High-accutance developers?

[Gerald C Koch]

FX-2? Beutler's original?

The FX series was devised by Geoffrey Crawley and appeared in the British Journal of Photography, edited by G. W. Crawley. Volumes 107 (1960) December 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; and 108 (1961) January 6, 13, and 27.The Beutler formula appeared in Willi Beutler's book Meine Dunklekammer Praxis (My Darkroom Method), 2nd Ed, 1961.

BTW, the is no connection between Neofin Blue and the Beutler formula despite what the Photographer's Formulary wants to say.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My development drugs of choice are replenished XTOL and Rollo Pyro in a Jobo processor.

 

[Chris Livsey]

I look forward to the results, personally I have been stuck on Pyrocat HD for a while now, doing the job for me. I find if I underexpose Tri-X it doesn't like that but manages HP5+ better under those adverse conditions. I was going to mix some A&T TD-201 I have enjoyed using before this week-end but I may wait now for those results.
BTW using Pyrocat HD at 1:1:100 75F ish 16 min Semi Stand, agitate 1st min cont then at 4, 8 & 12 mins I have run to 18/20 with little if any difference. Pre-soak 5min, plain water ( I have seen surfactant recommended but have seen no detrimental effects of un-even development with plain water and the Ilford range has some surfactant incorporated I am convinced with the slight foaming I get, none with Kodak but even with one roll of Ilford with 4 rolls Kodak mixed tank it foams.)
Sorry for wandering OT a little just sharing what I am muttering to myself.


Anyone else pre-ordered the new edition of "The Darkroom Cookbook" ? Amazon UK says released April 19th, at last a fresh start for my margin notes !!

 

[Chris Livsey]

BTW, the is no connection between Neofin Blue and the Beutler formula despite what the Photographer's Formulary wants to say.

http://www.tetenaluk.com/new-tetenal-neofin-blue.html

Clearly state this formula is different to the one they offered previously:
Users who have been working with the former version of Neofin Blue (Art.No. 100126) can change to the new Neofin Blue (100127) with their previous developing time and agitation mode, provided that the mixing volume had not changed (e.g. 500 ml)

 

[Trask]

Interesting re: Neofin -- different box, new formulation. I note that page also says "The formula is designed for the processing in developer drums, e.g. such as Jobo or Paterson." Depending on how wish to interpret that statement, it can be read to mean that it is ONLY for Jobo/Patterson processing, or it can be read that it can ALSO be using in rotary processing -- too bad their technical writer or advertising team weren't more accurate. I also note that the link at the bottom of the page to the technical specs leads to a 404-Page Not Found.

 

[Chris Livsey]

. I also note that the link at the bottom of the page to the technical specs leads to a 404-Page Not Found.

yes it's a bit of a mess, it also says "AGITATION
Agitate the developer drum continuously for the first 30 seconds, afterwards agitate (tip over) once every 30 seconds. Processing in rotary tube processors is not recommended"
Go figure as they say.

 

[PerfesserKev]

I landed here looking for info on what may have changed with Neofin Blue. I worry that having almost half the concentration will affect shelf life (for the first time they list one -- two years) and why the change happened. The developing times are all quite different from prior versions. I read their "Jobo or Patterson" statement to be about hand tank processing in those brands, not rotary processing. Had quite good results with Delta 100 and NB in rotary before. I'd miss that now, and haven't shot any sheets to test the new version.

Any knowledge Fotohuis?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Using an acutance developer with constant agitation (rotation) seems to be contrary to accepted use. Willi Beutler in his book Meine Dunkelkammer Praxis (My Darkroom Method) is quite specific in its development details. Acutance developers are designed to only develop at the surface of the emulsion. It depends on the developer becoming exhausted before it can reach deeper into the emulsion. You really don't want fresh developer to be constantly flowing over the surface.

