Acuspecial FX-21 formula (Better than Rodinal!)

[Ornello]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, fotomas said:

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.

The article has errors. The film was 'improved' in 1960, losing 25% of its speed, but with finer grain. I remember this when it was announced.  

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"Tri-X, indicated by the author as 1959 type, although superseded by a similarly named film having somewhat different characteristics, has been included because supplies of the former film will no doubt continue to be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."

I just completed a test of HP5 + vs Tri-X. The films are nearly identical in sharpness and grain. HP5 + may be a little finer-grained, but it is almost impossible to tell for certain. The films were processed simultaneously in the same tank, developed in FX-39 II diluted 1 + 14 for 9.25 mins @ 68F/20C.

[Ornello]

6 hours ago, fotomas said:

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.

The following questions were submitted to Kodak several years ago:

"1. I have read or heard in various sources that it is common practice to manufacture developers at an extra-strength state to withstand shelf storage for extended period before sale to the consumer, so that 'normal' strength will be attained after a given period. In other words, according to this account, brand-new product is supposed to be manufactured a little stronger than normal or standard, so that after sitting on the dealer's shelf for six months it will still offer normal results. Can you enlighten me on this matter?

2. No doubt Kodak has been asked this one before: according to rumors circulated by various parties (of which I am not a member), the 'silver content' of various films and papers is supposed to have been diminished by deliberate acts of Kodak to achieve greater profitability over the past few decades. Specifically, some have reported that films such as Tri-X have been changed over the last 20 or 30 years to contain less silver. I would like Kodak to comment on this. I am not referring to the new facility.  

1. Regarding the B/W developer solution question -- That is not the way Kodak does it. I don't know about other manufacturers. Although there are a wide variety of B/W developers, some sold as powders, others as liquid concentrates, and there will be some differences in keeping characteristics, I would say that a typical product would show no measurable performance difference if kept under proper conditions for at least 6 to 9 months. After a slightly longer time, there might be a difference that would be measurable under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, but not a difference likely to be noticed in the normal use of the product. After two years or so, the condition of a developer is likely to be dependent on the storage conditions, and perhaps variables in handling that may have affected the packaging material, etc. Some of the changes at this time are likely to be noticeable in normal use of the product. After three to five years, some products may be just fine, but as the elapsed time and keeping condition variables mount up, the chances of poor results will increase.

2. Regarding Kodak Tri-X products, there are three basic Tri-X products that professional photographers might be involved with. I'm not sure what other films might be included in your description of "films such as Tri-X." A significant change in silver content of traditional B/W films would be accompanied by a significant change in other characteristics: tone reproduction, contrast, and granularity, for example. Consistency of product has always been a prime goal in the manufacture of Tri-X products, and, over the years, comparisons of Kodak products with other manufacturers' products have shown Kodak to be consistently ahead of other manufacturers in this regard. Any "breakthrough" in technology that would allow a significant change in the silver content or image structure would be better introduced to the public as a new product than as a "secret" change to the Tri-X films. In fact, such a breakthrough was introduced with the T-Max films. Although some people within the company expected sales of Tri-X would tail off following the introduction of the T-Max films and that the products would be discontinued due to lack of sales, this has not happened. The current "best practice" for manufacturing these products is to control the characteristics of all the materials going into the product, and to control all parts of the manufacturing process so that the "standard" product formulation will produce product with consistent characteristics every time. This has been found to work better than the procedure used in past years, when the film formulation engineer had the freedom to "tweak" a component slightly to compensate for apparent changes in raw materials in order to make the resulting product closer to established aims. So it is probably not true to say that a particular Tri-X product has always had the exact same silver level for the past 30 or 40 years. But based on my experience for the last 20 or so, I doubt that there would be any variations greater than 5%, and certainly no permanent, intentional level shift. If you should have additional questions, please be sure to revisit our site as we are continually adding information to enhance our support. For immediate answers to commonly asked questions, please visit: http://kodak.broaddaylight.com/kodakproindex.html For product and technical information, service, support, and downloads: http://www.kodak.com/go/professional For information on ProPass Magazine: http://www.kodak.com/go/propass  Regards, Peter V. Kodak Information and Technical Support Kodak Professional Ph. 800-242-2424 ext. 1

Edited March 31, 2022 by Ornello

[giannis]

On 3/30/2022 at 8:20 PM, fotomas said:

but I doubt very much, that the reintroduced P30 or the TRI-X of today are the same as the ones of these days.

