Better Developer of Stand Development?

Has anyone tried Patterson’s ACUTOL? Reason I ask Steve Anchell says that this is one of the top two in acutance. I’m trying to zero in on STAND DEVELOPMENT and I’m confused he says that RODINAL doesn’t qualify for this kind of development because it defeats the purpose of this kind of development. His book says that HC110 and RODINAL are only good… as apposed to highest or next highest for acutance. Only reason I ask is because I’m using MF 120 film and I don’t want to sacrifice what I had with my 4x5 negs using unsharp masks. I want more of an edge effect at least for those images that are not pictorial. Search on APUG didn’t yield much on a better developer. The one that looks best and is available appears to be ACTOL. Had a very hard time finding it but finely got it on B&H. Before I do all the testing be nice to hear from STAND development experts.

I'm just beginning to work with DiXactol developer that is supposed to be very high in acutance. So far all I've done is develop some test images to compare with what I was using: HC 110 in a Jobo. They do look much sharper, but this is the only high acutance developer I've ever used, so I can't compare it to the others.

Standing development accomplishes TWO things, not just ONE.

Acutance enhancing effects are a by-product: the main accomplishment of standing development, or any other reduced agitation protocol, is enhanced local contrast and shadow density and highlight control.

Rodinal effectively suits both purposes. Additionally, it's signature long straight line, gets the most out of contemporary emulsions without promoting 'blocking', or the low density shoulder that limits subsequent interpretation of negatives.

HC-110 introduces it's signature upswept curve, and in many case is less suited to standing development.

An off-the-shelf choice for higher acutance than Rodinal, in standing development, would be Pyrocat or TFX-2, both available from the Formulary. Paterson's FX-39 would be a superb choice as well.

It is easy, however, to do a test of Rodinal. Working with TMY or TMX would give a very good idea of what is possible. Anchell's comments ( or were they Troop's ? ) were meant to rate the developers in normal development protocols.

Acutol might be a good candidate, but I don't have the experience with it that I do with the others. Choosing between Rodinal, FX2, FX39, or Pyrocat would have to be made with the film and curves you have in mind.

You might get some benefit by searching sandy king's and steve sherman's conversations here.

d

You want less edge effects with smaller formats, it gets ugly real quick.

Geoffrey Crawley has been talking about this stuff for ages.

He particularly recommends FX2. ( Troop suggests leaving out the Pinacryptol yellow for T grain films )

It is great for small films. Controlling the degree of effects you want it easy, by varying the time spent. It isn't voodoo, and is pretty easy.

d

I've used FX-2 1+1 as a stand developer with 35mm TMX. The negatives are very unique looking, with large grain and very high edge effects. You'd have to have the right subject for this type of thing. I did it more as an experiment. You know to get an example of extreme edge effects to see what all the hype is about. I agree, though, with avandesande, that with 35mm film, you have to keep the enlargement factor low or things can fall apart pretty quickly.

Anchell is right, Rodinal is not a particularly good acutance developer. However his praise of Acutol is misplaced. Those developers giving the greatest acutance are FX-1, Beutler, Ethol T.E.C., Neofin Blue and some of the catechol developers. Acutol is in a group along with FX-39, FX-2, and FX-37.

DF and Gerald, thanks for your input and also to all the others that replied. Acutol may not be the best but Achell places in a high category for edge effects. And, yes, I am interested in another feature of unsharp masks, improved local contrast. Since no one appears to have tried Acutol for Stand Development I'll give it a try and report back.

Consider Crawley's advice: he made these developers, and advocated the technique.

FX39, or FX2. Re-read Troop, look up Crawley.