 

[PerfesserKev]

Yes, I'm aware of that. The choice is on behalf of tonality and the high cost of the developer. To use NB with sheet film requires either tray development (time-consuming and scratch-prone), using three vials of the stuff at nearly $10 a batch in the U.S., or one vial in a Jobo. For some film it works well and continues by much of the virtue of high-acutance chemistry to be sharper in appearance than a solvent developer would. Tetenal's former formulation info lists a 3-second agitation timing which is, fundamentally, constant agitation. That timing works very well in this case. Neofin Blue is, for me, primarily a compensating developer. There are cheaper and higher-acutance choices if that were the priority.

Again, anyone with knowledge of the reasoning behind the formulation change -- environmental restriction, cost, component availability, improved performance, boredom -- please let us know!

 

[Alan Johnson]

Here's an msds from 2010:http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/tetenal/Neofin_Blue.pdf
Here's an msds from 2014:http://www.freestylephoto.biz/static/pdf/msds/tetenal/100126_131100.pdf
Here's an msds from 2015:http://www.tetenal.com/sidaopener_uk.htm?file=SIDA/SIDAUS/100127.pdf
All I can spot is the later one has a lower limit on DTPA 5Na but they are not conclusively different, if those are the relevant documents.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

DTPA is a sequestering agent for calcium if the user should use tap water for mixing the developer. At one time acutance developers like Neofin Blau and the Beutler formula fpr 35 mm film were popular. However with the advent of newer thinner emulsions the need for these developers has decreased. In addition their use with MF and LF is rather pointless. Due to the large negative size you really are not going to see any advantage over the use of conventional developers.

 

[PerfesserKev]

Thanks Alan. When I find an MSDS on the current 2016 formula (not included in the package) I'll make a comparison. Thanks for the translation Gerald.

 

[PerfesserKev]

Looks like the latest one also dates from 2014. The biggest piece of the puzzle is that they would not increase fluid volume without a significant reason. It increases shipping costs. But perhaps that is all paid by the retailers and customers anyway.

 

[Arklatexian]

The FX series was devised by Geoffrey Crawley and appeared in the British Journal of Photography, edited by G. W. Crawley. Volumes 107 (1960) December 2, 9, 16, 23, and 30; and 108 (1961) January 6, 13, and 27.The Beutler formula appeared in Willi Beutler's book Meine Dunklekammer Praxis (My Darkroom Method), 2nd Ed, 1961.

BTW, the is no connection between Neofin Blue and the Beutler formula despite what the Photographer's Formulary wants to say.

Gerald, what you said about Neofin Blue and the Beutler formula has been my experience for many years yet I still see that repeated. Even back when KB-14 and similar films could be bought fresh and new, I prefered to make and use the old A+B Beutler formula. Maybe PF knows something that I don't?(probably) Anyhow, I agree with you....Regards!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Acutance developers require a great deal of diligence on the part of the photographer. In order for them to produce the best results the following must be observed.

o Exposure must be spot on. For 35 mm this means the thinnest possible negatives with good shadow detail.l
o There cannot be any camera shakes.
o Focusing must be accurate.
o A lens with very good resolution used at its optimum aperture.
o Use of a slow fine grain film.
o Correct development and all other processing steps.
o Attention to solution temperatures to prevent reticulation.

Failure to observe even one requirement effectively negates the use of an acutance developer.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I am unsure why Tetenal has changed the formulation or what their rational is. It might simply be to make Neofin work better with modern emulsions. However as PE mentioned on another thread the use of more than two developing agents really is not needed in any developer.

At one time there were several variants of the Beutler formula in production. Two that come to mind are FR X-22 (Fink and Roselieve) and Ethol T.E.C. which is still made.

Kodak DK-50 can also be used as an acutance developer. Dilute the developer 1+4 with an 8% solution of Kodalk. Take 2 parts of DK-50, 1 part of the sulfite solution, and 7 parts of water. Developing times are 8 to 13 minutes @ 20C depending o the film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Look at that formula in the MSDS. Very odd looking as if something is missing. IDK what is what with this, but that is NOT the formula. Too much is missing.

PE

 

[Alan Johnson]

The latest version has 1-5 % potassium carbonate compared with 5-10 % in the earlier versions.

 

[PerfesserKev]

Interesting. PE or Gerald may know if that could be because of a reporting choice. If the content is 5% they could pick either range? I think Gerald's thought of better performance with modern films is interesting. Seems like they've included a less-soluble component in this 2015-16 formula.

