Xtol, Clayton F76+, or Acufine?

luke_h · Feb 1, 2008

I'm wanting some opinions on which of these three developers is the best bang for the buck? I've used Xtol, but have not tried Acufine or Clayton F76+ yet. I like the phenidone developers because they seem to give a whitish glow to the images along with the nice pushing properties where the grain stays under control.

I just bought 400' of 35mm tri-x and will be shooting 120 tri-x mostly.

I'm looking for the developer that's going to have the most silvery and 3D effect. If that means loss of shadow and highlight detail that's fine as long as accutance is high and the tones have a glow to them.

I've used Diafine and sort of like it, but it's a big flat for me. I'd read about Acufine but have not seen much of people using it these days, so it's hard to make any judgements about what my own images would look like. Clayton looks promising and costs about the same as Xtol based on real world usage.

So, I guess I am just looking for loose opinions since there is obviously no right answer. Xtol and Tri-X work really well together for me. I'm just wondering if the other two offer anything above and beyond.

Thanks!

jim appleyard · Feb 1, 2008

X-Tol is a great all-around developer. You can use it on any film you choose and dilute it from 1+0 to 1+3.

Never used F-76, but Acufine is a speed-increasing developer. You would take Tri-X and shoot it at EI's of 800-6400.

Snapshot · Feb 1, 2008

I've used XTOL to get good development results. It has an excellent speed, grain and sharpness compromise and it self-replenishing. You can dilute to 1+3 for further sharpness.

Paul Howell · Feb 1, 2008

luke_h said:
I'm wanting some opinions on which of these three developers is the best bang for the buck? I've used Xtol, but have not tried Acufine or Clayton F76+ yet. I like the phenidone developers because they seem to give a whitish glow to the images along with the nice pushing properties where the grain stays under control.

I use Clayton F76 with Tmax 3200, it seems very similiar to DDX and TMax. I have several cans of Acufine that I will be mixing up once all of my DK50 is used. I use to use a lot of Acufine and Dinafine for avialble light with 35mm, Dinafine is a compensating developer so it is good for high contrast subjects as well as additional speed. Acufine is moderate grain, very sharp I plan to use it for Large Format. For the past several years I was using PF Edwal 12 clone, but I want to use products that I can find locally. Xtol is very good but I do not want to mix up 5 liters, once I clear out my old developer stock I will most likley use F76, DDX or HC110, at least in my market F76 is a little cheaper than DDX or HC110.

luke_h · Feb 1, 2008

Yes, I do really like xtol with Tri-X. I don't care for it much with HP5 (the other film I usually shoot) and have had mixed results with the Fomapan films I'm also using.

This is a 3200iso TX photo I pushed with Xtol:

You can see it full sized here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/1549145509_fe559d58a3_o.jpg

I thought it handled the shadows pretty well for being night time.

I'm curious if the Clayton and Acufine have the same (or very similar) sort of properties. I will probably buy both just to try out since that's what's most fun for me anyway, but I was just wondering.

David A. Goldfarb · Feb 1, 2008

All three of these can produce good results and all have about the same convenience factor.

I use Acufine fairly frequently when I need more speed (usually with MF and LF, but occasionally 35mm), and I usually target my negs to print at about grade 3 to keep the grain down. I don't push more than a stop, because I like a normal contrast, full range look.

Go to the APUG gallery and click on "Advanced Gallery Search" and search on "Acufine," and you'll turn up a few examples from me and others.

Paul Howell · Feb 1, 2008

I'm curious if the Clayton and Acufine have the same (or very similar) sort of properties. I will probably buy both just to try out since that's what's most fun for me anyway, but I was just wondering.[/QUOTE]

F76 does handel shadows well, Acufine on the other hand I think you will see a loss of shadow, it was marketed for film speed. Dinafine holds shadow details very well, but needs to printed a grade higher than most other negatives, as you found out it can be somewhat flat.

rusty71 · Feb 1, 2008

I recently switched to F-76+ for all of my 200-3200 speed black and white films. It really is the easiest, most economical general purpose developer out there. I really loved Ilford DD-X, but simply can't afford to pay the cost anymore. XTOL is good, but mixing powders is a pain. You also have to wait for the developer to cool down.
I'm not sure what you mean by silvery glow, but I get luminous mid-tones using F-76+ and AGFA 400. But like any film, I had to test and arrive at a good exposure index for the emulsion. I develop my APX 400 in F-76+ for 9 minutes at 72 degress F.

tbm · Feb 1, 2008

Luke: Re "This is a 3200 ISO TX photo I pushed with Xtol", what were the dilution, temperature, and processing time length?

Terry

Lowell Huff · Feb 1, 2008

I will supply samples of CLAYTON F76 FILM DEVELOPER for anyone who wants to test our outstanding developer. I also have available processing times and temperature charts for most films.

luke_h · Feb 1, 2008

Lowell, I'd love to take you up on the offer, but I trust that it works well I already have a quart of it in my Freestyle Photo basket.

XTOL is good, but mixing powders is a pain. You also have to wait for the developer to cool down.

The nice thing about Xtol is that you mix it up at room temperature.

Luke: Re "This is a 3200 ISO TX photo I pushed with Xtol", what were the dilution, temperature, and processing time length?

This was developed in Xtol 1:1 @68F for 15.5 minutes.

BradS · Feb 1, 2008

Accufine is nice with Tri-X but, their film speed suggestions are a little bit optimistic in my opinion. I found Tri-X (400TX) was pretty good at EI-500 or so in Accufine. I really like 320TXP at Ei-640 in Accufine (but, see my conclusions below).

I found F-76 to be...well, OK. Nothing really extraordinary. It works. That's about it.

Honestly, after trying all kinds of secret sauces with Tri-X, I've come around to the opinion that NOTHING goes better with Tri-X than X-Tol, D-76 or even good old, HC-110.

In retrospect, it seems all too obvious really.

luke_h · Feb 1, 2008

What about Tmax developer or Microdol-X with Tri-X? It seems like they were made for each other, haha.

I'm going to give F76 a try as well as Acufine just for a change of pace. I have enough friends shooting film now that I have no trouble giving away what I won't use

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 1, 2008

luke_h said:
What about Tmax developer or Microdol-X with Tri-X? It seems like they were made for each other, haha.

I'm going to give F76 a try as well as Acufine just for a change of pace. I have enough friends shooting film now that I have no trouble giving away what I won't use

I would say that Microdol-X was made for Kodak Panatomic X.

TMAX, DDX, Acufine and F76 are all PQ (Phenidone/Hydroqinone) Developers.

Microdol-X IS NOT a PQ developer and neither is XTOL.

XTOL is a Pyrazolidinone plus sodium isoascorbate developer. No Hydroquinone.

Pyrazolidinone is a derivative of Phenidone. Sodium Isoascorbate is a derivative of Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C).

BradS · Feb 1, 2008

Tom Hoskinson said:
I would say that Microdol-X was made for Kodak Panatomic X.

Yeah, I was going to say that Microdol-X seems to have been made specifically for Plus-X but, Panatomic X was well before my time.

Tom Hoskinson · Feb 1, 2008

BradS said:
Yeah, I was going to say that Microdol-X seems to have been made specifically for Plus-X but, Panatomic X was well before my time.

I still have some Panatomic-X in my freezer (it still works great - made in the 1970s).

dancqu · Feb 2, 2008

David A. Goldfarb said:
I use Acufine fairly frequently ...

I wonder ACU-1 is never mentioned. ACU-1 is
Acufine's one-shot version. Dan

Xtol, Clayton F76+, or Acufine?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency