FX 14(Acutol) film developer

[John Wiegerink]

It seems that there are somethings in life that we end up regretting. For me it's that I never tried Paterson's Acutol film developer while it was in existence. The only high acutance film developer they now list is FX 39. I'm wondering now with the passing of Geoffrey Crawley if he took the formula with him to the grave. I know there are many other high acutance developers out there, but I'll always wonder just how good Acutol (FX 14) really was. Has anyone heard any rumors of Paterson bringing it back? JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

I searched the BJ online, but found no formula or much about FX 14. I also went through my copies of The Darkroom Cookbook and The Film Developing Cookbook and found no formula there either. It looks like FX 14 (Acutol) is gone forever. JohnW

 

[John Wiegerink]

Mike, if Paterson doesn't bring it back then the formula might just be released. It might be some time down the road before it happens. I really wish I would have tried this one just to know either how good it was or how bad it was. JohnW

 

[Gerald C Koch]

FX-14 was Acutol
FX-15 was Acutol S
FX-16 was Paterson's liquid paper developer

These formulas were never published. I assume because the rights were assigned to Paterson. You might try FX-13 high definition developer.

 

[OzJohn]

If it's any help the following appears on the FADU forums under a thread called "Crawley's Acutol S (FX15) formula" and is dated Feb 2009 (Geoffrey Crawley died, I think, in early 2010).

Here is the formula for Acutol S (FX15) which was a secret for many years-Crawley still keeps Acutol a secret! I have used it diluted 1+1 and 1+3: the original bought powder said to use it undiluted but there was a big scum of dissolved silver on the bottle after use because of the Sodium Sulphite. I have successfully used it 1+3 for outdated (1997)Kodak T-max 400 downrated to 200ASA because of its age,in my Rolleiflex and got good negs and won a prize for a 20x16" print at my club!

Acutol S (FX15) Formula

Metol 3.5 gms
Sodium Sulphite 100.0 gms
Phenidone 0.1 gm
Hydroquinone 2.5 gms
Sodium Bisulphite 0.5 gm
Borax 2.5 gms
Sodium Carbonate 1.0 gm
Potassium Bromide 1.5 gms
Water to 1 litre

Example time @68oF: FP4+ 1+1 7.5 mins 1+3 14.5 mins
outdated Kodak TMY 400 RF @200 ASA 1+3 17 mins
outdated Pan F RF @ 32 ASA 1+3 13 mins
KB14 35mm for copying @ 50 ASA 1+3 10 mins
Fuji Neopan 400 @ 400ASA 1+3 14.5 mins
Ilford SFX 1+1 14 mins
Old Tri-X 35mm 1+1 9.5 mins

OzJohn

 

[John Wiegerink]

According to what I can find FX-13 is the same as FX-1b.

 

[eclarke]

FX-14 was Acutol
FX-15 was Acutol S
FX-16 was Paterson's liquid paper developer

These formulas were never published. I assume because the rights were assigned to Paterson. You might try FX-13 high definition developer.

Don't sell FX37 short, I use it a lot..Evan Clarke

 

[John Wiegerink]

Don't sell FX37 short, I use it a lot..Evan Clarke

To be honest, I have never tried any of the FX** developers, but upon reading about them they sound very interesting. FX37 and FX39 sound like two very good developers for t-max-Delta type films. FX1 and FX2 might be worth a try also. I have a couple of old cameras I need to test out and might try one of the FX** developers when I do. JohnW

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

In the early 70s I did a book project using mostly 35mm Ilford FP4 and Acutol FX-14. It was a marriage made in heaven. njb

 

[John Wiegerink]

In the early 70s I did a book project using mostly 35mm Ilford FP4 and Acutol FX-14. It was a marriage made in heaven. njb

That's the kind of stuff I keep hearing about Acutol and the reason I wish I would have tried it when it was still alive.

 

[Saganich]

I've been going through the FX formulas over the past few years with TriX looking for a good combination of sharpness (sharpness of major subject areas), definition (sharpness of smaller areas), grain, and ASA.
FX1 was the most interesting. ASA for TriX was 200 and a bit grainy.Here are some examples high sharpness around major subject areas. Not all images come out like these.

http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/Family Album/2010part2/images/2010-36-08.jpg
notice the outline around the legs.
http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/Family Album/2010part2/images/2010-36-24.jpg
around the back of the figure.

