Discontinued Developers

[John Plowman]

Hi all, Has anyone yet solved the mystery about FX14 Acutol Developer? It came out in the early sixties, and was very successfull. The RPS claim that the formulation was patented. I can find no evidence of this. It has long since been discontinued. The formula may have been a private arrangement between Geoff. Crawley, the inventor, and Paterson, the manufacturer. This situation is starting to assume the status of a state secret, but since the 20year expirey date for the patent has well passed, surely the freedom of information act would allow the formula to be exposed to the Public. John. Plowman.

 

[Ian Grant]

The rights to the commercial use of the formula belonged to Paterson, it was never patented but like many commercially produced developers is a trade secret.

Crawley published some formulae like Acutol-S after it was dropped commercially, as were all it's competitors Ilford Hypam, Hodak HDD, Johnsons Definol etc.

It's possible although not likely at the moment that it could be produced commercially again however there are alternatives from other manufacturers.

Welcome to APUG.

Ian

 

[pdeeh]

The UK Freedom of Information Act has no bearing
on commercial organisations. It only defines the obligations of public sector organisations (i.e. owned or operated by the Crown) to disclose certain categories of information on request.

 

[fotch]

Hello John and welcome to APUG.

 

[jim appleyard]

The Film Developing Cookbook (FDC) list an FX15 as Acutol S with the recipe. Is this the same thing? Close?

 

[John Wiegerink]

Welcome! I too, missed the boat on FX14 and it was gone before I could give it a try. I had this same question here some time back and ran into a dead end. I hear some people say that this or that developer is the same, but others say different. I think a company in Spain was suppose to start producing some of the Paterson/Crawley formula, but I've heard nor seen nothing. I really don't need another developer to cloud my mind, but it would have been nice to try. JohnW

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Nothing spectacular or unique about Crawley's formulas. Remember this was 60's technology. For modern films a far better choice would be Xtol which would produce better grain and true film speed.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Nothing spectacular or unique about Crawley's formulas. Remember this was 60's technology. For modern films a far better choice would be Xtol which would produce better grain and true film speed.

You're probably right, but many old formulas are still used today by folks that want a "certain" look. It's kind of like women - if they were all the same life would be pretty dull and world population would shrink. Different strokes for different folks I guess! JohnW

 

[Gerald C Koch]

John, you might like the look of Xtol.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...It's kind of like women - if they were all the same life would be pretty dull...

Not necessarily; it would depend on exactly what they were like.

...world population would shrink...

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Not necessarily; it would depend on exactly what they were like.

You say that like it would be a bad thing.

True on the women, but if they were to frisky then the world population would skyrocket.


Actually, I just threw that out there for people to ponder. As for me? I'd like to see it shrink to about half. Where I used to live you had to run a mile to the nearest neighbor. Now you can't walk ten feet without running into one.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

…world population would shrink…

…You say that like it would be a bad thing.

...Actually, I just threw that out there for people to ponder. As for me? I'd like to see it shrink to about half...

I'm not sure half is enough. The US population would certainly be more comfortable / sustainable at 50% of it's current level, in other words going back to around 1950. However, total world population has roughly tripled since then. We (as a species) might have a fighting chance of not perishing from our own consumption and pollution if it were possible to snap one's fingers and reduce our numbers on the planet by a factor of three rather than two.

Now, what was that question concerning developers all about?

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm not sure half is enough. The US population would certainly be more comfortable / sustainable at 50% of it's current level, in other words going back to around 1950. However, total world population has roughly tripled since then. We (as a species) might have a fighting chance of not perishing from our own consumption and pollution if it were possible to snap one's fingers and reduce our numbers on the planet by a factor of three rather than two.

Now, what was that question concerning developers all about?

We're trying to find the formulation or want to know if Paterson will release FX14 developer???? As for lowering the worlds population? That's what they have World Wars for isn't it? Don't world leaders get together and say, "Gee we need to curb the worlds population. Must be war time!" Now they are getting smarter in that they are sending women into combat since they are the baby producers anyway. That will help lower it quicker. Just kidding, but sometimes I wonder, JohnW