Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,050   Posts: 1,561,118   Online: 839
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,403
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    Three years ago I did a comparison of Acutol with PC-TEA as a result of an argument with Michael Scarpitti. I have no financial interest in which one wins. The $150 I got for the PT article is probably all I'll ever get. For anybody who is interested, I am attaching comparisons of characteristic curves and some extreme enlargements of negatives of the same subject on the same roll of film on the same day. The tree is a Mimosa. You will see that resolution is about the same, as was grain.

    My point is more that there are several ways to skin a cat or develop film than anything else. I could also point out that the shelf life of PC-TEA concentrate is much longer than that of Acutol, but I won't. The moral of the story is don't cry if Acutol never makes it back. Learn something else.
    Interesting data Patrick and worth remembering PC-TEA.
    I note however, that you diluted Acutol at 1+7 instead of the recommended 1+9 and that Michael Scarpitti recommends using Acutol (now deleted by Paterson`s) at 1+14 for use with a condenser light-source enlarger for printing on fixed grade #3 papers. Developing 35mm film to print onto grade 3 instead of grade 2 was the advice years ago for obtaining optimum sharpness and resolution from "miniature" negatives.

    http://www.digitaltruth.com/chart/sc...-paterson.html
    Last edited by Keith Tapscott.; 08-10-2008 at 06:14 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I thought I had posted a reply, but I guess I forgot to push the button.

    Both gave practically the same CI under the conditions I used, which was about 0.55. There was little, if any, difference between them in grain, gradation and acutance. I would expect the same to be true if both were adjusted to give the CI required by grade 3. The comparison you see is between small portions of 15X photographic enlargements scanned on a flatbed at 600 dpi.

    I don't remember why I used 1+7. I'm not absolutely sure I did. I may have labeled the file wrongly. Unfortunately, I have no more Acutol. Does 10 minutes at 70 F seem about right for normal CI at 1+7?
    Gadget Gainer

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,403
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by gainer View Post
    I thought I had posted a reply, but I guess I forgot to push the button.

    Both gave practically the same CI under the conditions I used, which was about 0.55. There was little, if any, difference between them in grain, gradation and acutance. I would expect the same to be true if both were adjusted to give the CI required by grade 3. The comparison you see is between small portions of 15X photographic enlargements scanned on a flatbed at 600 dpi.

    I don't remember why I used 1+7. I'm not absolutely sure I did. I may have labeled the file wrongly. Unfortunately, I have no more Acutol. Does 10 minutes at 70 F seem about right for normal CI at 1+7?
    The old dilution for Acutol was 1+10, although it could also be diluted 1+15 or 1+20 if greater control of development was required such as photographs taken in high contrast lighting conditions. The developer was later revamped and the standard dilution became 1+9 with 1+14 and 1+19 being suggested for a more compensating working solution.
    The point I was making was that if you used Acutol diluted 1+7, then you used it considerably stronger than recommended by Paterson`s.

  4. #24
    gainer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    3,726
    Images
    2
    I looked up several things. I had saved my letter to Scarpitti describing the comparison photos, etc, that I sent him. I compared Acutol 1+14 with PC-TEA 1+50 for grain, gradation and sharpness. If I had developed FP4+ (Arista 100) for 10 minutes in Acutol 1+7, it would not have been printable on grade 2.5 as I stated in my letter. The characteristic curves I posted must have been mislabeled. At the time, I was still recovering from meningo-encephalitis. That takes a long time. It caused loss of memory connections, which can also be caused by aging, which is frustrating because there are things I know are in my memory, but I can't remember their names. Not that I'm getting old. I'm only 81. Here is the letter.
    Mike,