And you'd be very much right.

In the case of TriX specifically, it has gone through *at least* 2 major reformulations with regards to its emulsion (and many more smaller ones with regards to the base etc., which also alter dev times). One major reformulation was in the '70's or so (maybe earlier), when Kodak was experimenting/researching what would eventually become "T-grain" and the TMax line of films that were introduced in mid-late '80's. The second major reformulation was far more recent, in 2007, and maybe the most drastic one, yet far less publicised than the reformulations of, say Portra in 2011. Even the branding changed a bit, from "Tri-X 400" to "400TX", on the big letters on the box. After the 2007 reformulation, TriX became noticeably (by film standards of its speed) less grainy and incorporated a decent chunk of t-grains, it'd rather qualify as "hybrid" emulsion rather than a "traditional" cubic grain emulsion. The difference in grain structure is visible under a microscope, and the difference in grainsize/granularity relatively noticeable in prints/scans of higher magnification. That said, Kodak managed to keep the tonality (characteristic curve) virtually the same, which I'm sure was no easy feat.

Back on topic though, anything referring to a dev regime, with specific times and all, in books from the '60's, is of little practical value today. The materials have changed massively, especially films but also developers, and many of the incremental changes haven't been publicised but they collectively add up, not to mention major reformulations.

Edited April 1, 2022 by giannis

[fotomas]

This confirmed what I discovered while making a comparison of the old with the new TRI-X in 2007. Both film stripes are developed together in a home brew two bath developer, similar to Diafine. The new one is less grainy.

Here the old TRI-X

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

and the new one

100% detail old

an new

Maybe I will give it a try with FX-21, but this will take some time. My potassium iodide is 300 km away from me and I currently have no time to go there.

By the way I found the story of TRI-X quite interesting.

f-)

Edited April 2, 2022 by fotomas

[giannis]

This pretty much settles it @fotomas, I couldn't have posted a better example. I'm not sure I had shot a full colour chart, but I remember having plotted the characteristic curve and the speeds (old vs new) were identical, plus the curve shape itself virtually indistinguishable for pictorial use. The only things that practically changed were the reduced grain and the different dev times, i.e. a good film got even better with no noticeable downsides.

[fotomas]

Thanks giannis,

in this case it seemed to be an improvement, but I wonder if there might have been opposite developments in the past before. At the university in the late 1980ties one of my professors told me, that the photographic materials has become worse and worse over the years. I was to young to proof this, due to the lack of these older materials. But there was some indications for this. At least when you looked at the work of elder photographers. Just saw a book about Jeanloup Sieff and was blown away by the technical quality he archived in these days, apart from that I liked his pictures also. 
Years later there was an exhibition of the "Deutscher Jugendfotopreis" that has his 50 years annual. This is a price for young people till the age of 18-24 (changed over the years). In the exhibition they showed the original prints from the late 1950ties until today. There you could see a clear border. Until 1970 the mostly b&w pictures are grainless, sharp with full, rich and deep blacks. After that it becomes all lot more gray, grainy and flat. And remember that all the photographers there was school kids, that probably wouldn't use fancy expensive professional stuff.

In the 1990ties I got some glass plates from ORWO. This emulsions where incredible. They took one day to dry after processing and showed all the good qualities I mentioned before. Later I ordered more, but meanwhile they had changed the emulsion and this stuff dried much quicker, but also has lost all of it's richness.

Maybe there are some older guys around here that can enlighten us?

Best

Frank

[Sandokan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/24/2022 at 2:27 PM, Ornello said:

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.