FX2 is more subtle and pictorial in nature. Again obvious grain with excellent pleasing sharpness and definition. ASA for TRIx 200 so again better for FP4 IMO. Working in a laboratory setting I was able to purchase the potassium carbonate sesquihydrate (1.5 H2O) Crawley called for in his original formula.

http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/PAW 2009/paw2009MAy.htm
Bottom picture is a good example of how FX2 can add to an image.
http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/PAW 2009/paw2009June.htm
http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/PAW 2009/paw2009September.htm
All three on both pages are FX2 and TriX at 200.

FX15 is a nice compromise. It is more complicated to mix having to prepare 1% and 5% stock solutions of phenidone and sodium bisulfite ahead of time. The grain is better then FX1 or FX2, the sharpness (Large areas) is a bit less but the definition (small areas) is excellent. ASA for Trix is 320 for a longer toe or 250 for standard 0.1 density units above FB&F with more linear curve through the mids. Each has its merits.

http://www.imagebrooklyn.com/street_pages_2011/BS2011G1/BS2011G1.html

Every image in the Gallery I was TriX in FX15

Chris

 

[John Wiegerink]

Chris, They all look darn good and I even like the ones developed in good old D23. If I were, and I am, shooting with my medium format gear I think I'd pick FX2 and give it a try. The FX2 shots are really to my liking. Of course FX-37 is probably a winner also. I might just get TFX2 from PF and give that a try. Thanks for sharing, JohnW

 

[Saganich]

Thanks, I like the D23 and have used it as a standard to compare other developers but I found it disappointing sometimes. Fx-2 has been super consistent but difficult to store for long stretches. I use marbles in bottles to displace air as I use the A solution and keep the bottles small. I haven't tried it yet for medium format but I'm sure it would be great. The development times can be long which seems to be part of Crowley's strategy somehow.

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

I forgot to mention another component of the FP4/FX-14 "marriage made in heaven" and that was the bridesmaid: Agfa Portriga Rapid in its early 1970s incarnation, when it still contained cadmium. (There--I've beat that metaphor to death.) njb

 

[pgomena]

I've used Photographers Formulary's version of FX-2, TFX-2, on MF film and got some excellent results. Highlights do not block up. Like FX-2, it does not store very well, and it is a little on the expensive side. Plan to use it up within 6 months of purchase. With reduced agitation, (two inversions every 3 minutes) it produces very sharp negatives. PanF+ is not a good choice for reduced agitation with TFX-2, however. It produces exaggerated edge effects.

Peter Gomena

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've used Photographers Formulary's version of FX-2, TFX-2, on MF film and got some excellent results. Highlights do not block up. Like FX-2, it does not store very well, and it is a little on the expensive side. Plan to use it up within 6 months of purchase. With reduced agitation, (two inversions every 3 minutes) it produces very sharp negatives. PanF+ is not a good choice for reduced agitation with TFX-2, however. It produces exaggerated edge effects.

Peter Gomena

I'm thinking of Foma 100 and Fuji Acros?

 

[pgomena]

I've not tried Foma at all, and Acros is good in just about anything. I had good results with Delta 100 and the late, lamented Agfa APX100. I've not used TFX-2 in more than a year, but would use it again. I'm using Pyrocat-HD for most things now.

Peter Gomena

 

[nworth]

Can anyone post the formula for FX-14?

 

[nworth]

Will anyone post the formula for FX-14?

 

[JW PHOTO]

Will anyone post the formula for FX-14?

If they did I think it would just probably be an educated guess.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Will anyone post the formula for FX-14?

The formula has never been publicly revealed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have unopened Acutol tin. Is it good idea to try it? It has little info on the label with suggestion to use slow bw films. I have bulk of Kentmere 100, would it be better to try something else? I'm buying fresh film only in bulks (from Canadian, USA stores).
I read comments above about Pan F and FP4, which I could get, but I didn't get it if it is OK or not to use with Acutol.

 

[Alan Johnson]

Appears your tin is Acutol-S FX-15 discontinued around 1974 so now ~42 years old.
http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Paterson/Paterson_Acu_Range.html
Would be interesting to hear if it still works.

 

[ruilourosa]

Any news for an educated gess for fx14???

 

[John Wiegerink]

Any news for an educated gess for fx14???

Nothing new that I've heard about. I think FX-15 (Acutol-S) was brought back, but not Acutol (FX-14). I don't think we'll probably ever see FX-14 again, but it sure would be nice if they would release the formula. I tried FX-39II for the first time recently and found it to be a very good developer with Delta 100. I'm going to soup some Foma 100 in it tonight and will see how that comes out. JohnW