High Acutance Develper

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom;

IIRC, Rodinal has no iodide and lets the emulsion determine the resultant imaging characteristics. This is probably best under the circumstances. The lack of Iodide is probably in Rodinal's favor and was the result of understanding the ideas put forth in my post above.

PE

- And so Rodinal exposes the true characteristic of the emulsion?

Tom.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tom;

I am not a big Rodinal user so I would have to run extensive tests to give a definitive answer. Why don't you try some tests yourself and see what you come up with.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

In a way Rodinal must bring out the true nature of the film, it's such a simple developer. Kodak made their own version Kodelon, as did Ilford, Johnson's etc.

Ian

 

[steven_e007]

My own experience of FX1 with the Iodide solution was that with FP4+ and HP5+ it seemed to do.... nothing.
Nothing bad happened, but the developer didn't seem to behave any different to a similar metol based developer without the Iodide.
Ditto with FX2
I never tried them with Pan F, maybe that was the one I should've tested?

So, my humble opinion is that FP4+ and HP5+ do not respond like 'old emulsions' to these old acutance developers.

The only developer that I found that seemed to increase the acutance of FP4+ to any noticeable extent and give some prominent edge effects, much more so than dilute Rodinal, was Paterson Acutol. I'd love to know the formula for that, especially now it is no more...

One day I am going to give FX1 one last go and dunk some ADOX 25 in it.

 

[2F/2F]

This is pretty much exactly what I was getting at with my "modified D-23" post. Very little metol, very little sulfite. I think I will try it out. I just need to get some sodium carbonate. I guess the sodium carbonate is to take the place of the sulfite's role in D-23 as an activator. Thanks for posting this.

 

[2F/2F]

Instead of doing it the way that was posted, I am thinking of:

4 g metol
40 g sodium sulfite
40g sodium carbonate
water to 1 L

...to make a stock solution that is then diluted 1:7 to make a working solution. It would be easier for me when doing multiple batches the same night (primarily sheet film developed individually in a tray).

This developer working solution seems to have similar chemical concentrations as would D-23 1:15, with the addition of just as much sodium carbonate as there is sodium sulfite.

What I mean is:

D-23 1:15 contains approx. 0.5 g metol, and approx 6 g sodium sulfite per liter (0.47 g and 6.25 g respectively, to be exact).

This formula contains 0.5 g metol, 5 g sodium sulfite, and 5 g sodium carbonate per liter.

So, it is basically a highly dilute D-23 with added sodium carbonate.

Is that added carbonate just serving the function of making the highly dilute D-23 more active?

Any idea of what the pH "should" be, Ian?

 

[Ian Grant]

No idea of the actual pH but it will be be considerably higher than D23, possibly > p11 compared to around maybe pH 8.5 for D23. So the two developers work quite differently, D25 reduces the pH of the developer even closer to pH7 by adding Sodium Metabisuphite to D23.

A stock solution has a very short life, and is not recommended for storage by Ilford with Hyfin, or Beutler, Crawley etc who's developers are all quite similar. There's insufficient sulphite compared to the Carbonate to preventthe the Metol oxidising in solution. Crawley suggested a 2 part stock solution for a developer like this keeping the Carbonate separate.

Ian

 

[2F/2F]

Thanks, Ian. In that case, I'll mix it into two parts, and will probably use them up rather quickly by doing a few batches in a night.

It raises the question in my mind as to whether D-23 would work at a 1:15 dilution, or whether carbonate must be added to convert it into this other brew in order to get it to work.

 

[Ian Grant]

D23 might work at 1:15 but the development times would be extremely long, you'd need a large volume to ensure sufficient developing agent and then the sulphite level would be low in solution so that you'd almost certainly start to get oxidation of the Metol before development finished.

But then D23 + Carbonate is close to Beutler etc and the higher pH changes the activity very significantly.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

With that amount of Carbonate, and considering that you have to neutralize the acid in the Metol, I doubt if the pH is much above 10.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

It's almost impossible to guess without a pH meter, but the Metol level is low, so even pH10 would still be considerably higher than D23 and the developer far more active.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

Mason's formula is very similar to FX-1 without iodide.
Its pH will be around 11.5
Developing times for FX-1 at 68F:
Pan F 12m, FP4 13m,T-max 100 20m
Plus-X 12m, Adox 50 17m, Adox 100 ~17m
The last three are old emulsions and give good edge effects if agitatated only every 3 min and the development extended by 50%.Medium format is better as the resolution is not very high,but the prints have an interesting unusual appearance of being made up of sharp grains with slight haloes round dark objects.

 

[gainer]

Some points I have learned about sharpness, etc. Your eye will see Mackie lines at a knife edge that has no intrinsic Mackie lines. The truest sharpness is obtained at the edges where there is the steepest gradient between light and dark. If you want to see if the mackie lines you perceive are in the image or in your vision, look at an edge with a magnifier.

I had a go-round some years ago with an advocate of Acutol. I was brash enough to tell him that PC-TEA was as good as Acutol. In fact, the advert showing the comparison between the Acutol characteristic curve and others was not possible, and in any case not desirable. I compared the actual characteristics of the Acutol and PC-TEA and showed that there was very little difference. I sent him a complementary sample of PC-TEA stock to play with. I have heard no more from him.

So, before you mourn the loss of Acutol, try PC-TEA. You might like it.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Patrick,

What benefits were Paterson claiming for Acutol?

Tom

 

[Ian Grant]

Acutance, it was OK but the grain was more than Aculux or ID-11 and tonally it wasn't quite as nice. But the negatives were sharp.

Ian

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Acutance, it was OK but the grain was more than Aculux or ID-11 and tonally it wasn't quite as nice. But the negatives were sharp.

Ian

FX-39 would appear to be Paterson's current high acutance product.

Tom

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The Tetenal Neodyn developers later became Neofin, although I don`t know what the differences between them were. Apart from TFX-2, Neofin Blue is the only Beutler type of developer that I know of that is currently available.
Paterson Acutol and FX-39 are described as high-definition developers, but whether they were/are of the Beutler type, I don`t know.

 

[Ian Grant]

Wasn't it Neofyn Blau I remember trying some Tetenal developer that came in glass phials, there was a choice of Red or Blue. Tetenal kept changing distributors so it was hard finding their products at times in the UK.

Ian

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Wasn't it Neofyn Blau I remember trying some Tetenal developer that came in glass phials, there was a choice of Red or Blue. Tetenal kept changing distributors so it was hard finding their products at times in the UK.

Ian

You can buy Neofin Blue directly from Tetenal along with their other products and it still comes supplied in glass phials. www.tetenal.co.uk

 

[Ian Grant]

Keith you actually high-light a major difference between European and US photography, it's there in the images made by European photographers in France & Germany particularly before WWII.

While it's there in history, in prints, collections etc it's also present in the developers, quite strange to us now but it was a different way or approach to working. This carries on after WWII where even Kodak are making & selling developers never seen or made in the US, and as PE (Ron Mowrey) has indicated unknown to US researchers).

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Both approaches worked quite well though Ian. Both Europe and the US produced some fine photographers and fine photographs from the chemistry available. This shows what I have said over and over. There is no magic bullet. It is the guy behind the camera in virtually every case.

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Both Europe and the US produced some fine photographers and fine photographs from the chemistry available.

This shows what I have said over and over. There is no magic bullet. It is the guy behind the camera in virtually every case.

PE

Does that include fine colour photography without using Kodak or Fuji photo-chemistry?

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Wasn't it Neofyn Blau I remember trying some Tetenal developer that came in glass phials, there was a choice of Red or Blue. Tetenal kept changing distributors so it was hard finding their products at times in the UK.

Ian

I have seen references for Neodyn and Neofin, although I am not sure if they`re the same or whether Neofin superceded Neodyn as an improved formulation of the developers.

If you try to download the MSDS for Neofin Blue, you might find that you have to type Neofin Blau to find it, although it has been a while since I last searched for it.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I have found it and I hope this link works. http://www.tetenal.com/sidaopener_uk.htm?file=sidauk/100126.pdf
It mentions Metol, Hydroquinone and Phenidone in the concentrate.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Does that include fine colour photography without using Kodak or Fuji photo-chemistry?

Well, that depends on whether you wish to denigrate Agfa color products.

They happen to have made a fine line of color from the earliest days. I found that the only thing I didn't like about Agfa color film was the raw stock keeping which was not up to Kodak at the last I tested them both.

So, now the ball is in your court!

PE