Acuspecial FX-21 formula (Better than Rodinal!)

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

FX-21 developer formula for 1+14 dilution.

All weights in grammes per litre. I do not yet have any development times.

 

Component	Amount in grammes	Rounded Amount
Metol	2.1495	2.15
Sodium Sulfite	30.0	30.0
Hydroquinone	1.0995	1.1
Phenidone	0.1245	0.125
Sodium Metabisulfite	6.15	6.2
Potassium Carbonate (monohydrated)	22.035	22.0
Sodium Bicarbonate	3.9	3.9
Sodium Citrate	3.9	3.9
Potassium Iodide	0.0825	0.1
Potassium Bromide	0.33	0.3

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Ornello

[pierovitch]

I did my University special projects on full tonal range development of microfilm using Acuspecial and phenidone additives without knowing the formula so this is unlocking a black box from the 70’s. Tech pan and technidol took years to match the results but my supervisor had Kodak connections! 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Ornello]

On 3/22/2022 at 6:42 AM, pierovitch said:

I did my University special projects on full tonal range development of microfilm using Acuspecial and phenidone additives without knowing the formula so this is unlocking a black box from the 70’s. Tech pan and technidol took years to match the results but my supervisor had Kodak connections! 

I have ordered the chemicals from FF and have some Pan-F Plus to work with. That film is very contrasty, but I think FX-21 will do the trick. I used it just a couple of times back in the 1970s, on Adox KB-14.

[BillT]

There is an error in this formula. There is as a practical matter no such thing as potassium carbonate monohydrate. Crawley specified, and I printed, in FDC2, 1.3 g potassium carbonate anhydrous, which, x15, would be 19.5 for the concentrate. Substitution with sodium carbonate would be a mistake. - - Bill Troop

 

[BillT]

Also it should be stated that this formula is made available through the kindness of its owner, Carolyn Crawley, and is for non-commercial use only. 

[andybarton]

Is this formula in the public domain (subject to the caveat above)?

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, BillT said:

There is an error in this formula. There is as a practical matter no such thing as potassium carbonate monohydrate. Crawley specified, and I printed, in FDC2, 1.3 g potassium carbonate anhydrous, which, x15, would be 19.5 for the concentrate. Substitution with sodium carbonate would be a mistake. - - Bill Troop

 

Noted. I found this out after I posted this. In any event, 22 is not that much different from 19.5 when we are diluting it with 14 parts of water.

Edited March 24, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

Corrected:

FX-21 developer formula for 1+14 dilution.

All weights in grammes per litre. I do not yet have any development times.

 

Component	Amount in grammes	Rounded Amount
Metol	2.1495	2.15
Sodium Sulfite	30.0	30.0
Hydroquinone	1.0995	1.1
Phenidone	0.1245	0.13
Sodium Metabisulfite	6.15	6.2
Potassium Carbonate (anhydrous)	19.5	19.5
Sodium Bicarbonate	3.9	3.9
Sodium Citrate	3.9	3.9
Potassium Iodide	0.0825	0.1
Potassium Bromide	0.33	0.3

 

[BillT]

2 hours ago, andybarton said:

Is this formula in the public domain (subject to the caveat above)?

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so don't ask me. But I published it in my book, Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition, 2020. Prior to that, it was a proprietary formula. Publication was done with the permission of the owner of the formula, Carolyn Crawley, on the understanding that it would be for non-commercial use only. To clarify: that means people would not manufacture it for sale without her permission. But a commercial photographer who wanted to mix it up and use it, would be welcome to do so. Obviously, we would appreciate that any time the formula is published, there is acknowledgement of Carolyn Crawley and of my book, but that is not an issue we can force. By publishing the formula, we essentially placed it in the public domain to the limited extent I understand the law. Our conditions cannot be enforced. We rely on the good will of users. We both feel strongly that Geoffrey Crawley would be happy to know to think this formula was still being used. It is also an excellent illustration of the discussion of Crawley's approach to buffering in my book. 

[Ornello]

25 minutes ago, BillT said:

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so don't ask me. But I published it in my book, Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition, 2020. Prior to that, it was a proprietary formula. Publication was done with the permission of the owner of the formula, Carolyn Crawley, on the understanding that it would be for non-commercial use only. To clarify: that means people would not manufacture it for sale without her permission. But a commercial photographer who wanted to mix it up and use it, would be welcome to do so. Obviously, we would appreciate that any time the formula is published, there is acknowledgement of Carolyn Crawley and of my book, but that is not an issue we can force. By publishing the formula, we essentially placed it in the public domain to the limited extent I understand the law. Our conditions cannot be enforced. We rely on the good will of users. We both feel strongly that Geoffrey Crawley would be happy to know to think this formula was still being used. It is also an excellent illustration of the discussion of Crawley's approach to buffering in my book. 