    I got my FP4+ and Acutol and have done a comparison of Acutol with my single solution
    PC-TEA as I proposed a while ago. I shot 36 exposures of the same scene at the same exposure
    with the camera on a tripod. The exposure was determined by incident reading with a Luna Pro
    meter. I developed 2 short pieces, one in Acutol as per your tables that I found on the net by
    Googling, and one in my PC-TEA developer composed of phenidone, ascorbic acid and
    triethanolamine.
    Acutol 1:14 at 7 minutes, 70 o F has a little less contrast than my developer at 7 minutes, 70 o
    F. All the necessary detail is there in both, and the difference was made up in printing the Acutol
    negative with a #2.5 Ilford MG filter on AGFA RC VC paper. The #3 filter was a little too
    contrasty for my taste. I made these prints on my Beseler 23C condenser enlarger with APO
    Rodagon 50 mm lens at 5.6. If you are going to see any difference in grain, it will be at the base
    of the tree trunks in the Iris leaves. You will need at least a 5 X loupe.
    You are right that Acutol is a very good developer. I think I am right also that my PC-TEA is
    a very good developer. The major point I was trying to make with my mixtures cannot be shown
    in a single test, as it involves the storage life of the stock, but the fact that sulfite is not needed to
    make a fine grain high sharpness developer is shown. Nevertheless, if sulfite is required, it can be
    added to the working solution through the B part, along with any other chemical that is not
    soluble in glycol or TEA. In point of fact, a part A comprised of phenidone and hydroquinone
    must have an amount of sulfite in the B solution in order for the superadditivity between
    phenidone and hydroquinone to be activated. This amount need only be a gram or so per liter of
    working solution. Without it, the hydroquinone-phenidone combination is a staining developer
    akin to pyrogallol or catechol.
    I am sending by UPS a package containing the unused part of the test roll and a small
    amount of the PC-TEA developer along with some graphs for FP4+ in PC-TEA at 70 o F
    prepared by Sandy King. These graphs are for 1 + 50 dilution. On the graph of H&D curves each
    line has numbers that tell developing time, effective film speed, contrast index, and SBR in F-
    stops that a paper with exposure scale of 1.55 could accommodate. This is a very wide range
    paper because he is mostly interestd in so-called alternative processes such as platinum and
    Kallitype. That would be about a No. 1 paper in graded silver. The curve for 10 minutes would
    be about right for #2 paper and a SBR of about 5 stops, which is about the range of the scene I
    used. It was an overcast day.
    You will notice that the effective film speed does not drop below 100 even at the lowest
    contrast indices
    Gadget Gainer

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    FX-15 is Acutol S

    Quote Originally Posted by RIchardn View Post
    I have been developing Acros in Acutol and have been pleased with the results. Now I can't get hold of any acutol what would be a good replacement developer for Acros?
    I am a bit of a beginner and like to keep things simple!
    Google that, you'll get some hits.

    I don't know enough about Acutol to know what the S means.

  6. #26
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,348
    Images
    148
    Acutol S was quite different to Acutol, the S stood for Special. Neither Acutol or Acutol S gave quite as fine grain as ID-11/D76, but the did give better acutance.

    Ian

  7. #27
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,866
    Images
    5
    Is Ilfosol a good substitute for Acutol, as far as ready-made developers are concerned?
    Charles Hohenstein

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    What made it "Special?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Acutol S was quite different to Acutol, the S stood for Special. Neither Acutol or Acutol S gave quite as fine grain as ID-11/D76, but the did give better acutance.

    Ian
    Any thoughts?

    And would it be close enough to the sought after Acutol to not matter whether Special or Hum-Drum?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Somerset, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    43
    It came as a surprise to see a thread I posted two years ago suddenly popping up again. So I thought I'd better update on you all on where I am.
    I use Rodinal 1+100 with Fuji Acros 120 and have found that to be a very succesful combination and haven't given Acutol another thought since.
    Still it is interesting to see all the recent posts.

    thanks all

    Richard

  10. #30
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,348
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo View Post
    Any thoughts?

    And would it be close enough to the sought after Acutol to not matter whether Special or Hum-Drum?
    I did test then try Acutol S, I think back around 1975 I can remember the FP4 negatives the tonality and grain wasn't as good as Acutol but it did give slightly more enhanced Acutance (edge effects).

    The only developer I've found to give a good balance of actaunce tonality and fine grain is Sandy King's Pyrocat HD

    Ian

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin