Acufine?

[bill_shumaker]

Hi everyone.

 

I've searched the archives, but there isn't much on point.

 

I'm just getting back into film processing, and I used to push TriX

in Acufine quite a bit in 35, 6x6, and sometimes, 4x5.

 

I remember that it had a nice tight grain pattern with a modest push.

 

I don't notice anyone doing that anymore - what developers are being

used today to push, and why do you use the one(s) that you do?

 

Thanks for any input - this is a great forum! -Bill

[harry_akiyoshi]

Plenty of people push Tri-X to 1250 in Diafine, which is pretty closely related to Acufine. You can actually still get Acufine, and many people do, but a lot of people feel that Diafine delivers superior results with Tri-X. Myself, I mostly use DD-X, but that's just what I have around these days. Looks pretty good at 800 -- tight grain, decent shadow detail. It's a good compromise developer in general, which might explain its popularity; it's just hard to screw up. Works fine on slow films/works fine on fast films. Tolerant of exposure and processing errors. It's not incredibly exceptional in regards to acutance, fine grain, or other qualities that people look for in a developer, but it does do a lot of things pretty well if not brilliantly.

[__hank_boneroneo1]

For absent-minded old farts, Diafine does the trick every time. Tri-x for the most part and TMX for a different look.

[everheul]

Some of us still use tri-x and acufine. I like the combo.<div></div>

[everheul]

I've also been able to use X-tol(1:3) when out of acufine, even for extreme pushes. Of course you loose all shadow detail, and have increased grain with a severe push no mater what you use.

 

With X-tol 1:3 just make sure you have enough volume of solution. I fill a double reel tank to develope a single roll.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

You don't notice anyone push processing anymore? Wow. You must have missed some of the louder discussions on the B&W - Film & Processing Forum late last year. Some of us are major devotees of push processing, not only for necessity's sake but because we like the look.

 

While I'm a big fan of Diafine (from the same folks who make Acufine), I've never been convinced to try Acufine. For one thing, there's a relative lack of data. And I'm already satisfied with Microphen as an alternative speed enhancing developer. It's predictable and produces outstanding results with every film I've tried in it.

 

Microphen has a compensating effect, a major asset for push processing. And the effect can be controlled by varying intervals between agitations. The longer the intervals, the stronger the effect. Makes it easy to minimize blocked highlights while enhancing shadow detail.

 

Depending on the effect I want I'll use it as straight stock solution to push TMY to 1600 (very snappy contrast without blocked highlights) or Tri-X to 3200 (a bit flatter but better effective speed than Diafine).

 

It's also very useful for certain films when not push processing. I may make it my standard developer for use with TMX after seeing good results from some initial trial rolls. It's less picky than ID-11 (otherwise an excellent developer for TMX) and far superior, in my opinion, to anything else I've tried it in. It delivers a true EI 100 and enables the often quirky film to handle high contrast situations easily.

[bill_shumaker]

Wow, it's great to see the responses!

 

Lex, it was that I didn't see anyone using acufine to push TriX, not that I thought that nobody pushed! :)

I like the idea to use Microphen, and had always wanted to try it.

I've never tried TMX.

 

Eric, those are beautiful. Exactly the look I used to shoot for. (no pun intended) Where do you buy your acufine?

Is it that X-tol exhausts that rapidly?

 

Thanks for the responses! - I hope to see more. :) -Bill

[everheul]

Thanks Bill

 

I order my acufine through Adorama.

 

As far as the X-tol 1:3 dilution, that seems to help tame the contrast a bit with push processing...at least compared to straight X-tol. Acufine is still my favorite for pushing. I still have not tried microphen for the same reason Lex hasn't tried acufine, familiarity.

[phillip_p._dimor]

I use Acufine on 120 Tri-X. I love the results! I use Microphen too, but really prefer the look of Acufine. It really does wonderful things to the grain.

 

Good upside is that this stuff has a great capacity and is relatively cheap (though possibly tough to find locally).

 

Downsides are that there isn't much info out there, along with published times.

[lex_jenkins]

I tend to carry on a bit too much about the virtues of Microphen. We need some balancing viewpoints, especially if folks will contribute some specifics regarding their exposure data, time, temperature, etc., with Acufine. That's the way to relieve the one weakness it seems to have: a relative lack of data compared with other developers.

 

BTW, I just came into possession of some old information sheets from Baumann, the original maker of Acufine, Diafine and, I think UFG and others. Should be enlightening.

[phillip_p._dimor]

Lex; I've been thinking that perhaps the reason why I like Acufine better than Microphen at times, is because I use Acufine with Tri-X at 1000, and Microphen at 1600..

 

I should try both at 1000 and compare the results, that would be the obvious thing to do. Perhaps the differences are so subtle that choosing between one or the other would be a moot point.

 

What i've noticed after about 40 or 50 rolls of 120 film through Microphen (ei 1600), is that it's acutance with Tri-X isn't as great as it is with Acufine. My Acufine (ei 1000) prints show more of a tight salt and pepper grain structure and a little sparkle.. Tough to describe.

Whereas with Microphen, the grain isn't as apparent and if anything, the results reminded me of D76.

 

Just my thoughts on the subject..

[everheul]

You're right Lex:

 

I guess time/temp/agitation would be nice: With Acufine for TX up to 1600, I have had good results with manufacture recommendations. Tx @ 1000 70deg 5min with agitation at 2 inversions every 30 seconds TX @ 1600 10min at 70 deg. (My times are for getting a good negative for a condenser enlarger)

 

While not on the manufacture data sheet...I push TX to 3200 80 deg for about 12 min. At this speed and up, this is when I prefer TMZ or Delta 3200. Now, I only do this push when I forget, or run out of TMZ or delta 3200.

 

For night football games (before TMZ came out) for the newspaper I'd occasionally push to 6400 but the results were pretty "inky". At 6400 I actually got better results from dektol, if you can believe that(sorry, it's been 20 years so I can't remember the dektol times) At this point results were pretty crappy no matter what you did. I am happy TMZ and Delta 3200 came out.

[gloria_t]

I too, used Acufine years ago. I pushed Panatomic-X(ASA 32) to 64, then ran it through Acufine, for grainless 8x10 from 35mm. I LOVED it.

Of course, I lived in Florida then.

I now live in Indiana, and some days, I think I will need to push TRI-X to 3200 to get an image!!!

I may have to be satisfied with TRI-X at 1600 and Acufine when if I start doing my own processing again.

Oh, for Panatomic and plentiful sunshine again!!

[darrendrevik]

Back in the '80s when I was a newspaper photographer, I came up with this recipe to push Tri-X to 3200 (you haven't seen dark til you've shot football games in the mountains of East Tennessee). You may want to test and tinker with it a little before you go out and shoot an actual game: <br>

- 1 ounce Accufine <br>

- 1 ounce sodium sulfide crystals <br>

- 16 oz distilled water <br>

 

Develop with gentle agitation for 8 1/2 mins at 68 degrees. Don't overdevelop or it's burn out your pictures fast! You only have about a 10 second margin of error.