Oh no, Acutol! (Times for Neopan SS? Related developers?)

[joe_k.]

I know, I know, I know. Unfortunately, I've purchased 10 rolls of

Neopan SS and a bottle of the A-juice for a novice as a gift, and this

is rather a shoestring affair. If we can't get acceptable results

within two rolls, there's always D-76 for sale around the corner, but

since it's all paid-for, it'd be nice to be able to use it.

 

I have a suggestion from its biggest advocate of "1 + 16.5 for 8

minutes to start," but it'd be nice to have other opinions before I go

wasting too much film. Does this sound reasonable to anyone else? At

what EV? (Ideally, I'd like to have the giftee meter most of the

rolls at the SS's 'true' speed, whatever that is here -- 100, 160,

200? -- but also give a few a ~400 push, since she's not going to be

able to handhold any other way... so I end up needing twice as many

numbers, and that packet of Kodak is sure sounding more attractive!)

 

FWIW, the idea is to have some fun, and produce negatives of

appropriate density for scanning (with a cheap flatbed at present,

though a dedicated scanner might be next year's gift). I'm not sure

what density/gamma that would even be -- current hardware is an old

Microtek with a 'Lightlid' adapter, for what it's worth -- so

suggestions there are welcome, too.

 

More generally, does anyone have thoughts on soups that might be

"related" in composition or rate, so I can have a few other points to

work from in extrapolating times?

 

I've clicked near every search hit for both the film and the

developer, but I still haven't managed to find much clue. (As far as

I can tell, what few times are published assume Neopan 100 is the

"Presto" emulsion, or sometimes even Acros!)

 

["Mike," if you Google across this one, I haven't forgotten about you.

.. but my reply became a big digressive theory on why every other

cocktail miiight be producing more appealing scans, so I've got it

holed away as a draft until I can see what things look like myself.]

[al_divenuti]

Mike can google across it...and that's all. His practice of raiding the obits for successive "nom de plumes" no longer fools that "powers that be". He has been banished.

 

I think the time of 8 minutes sounds like its in the ballpark. Unfortunately, Neopan SS isn't one of the more popular films and there's a general lack of information on the web for how to develop it.

 

I think the best way to determine whether or not the time is appropriate is for you to contact he-who-we-do-not-name and ask him the particulars - EI, CI, temperature, and agitation.

 

Of course, no need to post the entirety of his reply ;-)

[joe_k.]

Quite, to all of the above. But surely he's not the only person to ever actually use it, right? ;) Similarly, thoughts on SS being 'almost exactly like' [Plus-X | Efke | Ilford | APX100] in terms of processing (I've seen a few notes versus either around) are more than welcome, since times are available for some of those.

 

Since there's so much conflicting info around, I'm happy to take whatever anyone claims here as a starting point... just want to keep things in the stadium, not out in the lot!

 

[FWIW, the SS is quite possibly the cheapest 35mm currently going at B&H - $2/roll, and at the time, said soup seemed to have the best price:capacity:shelf-life going for the number of rolls involved. I wanted to do XTOL, but storage would be a problem... Then Diafine, but they can't ship it!... and then ID-11, but it sounded like the stock solution goes stale quite fast?] ... What's in Diafine that restricts it, anyway?

[john_stockdale2]

I have the Fuji pdf for Neopan SS if you want it. It seems to be hard to locate these days. Also, I have the article from Barry Thornton's web site about this film, which is worth a read. Send me an email at

 

john.h.s <at> bigpond.com

[john_stockdale2]

As far as I can tell, SS is the same as Presto listed as 100. The name Presto is also used for higher speed Neopan films (400 and 1600 i think).

 

Acros is definitely a different film.

[al_divenuti]

Joe - Both Adorama and Calument (the former having the better price) should be able to ship Diafine.

 

Diafine, however, probably isn't going to deliver you what Acutol would. Diafine seems to have been developed with Tri-x in mind, though it works well with some slower speed films, Fp4+ for example. In fact, I think our forum moderator has scanned some Fp4+ souped in Diafine and posted the results in his gallery (and clearly labeled as such!).

 

Have you tried making an inquiry with Paterson itself? I've heard their tech. support is pretty responsive.

 

One other thiing - I remember coming across a comment by Everyone's Favorite Acutol Fundamentalist that he developed his negs. to a CI of about 0.39 for his condenser enlarger. I don't know the first thing about scanning b&w negs - so I don't know if this is too low or reasonable. In fact, your first order of business might be trying to nail down the target gamma for these negs. and worry about the dev. time once you're confident about that gamma.

[timothy_nolan]

Not certain this belongs here, didn't quite seem to merit a new thread, but I'll let Lex sort that out...

 

I've used neither acros or ss - can someone highlight the differences briefly and/or compare and constrat with my beloved fp4+ and apx100?

[al_divenuti]

Simply put, SS is an old technology film akin to FP4+ and Acros uses technology similar to Delta/Tmax. Acros is more than twice as expensive, too.

[joe_k.]

Hm, just lost my first draft of this response trying to cut and paste while stuck in the "Links" browser (don't ask)... So I'll be terse for once:<BR><BR> -Re: Density/Gamma, I'm afeared of that myself, and I'll drag that to the scanning forum if I don't find a clue there already. But if I want as much density/contrast as I can get, that means the stronger 1+9 dilution (and appropriate times), right?<BR><BR> -I sent a mail to Paterson's US operation, but didn't get anything back. Guess I'll try the UK side, if they're known to talk. (They don't list *any* compounds in their MSDSes for these chems, so I got the impression they were rather secretive sorts.)<BR><BR> -Big thanks to everyone (here and in email) who passed along vendors shipping Diafine... All I know is that the combination with SS can produce some stunning scans, from what I'm seeing online. (<A HREF="http://www.santini.org">This guy's gallery</A> has some examples; you'll have to search for Fuji SS. And since <A HREF="http://www.santini.org/jerome/photo/PAW-2003/aal">this image</A> happens to particularly blow my mind, but isn't showing in my search for some reason, I'm typing that link manually just to show what I mean. Sample of one, not everyone's cup of tea, could just be good with Photoshop, etc... but hey, it sure is 'different' than the results I've seen posted from other developers.)<BR><BR> I was of the impression Presto 100 was closer to Presto 400 (which may or may not have been the same as Neopan 400 or Neopan 400 Press before that, I seem to remember having 400 with and without the Presto branding, and if there were differences, it was as subtle as what they've done to Tri-X lately)... and I was going to blather about the way SS seems to change character immensely in different developers (maybe because it's a thin emulsion that predates 'tweaking' for one predictable response across a range of chemicals?), but since that's all subjective, check Google and the various galleries, don't ask me.

[al_divenuti]

The reason no compounds are listed on the MSDS is that no consituent comprising less than 1% of the substance need be listed.

 

Accutance developers usually have very little in the way of developing agent or preservative in terms of mass. I would expect only to see an accelerant/buffer listed.

[al_divenuti]

>>-I sent a mail to Paterson's US operation, but didn't get anything back

 

You're doing it the hard way. Call the phone # for the GA location in the US