I posted the section from the book here:

 

[Ornello]

22 hours ago, BillT said:

Well, I'm not a lawyer, so don't ask me. But I published it in my book, Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition, 2020. Prior to that, it was a proprietary formula. Publication was done with the permission of the owner of the formula, Carolyn Crawley, on the understanding that it would be for non-commercial use only. To clarify: that means people would not manufacture it for sale without her permission. But a commercial photographer who wanted to mix it up and use it, would be welcome to do so. Obviously, we would appreciate that any time the formula is published, there is acknowledgement of Carolyn Crawley and of my book, but that is not an issue we can force. By publishing the formula, we essentially placed it in the public domain to the limited extent I understand the law. Our conditions cannot be enforced. We rely on the good will of users. We both feel strongly that Geoffrey Crawley would be happy to know to think this formula was still being used. It is also an excellent illustration of the discussion of Crawley's approach to buffering in my book. 

Any suggestions for developing times with FX-21?

[250swb]

Seems like nobody cares, but I'm sure you will flog a dead horse.

[Ornello]

19 hours ago, 250swb said:

Seems like nobody cares, but I'm sure you will flog a dead horse.

Which one?

[250swb]

3 hours ago, Ornello said:

Which one?

Consider the wailing wind and the sage brush rolling down the main street as the response to your theories.

Given that all you appear to do is make a proposition and then discuss this between yourself ad infinititum I'd say your threads are something nobody can join in with, and if people try it's countered with 'my latest experiment' garbage.  With NO actual examples of photography so far posted to meaningfully back up any claims you make it's sure we are dealing with smoke and mirrors with a side salad of bollocks. 

I have no doubt you have a good knowledge about the darkroom, or can at least read the books, but you seem to want an absolutists view that you can't realistically defend. 🙂

 

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, 250swb said:

Consider the wailing wind and the sage brush rolling down the main street as the response to your theories.

Given that all you appear to do is make a proposition and then discuss this between yourself ad infinititum I'd say your threads are something nobody can join in with, and if people try it's countered with 'my latest experiment' garbage.  With NO actual examples of photography so far posted to meaningfully back up any claims you make it's sure we are dealing with smoke and mirrors with a side salad of bollocks. 

I have no doubt you have a good knowledge about the darkroom, or can at least read the books, but you seem to want an absolutists view that you can't realistically defend. 🙂

 

Everything I claim is supported in the literature and my trials.

 See the attached.

You'll note that Rodent-All comes in last (or tied for last) in every category in the Leica magazine test: speed, definition graininess. Of course, with very slow films the differences are less dramatic.

LF Film-developer survey.pdf 

LF Film-developer survey2.pdf LF Film-developer survey3.pdf LF Film-developer survey4.pdf

Edited March 28, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

Interesting film-developer survey. Unfortunately again without example pictures. But when was this published? 
According to the tested films it must be in the mid 1960ties. E. g. Ilford FP3 was abandoned in 1968. The only films that are available today are the P30 and TRI-X Pan, but I doubt very much, that the reintroduced P30 or the TRI-X of today are the same as the ones of these days.

[Ornello]

37 minutes ago, fotomas said:

Interesting film-developer survey. Unfortunately again without example pictures. But when was this published? 
According to the tested films it must be in the mid 1960ties. E. g. Ilford FP3 was abandoned in 1968. The only films that are available today are the P30 and TRI-X Pan, but I doubt very much, that the reintroduced P30 or the TRI-X of today are the same as the ones of these days.

Actually, they are probably very similar. Tri-X was improved around 1960 (see link below), and likely not much changed since then. I have spoken directly to Kodak about this, via e-mail and phone. They said that the quality control is better today, and the product is more consistent (stricter control over raw materials, improved manufacturing processes, etc.) but the basic 'approach' hasn't really changed. Regardless, the basic character of slow, medium, and fast films remains as it was when these tests were made (1968, I believe). By the way, I did use some DuPont Superior #4, and it was very much like Tri-X. I used a lot of UFG developer, too, mostly with Tri-X but also with FP4.

I have not noticed any change in Tri-X in over 50 years, but HP5 + is much different and better than was HP4, which was replaced by HP5 around 1977.

See:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=7308776

"Tri-X Pan negative film, 1960 type, recently brought out by Kodak, proved to be more than 25% slower than the former Tri-X film."

"Tri-X, indicated by the author as 1959 type, although superseded by a similarly named film having somewhat different characteristics, has been included because supplies of the former film will no doubt continue to be available for some time owing to its excellent keeping qualities under refrigeration, and to the substantial quantities on hand."

Edited March 30, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

Guess the last great change in TRI-X was in 2006, when they reduced the amount of silver used for it. Also the name was changed to the 400TX of today. IIRC also the developing times changed. It might be similar, but probably not the same.

Edited March 30, 2022 by fotomas

[Ornello]

2 hours ago, fotomas said:

Guess the last great change in TRI-X was in 2006, when they reduced the amount of silver used for it. Also the name was changed to the 400TX of today. IIRC also the developing times changed. It might be similar, but probably not the same.

Uhm no. Another urban myth. They moved production from an old plant to a new one. That was all. They had to adjust some things for that, but no change in 'silver content' at all.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[fotomas]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb Ornello:

Uhm no. Another urban myth. They moved production from an old plant to a new one. That was all. They had to adjust some things for that, but no change in 'silver content' at all.

Could be. It is stated at least at Wikipedia here. Developing time changed definitely. It was decreased about 14%. In my database the first new 400TX appeared in late 2006. But the expiring date of these films was 09/2006. So it has been produced even earlier.