ben_folds Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 hi, on the acutol bottle, is says to use with films under 200... any words of wisdom about using this developer with say, HP5 or Tri-X? also, does inscreasing the dilution tame the highlights better than just cutting down on the development time? thanks, ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted November 13, 2003 Share Posted November 13, 2003 1. Slow films to medium speed films need no refinement of grain, but do need some control of contrast. 2. Increasing dilution does control the highlights better with any developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartMoxham Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 Our old friend Mike used Acutol with HP5 and he loved the stuff. I used it with APX100 some years ago and I loved it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_vincent_twiss Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 increasing dilution does help in restraining the hightlights, an effect known as compensation. However, you will sacrifice separation in the mid tones with the possibility of them becoming "muddy". A more effective means of controling hightlight separation whilst improving shadow separation is to use a two bath developer (such as diafine). Have a look at www.barrythornton.com for more information and do a search on either "two bath developers" or "divided developers" on photo.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted November 14, 2003 Share Posted November 14, 2003 See: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_folds Posted November 14, 2003 Author Share Posted November 14, 2003 thanks for the dilution clarification. i've often wondered why that would be better than just developing n-1 etc. as for acutol. i wasn't clear about my question... is there any point in using acutol for faster films? HP5, Tri-X? it's not recommended for films over 200, but i was into the possibility that it might give me a speed increase so i can actually shoot these films at 400. and it claims to not flatten your midtones. just wondering if it does this for fast films? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted November 15, 2003 Share Posted November 15, 2003 Acutol is just fine for fast conventional films, without the excessive compression of Neofin (Beutler-type) or the excessive graininess of Rodinal, but with better sharpness than you get from solvent-type devlopers. I like it very much with most films. The Delta nd T-Max films are somewhat better in FX-39, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan_bolmsjo Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 Acutol is Super with Tri-X. The grain is very sharp and more pronounced than with a developer like D76. I stoped using it with Tri-X because I use 35mm film and think the grain is too much for 10x8 inch prints. Have not tried it with HP5+ (yet). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 See the reults attached for HP5 in Acutol dilute 1+14 for 8 minutes. pay no attention to Paterson's times. They are too long, as are the times given by most sources for film developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 "As for acutol. I wasn't clear about my question... is there any point in using Acutol for faster films? HP5, Tri-X?" Yes, indeed. It's much sharper than D-76 or other solvent developers, and grain is neither exaggerated (as with Rodinal) nor repressed (as with Microdol-X). The sharpness is far better than with Microdol-X, and the grain is finer than with Rodinal. "It's not recommended for films over 200, but I was into the possibility that it might give me a speed increase so i can actually shoot these films at 400. And it claims to not flatten your midtones. just wondering if it does this for fast films?" I expose my HP5 at 250-320, but of course I dilute 1+14 instead of 1+9 (I recommend this highly) and develop for a lower contrast because I use a condenser enlarger. The Acutol, shortened development, and generous exposure give great tonality, perfect sharness, and very fine grain. I suggest you try HP5+ in Acutol at 1+14 for 8 minutes at 20C (68F) and see what it looks like on #3 paper. You have to use all of these techniques together. If you develop longer with Acutol, expose too little, or use a diffusion enlarger, the results will be inferior. Acutol does indeed give a speed increase, but I still rate the film down just a little so that I get a bit more shadow detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_vincent_twiss Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 I'm coming into this discussion a little late. Hans, in your very last post you mentioned that too little exposure, too much development or using a diffusion enlarger gives inferior results. Could you elaborate on the diffusion enlarger issue. Do you have any opinions of increasing your recommended development time by, say 10-15% to take account of using a diffusion enlarger. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Adrian Vincent Twiss , feb 17, 2004; 11:02 a.m. <i>I'm coming into this discussion a little late. Hans, in your very last post you mentioned that too little exposure, too much development or using a diffusion enlarger gives inferior results. Could you elaborate on the diffusion enlarger issue. Do you have any opinions of increasing your recommended development time by, say 10-15% to take account of using a diffusion enlarger."</i><p> I do not recommend diffusion for 35mm. Rather than hearing it from me, the best discussion of this is to be found in Barry Thornton's book, <i> Edge of Darkness.</i> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Adrian, you'll find many recent discussions of the condenser vs. diffusion enlarger issue in the B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing forum. Suffice it to say you'll find no consensus on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrian_vincent_twiss Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Hans Thanks for replying. I have a copy of Barry's Book but did not get the impression that there was anything about the suitability (or otherwise) of diffusion enlargers for 35mm. I will re-read the appropriate chapters. Perhaps I missed something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted February 20, 2004 Share Posted February 20, 2004 Adrian: He explains the benefits of each system, and he discusses a modification he made to his condenser enlarger to get even more contrast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johan_bolmsjo Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Just printed my first negs from HP5+ deved in Acutol. I tried to dev them in acutol since I was out of mixed D76 which I usually use. I tried the 1:14 dilution for 9 minutes since I had exposed the film at EI400. It turned out to be perfect for printing at grade 2-2.5 with a condenser enlarger. I think I will try this combo again:) It's quite good. Grain is of course more pronounced then D76 1:1 but also sharper by a good margin. Acutol really is a better acutance developer than Rodinal which fluffs up the grain. Shadow detail good, but it's always good with HP5:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 27, 2004 Share Posted March 27, 2004 Johan Bolmsjo , mar 27, 2004; 06:05 p.m.<i>"Acutol really is a better acutance developer than Rodinal which fluffs up the grain. Shadow detail good, but it's always good with HP5:)</i><p> Johan: Please tell this to people on the Rodinal thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hans_beckert Posted March 28, 2004 Share Posted March 28, 2004 Johan: Try cutting back the time just a little to 7,5 or 8 minutes and print on a little higher contrast paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now