On Acutance?

[Mike Keers]

Hey gang,
I did a search and didn't find anything that discusses the subject of acutance in a broad yet specific manner.

I recently acquired Barry Thornton's 'Edge of Darkness' and I'm blown away by the incredible sharpness and contrast, or as he says 'acutance' of his pics. There is a brilliance and luminosity in many of his pics like nothing I've seen before. I was willing to spring for his DiXactol developer from the Monochrome Photography site until I priced it delivered here in the US--with the falling dollar the stuff is sadly beyond a poor semi-beginner hobbyist at the moment.

I would like to hear from anyone who has thoughts, knowledge, experience and recommendations on how one might approach Barry's type of 'acutance' in images by other means, the actual techniques of taking sharp images aside. I'm interested in a discussion of suggested film types, papers and developers and techniques available on this side of the pond that might bring one closer to his amazing results.

For any not familiar with the book, I recommend it enthusiastically. I bought it on speculation when it was recommended on this forum in a recent thread, altho I forget the thread or subject. Thanx! (Edited to add I shoot 35mm.)
mike

 

[PhotoJim]

There are lots of ways of getting high acutance. The starting point is to avoid high-sulfite developers like undiluted Kodak D-76 or HC-110. (Diluting them significantly will also help to give you high acutance.)

One of the most interesting high-acutance developers is Rodinal. It's inexpensive, it's nearly immortal (the stock solution keeps for years, although it gets a very deep brown) and it has a very interesting tonality.

Ironically, faster films often appear to be sharper than slower films. The sharpness of the grain makes us psychologically feel that the image is sharper.

Developers that have some commonalities with Dixactol are PMK and Pyrocat-HD, both of which can be made from scratch ingredients or bought as prepackaged developers. However, I wonder if starting with Rodinal might not be a better first step for you.

 

[Lee L]

DiXactol and DiXactol Ultra are available in the US from The Photographer's Formulary, www.photoformulary.com

Lee

 

[jmal]

I'm very hesitant to endorse anything that looks to be a magic bullet when it comes to photography. I have seen such a range of quality from every possible material combination that I think the most important thing one can do is improve your ability to capture a subject in good light, with appropriate exposure, and then attempt to master the printing process. The choice of developer is almost arbitrary. All this talk of accutance is overrated. I've tried various methods with Rodinal, D76, HC-110, DDX, etc. and my prints always look like my prints. There are subtle differences, but nothing worth mentioning.

 

[Ian Grant]

Pyrocat HD is an excellent alternative.

Try reading Geoffrey Crawley's 1960/1 articles in Developers he investigates Acutance, the abridged article is in thw 1961 British Journal Photography Almanac.

Ian

 

[AlanC]

Mike,
In his book "Elements" Barry Thornton gives a real thumbs up for Perceptol diluted 1 + 3, and a thumbs down for ID11. Yet when I use ID11 at 1 + 3 and compare it in a clip test with Perceptol 1 + 3 (35mm HP5) I find that ID11 is not only as sharp but equally grain-free. Barry's aversion to ID11 was that it produced grain-yet for me, even at 1 + 3, it produces grain as fine as Perceptol. So I wouldn't get too carried away...As others have said above , there is more than one way to skin a cat.
I wonder if you have seen any of Barry's prints in the flesh. Acutance is a means to an end, and when pursued as an end in itself can lead to a lack of "emotion" and a rather sterile end product.

Alan Clark

 

[CBG]

The Film Developing Cookbook, by Stephen Anchell & Bill Troop, is the best intro into (among many things done very very well) film development for acutance. Great info and good balance of info: not too much / not too little pure theory.

An excellent companion is The Darkroom Cookbook, which takes on a much broader range of topics at a necessarily lower level of detail. Read those two books and you will have a solid foundation in the basics.

 

[Chazzy]

If you look at the pictures in the Thornton book, you will notice that several of them were developed in Ilford's Perceptol, diluted 1+3.

 

[jim appleyard]

Use a tripod whenever you can, buy the best lenses you can, take the best exposure you can, process the film in the best method you can and shoot with the largest format you can. While it's true that you choice of develpoer can effect accutance, the other methods I've mentioned can be key as well.

Developers are not magic bullets and there really isn't a bad film/dev combo out there. D-76 1+0 gives a very different look from Rodinal. Are both good? Yes. Is any of them bad? No, it's all what you like. Dilute D-76 1+3 and you have an accutance dev that is similar to Rodinal in grain, although it may have a different tonality.

Many photographers search for the fast way to get somewhere; does "X" film in "Y" dev give me "Z" look? Only your own trials with the vqrious combos will tell you. what works for one photographer may not work for another.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Acutance is a grossly overstated phenomenon. I`ve used Neofin, Rodinal, Acutol and FX39 and they all work well, but so does the industry standard D-76/ID-11 developers diluted 1+1 or more. Use of high quality lenses, good exposure and development go a long way to quality photographs as does the use of a good tripod and shutter release cable.

 

[AlanC]

In my experience ID11 1+3 gives much finer grain than Rodinal, and is equally sharp.

Alan Clark

 

[Ian Grant]

Acutance is a grossly overstated phenomenon.

If you'd tried Acutol S you'd appreciate the difference.

However Acutance is a trade off against grain & tonality with most developers, and with 35 mm the increased grain & drop in tonality is usually detrimental but with a 120 SL66 as Thornton advocated then acutance can be beneficial.

The Acutance, fine grain & tonality of Pyrocat HD is vastly superior to the older Acutance developers, Thornton's DiXactol is likely to give similar results.

Ian

 

[Alan Johnson]

It's an interesting topic.A previous discussion:
www.apug.org/forums/forum37/26073-interesting-aspect-acutance-developers.html
The Film Developing Cookbook p55 gives a table of acutance developers.
A popular acutance developer is Pyrocat HD,fair speed,fine grain,good tonality.
The maximum acutance effect IMO is obtained using Crawley's FX-1 with reduced agitation with one of the Efke/Adox films CHS 25,50,100,but the results are grainy and FX-2 may give more pictorial results.I thought FX-2 gave slightly better acutance than Pyrocat HD but my tests were not very extensive.

 

[Marczak]

now I`m testing third roll of fomapan 100 with FX-1, and is there any acutance ? yes, there is, but contrast or gamma is greather than in R09 1+100.

 

[Paul Howell]

I was willing to spring for his DiXactol developer from the Monochrome Photography site until I priced it delivered here in the US--with the falling dollar the stuff is sadly beyond a poor semi-beginner hobbyist at the moment.

As noted Dixactol is avilable though Photo Forumlary, PF also makes an alternative verson with less grain. Other than Pan F I found Dixactol to be too grainy with 35mm as I usally make 11X14 and 8X10. Dixactol married with MF such as 6X9 Plus X or other medium speed film worka rather well as does DK 50 1:1. You may also want to try Kodak Microdal X 1:3, D 76 1:1, or Edwal 12. I thought about Dixactol with Efke 25, but I havent tried it yet.

After I read Edge of Darkness I found that I could improve shapness by using a heavy tripod and mirror lock up, but the only camers I have with mirror lock up are my Sigma SA 7 and SA9 and I like to shoot with my Miranda or M42 prime lens. Seems there are always a trade off.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

If you'd tried Acutol S you'd appreciate the difference.

Ian

I have and I never cared for it.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Some views on modern films and developers.

http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/Film/Film/page39.html

 

[Mike Keers]

Wow, turn my back for a bit and a wealth of info and opinions! Thanks to all so far.

With so many responders I'll just hit some highlights rather than address each poster individually. I'm just getting back into the hobby after about forty years away--oh, I've had my 35mm cameras and been taking pictures all along, but more the snapshot and vacation type (but always with an eye to composition and so forth) and just getting them developed. It's only been in the past year or so I started to look at photography as 'art', and take up the whole pursuit again from that perspective. I'm particularly interested in landscape and 'found' artsy-type pictures, realizing the limitations of 35mm both in the neg size and the limited enlargement potential, depending on the subject of course. I don't expect to get the results of Ansel or Thornton, but I sure like Barry's look, the crispness and way every tiny detail just jumps out. No, I've never had the pleasure of seeing his work first-hand, but considering how good it looks in the book, I can only imagine it must be stunning to view for real.

Having just gotten back into this recently, I'm facing all the usual choices of film and developer etc--lots of new stuff out there, and still plenty of the old as well. I've only burned thru four rolls of Neopan 400/36 so far, and I'm using Xtol for that, and for the moment settled on the Arista RC-VC papers and using good old Dektol. A guy has to start somewhere! With so many choices out there, I was looking for suggestions that might lead me towards more the look Thornton got, and many of you have provided food for thought or useful info and links. I realize there are no magic bullets out there, but it seems he spent a good deal of his life and effort developing DiXactol and his other soups for particular results which are evident in the book, such as his 'grain edge effect', so I thought I'd at least try to narrow my choices down to work towards a similar goal.

I don't plan to hop all around trying this and that, I want to try and find one or two or three things that work for me, and work them to death, I just don't know where to start to work towards my goals, hence this post.

After some critique from a retired pro photographer who found fault with my image sharpness (but admired my 'eye' and composition at least!), I have initiated better techniques like the tripod and mirror-up with cable release, more careful framing and attention to depth of field, the usual stuff to get sharper images to start with. As for equipment, I use what I own, several old Minoltas and an OM-1 and a Canon EOS A2. Not exactly Rollei or Leica grade stuff, but certainly good enough for now and my level of expertise. I would like to get into medium format, so I guess I consider myself in training for that with my 35mm stuff, just thought I'd try and get a jump start by using more appropriate materials that will work with me rather than against me for my vision. Thanks again all, and keep it coming!

 

[mwdake]

Another vote for Perceptol 1+3 or Microdol X same dilution.
Also try making your own D23.
Lastly I recently bought a bottle of Gamma Plus becuse that is all the local photo store sells. I used dilute at 1+19 and was very impressed with the acutance on Foma 100 and Acros 100.

 

[dpurdy]

I use Beutler's acutance developer as my main developer. It is so cheap and easy to mix there is no reason not to try it. FX-1 is similar.

Just a couple days ago I did some side by side testing trying to decide if dilute Rodinal was better than Beutlers. I shot a bunch of 120 ACROS of a scene that had a greater range of tones than I could get with normal processing. I then shot a couple rolls of a zone 7 target.

I processed that same scene in Beutlers, Rodinal 1-100, Rodinal 1-50, and for perspective I also processed the same shot in Xtol stock. I got the processing perfect in that I got the same zone 7 in all and was able to print the example from each developer at the same printing time.

On the light box I could actually see no difference at all. The Xtol film had a bit mushier grain than the others which all had very sharp grain.

In the prints I was surprised to find that the difference was in the dark tones.. the zones 2, 3 and 4.
The Beutlers had much more definition and contrast in the low tones. Almost identical was the Rodinal 1-100. The Xtol film seemed in relation to actually dump the detail and contrast in zone 3 to a darker tone. The Beutlers by contrast to the Xtol seemed to have more air to breath in the dark tones. I didn't expect that.

A difference in sharpness is not discernible at 7x7 inches.

As I understand it the newer tab grain films are less affected by acutance developers and less susceptible to edge affects. Even though I added the potassium iodide to the Beutlers I could not find an edge affect any more than the other developers.

In any case it is cheap and easy and you should just do some testing.
Dennis

 

[jim appleyard]

Mike, please don't "apologize" for your camera gear. There is nothing wrong with old Minolta's, OM-1's and "good old Dektol". All of these are still used by countless photographers today. It's not what you use, but how you use it!

Glad to see you back in b/w photography!

 

[Mike Keers]

Jim thanks for the encouraging words. It is good to be back! "It's not what you use, but how you use it!" is certainly true. OTOH, I'm a professional woodworker (to pay for this hobby <grin>), I design and build commissioned fine furniture and studio furniture for gallery sales, so I know 'tools'. Even the finest craftsman can't do his best work with poor tools, but the best tools can't make up for lack of talent either!

Again, thanks to all for your responses. I visited the Photo Formulary, great resource! Since a major reason for this post was to gain some recommendations for the next batch of materials and chemicals, that will prove most helpful I'm also going to pick up a copy of the Darkroom Cookbook.

 

[Bruce Watson]

The main sources for info like this are Grant Haist's two volume tome Modern Photographic Processing, and Richard Henry's Controls in Black-and-White Photography. Anchel and Troop's The Film Developing Cookbook is a good summary with additional modern supplements. And it's (much) more readable ;-)

But really, there's no magic bullet. A special developer won't make up for lack of technique. It's amazing to me what can be accomplished with a good solid tripod, excellent glass, mirror lockup if you have a mirror to lock up, and excellent control of exposure, souped in any developer you can name. I'm just sayin' that good technique trumps a special developer.

 

[Stoo Batchelor]

I've only burned thru four rolls of Neopan 400/36 so far, and I'm using Xtol for that,

Mike, you have been given some great advice here, and all I can add is that Di-Xactol and Neopan are not a good combination. In fact, Barry himself recommended not to use Di-Xactol for 400 iso 35mm work, but his Exactol lux instead. I am sure that many would argue against my findings and report their many successes with Neopan developed in Di-Xactol, but I can only report what I have found, and that is that the two together are problematic.

I am not sure this info will help you any.

Regards

Stoo

 

[c6h6o3]

Minimal agitation development also increases accutance dramatically.