I ordered up a few past packs of the old, have some new, will make some comparisons on the films I use it with -- 35 and MF Pan F among others. I used to love it with Efke and Rolleipan 25. Last week I tried the new formulation with RPX 25 to see how it would do with that distinctly different film. It compressed the highlights horribly. That is likely this film in combo with the developer rather than the developer's new formulation though.

 

[Arvee]

Trying not to be too cynical in my advanced age, I view such changes, i.e., formulation, as being primarily motivated by factory cost savings/improved profit margins or to correct a product deficiency rather than product improvements that benefit the consumer. This observation comes from many years in industry as a Sr. Product Development Manager in High Tech, where, when push comes to shove, it's virtually always about the bottom line!

 

[gone]

"Due to the large negative size you really are not going to see any advantage over the use of conventional developers".

That was my question, are you really going to find that much difference in the prints? For what it's worth, Mic-X is my standard developer, and used at full strength it is hardly a mush look. It is sharp as heck when used w/ the right films. My limited experience w/ other developers has shown Rodinal at 1/25 to be very sharp, and Acufine is quite a bit sharper. They all have less tonality than something like D76 though, so there's a trade off.

If I had my choices for accutance it is hard to beat Tri-X in Acufine, although I made one experiment w/ Shanghai GP3 Pan 100 in L-110 (Freestyle's equivalent of Kodak HC-110) and that looked promising. Not much tonality though compared to the Tri-X in Acufine. I know HC 110 is a solvent developer similar to D76, but it sure gave me different negs on my one try w/ it. In fact, now I'm wondering why I didn't use the Tri-X Acufine combination more often. It worked really well.

 

[PerfesserKev]

It is, in the end, all about the look you want. A number of years ago I dove deep into high-acutance developers to see what I liked and what affect they might have on the final image (in terms of what the public would truly perceive) -- FX-1, 2, 37, 39, dilute Rodinal, dilute Xtol, a revisit of the Neofin Blue of my youth, Pyro...

In the end, as Gerald notes, the acutance affects were only really meaningful on 35mm at a sizable enlargement. For me, though, 35mm work is documentary and there are far more important factors than acutance to consider. If you shoot landscapes with a very good 35mm camera and slow film, these devs can help get a pleasing 16X20 or so. With larger formats it comes down to the satisfaction of the creator because the public will not look at a photograph for that fussy of technical quality. They look at content and only notice technique when it breaks the spell, when it gets in the way.

What lingered for me from that round of experimentation was that there were certain developer/film combinations that delivered a tonality I really love. That's why I use them now, and often in rule-breaking manner.

And since I like "show don't tell" here's a barely interesting frame from a recent round of Delta 100 in 2014 Neofin Blue, rotary development using Tetenal's 3-second agitation timing. It's a negative scan, meaning less delicate gradation, of course. 90mm f/6.8 Angulon with a red 29 filter.

 

[gone]

That is very nice, and a good illustration of good tonality (and great side lighting) w/ high acutance.

I found a neg from my Tri-X/Acufine period, and now I see why I didn't use it more often. It can be just too darned sharp. On my Rolleicord w/ Triotar lens the over acutance wasn't this pronounced, but on the Nikon w/ a good 85mm prime it was silly sharp. Look at the hooves, they look like they're totally detached from the pic due to the radical edge sharpness.

 

[PerfesserKev]

That is sharp. Once upon a time I used much Tri-X in Acufine, usually in a torturous push to ASA 1600 yielding boulder-sized grain and transparent shadows. But in photojournalism the first priority is to get "a" picture. Fortunately I no longer need to use film in those circumstances.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

At one time my favorite film/developer combination was Pan-X and Beutler. Under the right conditions the two produced very sharp negatives. I have a 35 mm negative of the old neo-classical post office in Gainesville FL taken from across the square where you can count every roof tile. But sadly Kodak discontinued Pan-X. From time to time there is a thread asking which film you would like made again, my answer is always Pan-X it was truly unique and current slow films cannot compare with it.