In my chemistry and also baking labs, a 13% change in formula is significant and such a lax attitude towards measuring formulae does not inspire confidence. 

[Ornello]

14 hours ago, fotomas said:

Thanks giannis,

in this case it seemed to be an improvement, but I wonder if there might have been opposite developments in the past before. At the university in the late 1980ties one of my professors told me, that the photographic materials has become worse and worse over the years. I was to young to proof this, due to the lack of these older materials. But there was some indications for this. At least when you looked at the work of elder photographers. Just saw a book about Jeanloup Sieff and was blown away by the technical quality he archived in these days, apart from that I liked his pictures also. 
Years later there was an exhibition of the "Deutscher Jugendfotopreis" that has his 50 years annual. This is a price for young people till the age of 18-24 (changed over the years). In the exhibition they showed the original prints from the late 1950ties until today. There you could see a clear border. Until 1970 the mostly b&w pictures are grainless, sharp with full, rich and deep blacks. After that it becomes all lot more gray, grainy and flat. And remember that all the photographers there was school kids, that probably wouldn't use fancy expensive professional stuff.

In the 1990ties I got some glass plates from ORWO. This emulsions where incredible. They took one day to dry after processing and showed all the good qualities I mentioned before. Later I ordered more, but meanwhile they had changed the emulsion and this stuff dried much quicker, but also has lost all of it's richness.

Maybe there are some older guys around here that can enlighten us?

Best

Frank

Not surprising, because right about then (1960s) was the transition from 4 x 5 (and larger) cameras to 35mm among press photographers and serious amateurs. It took quite a long time for the old-timers to learn proper technique for 35mm work. The films and papers we have today are fantastic. Press photographers or their darkroom staff could take a 4x5 sheet film and process it in a very strong soup (such as DK-50) and get a negative in under 10 minutes.They would sometimes not even bother drying it. 4x5 can take this kind of abuse; 35mm cannot. You may have been looking at 8x10 contact prints made on contact-speed paper. Such papers definitely look different!

Edited April 3, 2022 by Ornello

[Ornello]

12 hours ago, Sandokan said:

In my chemistry and also baking labs, a 13% change in formula is significant and such a lax attitude towards measuring formulae does not inspire confidence. 

I said I was wrong, but even so, such a minor error in carbonate would hardly make any difference in practice. Water ph would probably vary from one place to another as much as that. It simply makes the solution slightly more alkaline. There is a certain inherent margin for error in filling and emptying a developing tank, and I doubt that any one could do it with absolute consistency.

https://www.healthline.com/health/ph-of-drinking-water#drinking-water-ph-level-chart

Edited April 3, 2022 by Ornello

[Sandokan]

I use distilled water for my developer and fixer to eliminate that variable, but even so, that variable would be adjusted out by a person from their own development times with their own water. 

As for filling and emptying the tanks - I disagree and say that error is much less than 12%. the difference between 595ml and 605ml is small and its a different error which would effect the coverage of the negative but not the chemistry of development

[Ornello]

8 hours ago, Sandokan said:

I use distilled water for my developer and fixer to eliminate that variable, but even so, that variable would be adjusted out by a person from their own development times with their own water. 

As for filling and emptying the tanks - I disagree and say that error is much less than 12%. the difference between 595ml and 605ml is small and its a different error which would effect the coverage of the negative but not the chemistry of development

I was referring to the time it takes to fill and empty the tank.

[Ornello]

On 4/2/2022 at 4:26 PM, fotomas said:

This confirmed what I discovered while making a comparison of the old with the new TRI-X in 2007. Both film stripes are developed together in a home brew two bath developer, similar to Diafine. The new one is less grainy.

Maybe I will give it a try with FX-21, but this will take some time. My potassium iodide is 300 km away from me and I currently have no time to go there.

By the way I found the story of TRI-X quite interesting.

I'm not sure why this would be. From what I have read from Kodak's statements, the film was not supposed to be changed as far as its properties were concerned. Were these films processed together? 

