an 11x14 sized print from a 35mm negative. BTTB has some other advantages over the Mytol as well that I'm curious about; specifically its compensating effect that lets me get more consistent results and retain highlights even on a long roll film with frames shot under wildly different lighting conditions.

Jury is still out for me!

As for the highest acutance combo I've used so far, FP4+ in dilute Rodinal takes the cake. In medium and large format I find it delightful. In 35mm it's unusably grainy for my tastes.

brian steinberger said:

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.

Click to expand...

I only used Ilfosol once.
It came with a bunch of darkroom supplies and had been in storage about 3 years; it worked just as it should.
At the end of the day ID11 is available and consistent, no reason as now to change.

retina_restoration said:

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..

Click to expand...

I have done quite a lot of such testing.

Melvin J Bramley said:

At the end of the day ID11 is available and consistent, no reason as now to change.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I use it 1:1 and it is very sharp. Try it at 1:2 or 1:3 and it gets really sharp. Probably as sharp as Ilfosol but I tend to not like the tonality.

I've been mostly a Rodinal user for 30 years, but Beutler's has a bit more acutance. Easy to mix too. I'm surprised that more people don't use it. FX-1 is almost interchangeable with Beutler's if my memory is correct.

Augustus Caesar said:

I have done quite a lot of such testing.

Click to expand...

Great, but I expect that you and I are most definitely a tiny minority. 95% of the community has tried 2 or 3 developers and their "tests" have been casual at best.

retina_restoration said:

Great, but I expect that you and I are most definitely a tiny minority. 95% of the community has tried 2 or 3 developers and their "tests" have been casual at best.

Click to expand...

While that may be true, some of us arrive at the place where prints have the look and tonality that we're after...... that was after all....our goal. PMK & then Pyrocat have been that sweet spot for me.

retina_restoration said:

Great, but I expect that you and I are most definitely a tiny minority. 95% of the community has tried 2 or 3 developers and their "tests" have been casual at best.

Click to expand...

You under-estimate people, there's a lot here who have done extensive testing. I've always done tests, at some points quite exhaustively, I only change my main film developer if I can see incremental and consistent improvements in image quality.

Ian

I think most people who process film have run side by side tests. I have many times run and rerun every developer I ever use against every other developer I use. I know exactly what I like and don't like.

koraks said:

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.

Click to expand...

As @Milpool pointed out this is a rather unexpected "fringe effect". It may be caused by the pyrocat developer producing a high concentration of reaction products in the black area which diffuse out and inhibit development in the grey area. The lack of much agitation means they do not get swept away.

For more details, sign up, login and borrow this for a detailed discussion of acutance starting on p212:

I used to play around with different developer combinations so much, but these days I just stick to consistent selections of a single B&W developer, XTol Replenished, and choose my film based on the look I want. Frankly, TMax 400 is beyond anything I could ever get from HP5+ and Pyro. Delta 100 (or Tmax) are sharper than my prints need to be. It seems like all the stuff I used to do to get this or that look, I can get through split grade printing and modern emulsions. Or just a bigger negative! The environmentally friendly nature of XTol is more points in its direction. Even when I do use traditional grained films, the specialized dev's are only marginally better than XTol. You notice it or you don't.

Anyway before all that the best results I had seen were from using FP4+ in Patterson Acutol. I kept hearing rumors that it was going to come back but if it has, I've haven't seen it. 6x6 negatives from that combo looked pretty close to Delta. The grain was extremely fine. But, the stock didn't last long in a half opened bottle.