[fotomas]

vor 54 Minuten schrieb Ornello:

I'm not sure why this would be. From what I have read from Kodak's statements, the film was not supposed to be changed as far as its properties were concerned. Were these films processed together? 

Yes - as I have written. Since I used a two bath-developer the times are the same.

[BillT]

On 4/3/2022 at 9:12 PM, Ornello said:

I said I was wrong, but even so, such a minor error in carbonate would hardly make any difference in practice. Water ph would probably vary from one place to another as much as that. It simply makes the solution slightly more alkaline. There is a certain inherent margin for error in filling and emptying a developing tank, and I doubt that any one could do it with absolute consistency.

https://www.healthline.com/health/ph-of-drinking-water#drinking-water-ph-level-chart

As a general matter, I would agree that a bit more or less carbonate is not going to make that much of a difference, affecting primarily time. HOWEVER, in the case of Crawley's high acutance developers, a major point is the absolutely precise buffering of the alkali system. Film Developing Cookbook 2nd edition must have at least five pages discussing Crawley's buffering systems, which he reserved for his commercial formulas. I had not had access to this information for the 1st edition. It was a real eye-opener.

[Ornello]

13 minutes ago, BillT said:

As a general matter, I would agree that a bit more or less carbonate is not going to make that much of a difference, affecting primarily time. HOWEVER, in the case of Crawley's high acutance developers, a major point is the absolutely precise buffering of the alkali system. Film Developing Cookbook 2nd edition must have at least five pages discussing Crawley's buffering systems, which he reserved for his commercial formulas. I had not had access to this information for the 1st edition. It was a real eye-opener.

I will have to look at that edition. I have an older one. I became aware of Crawley and his developers back in the late 1960s, many years before most American photographers did, because Paterson advertised their developers in Leica Fotografie magazine, which I read regularly. Some of the chemicals used in this formula are not that common, and I am waiting for an order from Photographers Formulary so that I can mix it up.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Ornello

[fotomas]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb BillT:

As a general matter, I would agree that a bit more or less carbonate is not going to make that much of a difference, affecting primarily time. HOWEVER, in the case of Crawley's high acutance developers, a major point is the absolutely precise buffering of the alkali system. Film Developing Cookbook 2nd edition must have at least five pages discussing Crawley's buffering systems, which he reserved for his commercial formulas. I had not had access to this information for the 1st edition. It was a real eye-opener.

Interesting. This advanced kind of buffering is indeed conspicuous. For now I would assume, that this was done to compensate the possible effect off different water qualities.
My copy of the 2nd edition arrived today. I already had the first edition. I'm curious to read the five pages. 

By the way: can someone tell what's new in the new edition of the Darkroom Cookbook compared to the third edition?

[BillT]

Regarding buffering and water quality, no, that's not what it was for. Crawley believed he could improve the midtone gradation of high acutance developers through these buffering systems. High acutance developers have a tendency to compress the midtones, and this was Crawley's mechanism for keeping sharpness high but ameliorating that effect as much as possible. 

Regarding Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook, I can't comment in detail, but I think it gets better with every edition. 

[Ornello]

1 hour ago, BillT said:

Regarding buffering and water quality, no, that's not what it was for. Crawley believed he could improve the midtone gradation of high acutance developers through these buffering systems. High acutance developers have a tendency to compress the midtones, and this was Crawley's mechanism for keeping sharpness high but ameliorating that effect as much as possible. 

Regarding Steve Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook, I can't comment in detail, but I think it gets better with every edition. 

That's what the Paterson ads claimed, and it's one of the weaknesses of Rodinal.

[BillT]

We can't pay much attention to advertising claims . . . . Rodinal has proved itself in many ways for well over a hundred years. One can't take that away from it. Actually, a farier comparison to Rodinal could well be FX 14, Acutol. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[250swb]

1 hour ago, Ornello said:

That's what the Paterson ads claimed, and it's one of the weaknesses of Rodinal.

Why would Rodinal be 'weak' if somebody wanted a negative with compressed mid-tones? There are plenty of photographers who like a more graphic image.

Edited April 10, 2022 by 250swb