Jump to content

Acuspecial FX-21 formula (Better than Rodinal!)


Ornello

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Ornello said:

Initial attempt resulted in grossly underdeveloped film. Not sure what the problem is. Will make new batch and try again.

Formula was wrong. Sodium hydroxide is missing ingredient, according to Bill Troop.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Am 6.5.2022 um 20:21 schrieb Ornello:

Formula was wrong. Sodium hydroxide is missing ingredient, according to Bill Troop.

Interesting. Sodium hydroxide isn't mentioned in the formula in the FDC.
At least the question marks given there for potassium iodide and potassium bromide make me think, that this formula might be only one part of the truth. How much sodium hydroxide is needed? Or what would be the correct formula?

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, fotomas said:

Interesting. Sodium hydroxide isn't mentioned in the formula in the FDC.
At least the question marks given there for potassium iodide and potassium bromide make me think, that this formula might be only one part of the truth. How much sodium hydroxide is needed? Or what would be the correct formula?

Precisely! He said sodium hydroxide was accidentally omitted in the FDC. Via PM from Bill: 0.333 g/l. I added 5 g of sodium hydroxide to the 15x concentrate (0.333 x 15 = 5) and developed a roll of Pan-F + this morning (12.5 mins @68F). Negs look good. 1 + 14 of the 15x concentrate.

Edited by Ornello
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/8/2022 at 1:31 AM, fotomas said:

Interesting. Sodium hydroxide isn't mentioned in the formula in the FDC.
At least the question marks given there for potassium iodide and potassium bromide make me think, that this formula might be only one part of the truth. How much sodium hydroxide is needed? Or what would be the correct formula?

Ran some more Pan-F + last night. Gave it 13.5 mins @ 69/68 (because of long development, I started developing at 69; temperature drops a little in 60 degree cool basement). Measured after completion of development, temperature of developer solution had dropped about 1 degree F. Negatives look very good; will make a test print or two tonight.

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/8/2022 at 6:31 AM, fotomas said:

Interesting. Sodium hydroxide isn't mentioned in the formula in the FDC.
At least the question marks given there for potassium iodide and potassium bromide make me think, that this formula might be only one part of the truth. How much sodium hydroxide is needed? Or what would be the correct formula?

The reason for the question marks is that Crawley was always fiddling with the formulas. There was never a definitive version as they evolved throughout their time of manufacture. I and Carolyn Crawley were by means able to assemble a definitive history of the formulas. Considering everything, we were lucky to be able to get the snapshots that we did. The lesson to us today is that a formula always should be optimized for the films that you are NOW using. All of this said, it was inexcusable for me to omit that line from the formula. And my warmest thanks to Ornello for catching it. It's the first error anyone has found in FDC2, so I guess I should count myself lucky. But I so wish it hadn't happened! I will be updating my webpage of FDC corrections soon.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2022 at 1:54 PM, BillT said:

The reason for the question marks is that Crawley was always fiddling with the formulas. There was never a definitive version as they evolved throughout their time of manufacture. I and Carolyn Crawley were by means able to assemble a definitive history of the formulas. Considering everything, we were lucky to be able to get the snapshots that we did. The lesson to us today is that a formula always should be optimized for the films that you are NOW using. All of this said, it was inexcusable for me to omit that line from the formula. And my warmest thanks to Ornello for catching it. It's the first error anyone has found in FDC2, so I guess I should count myself lucky. But I so wish it hadn't happened! I will be updating my webpage of FDC corrections soon.

As I have mentioned before, T-Max 400 has some characteristics of a slow, fine-grain film. It does not behave like Tri-X or HP5. For that reason a developer like FX-21 is a potential candidate for this film.

Last night I tried FX-21 1+9 (using 15x concentrate) for 10 minutes @ 68F/20C on T-Max 400. The negatives look very interesting, and I can't wait to see how they print. A previous attempt using 1+6 dilution for 12.5 minutes resulted in very dense negatives.

Where is the page of FDC corrections?

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Ornello:

Last night I tried FX-21 1+9 (using 15x concentrate) for 10 minutes @ 68F/20C on T-Max 400. The negatives look very interesting, and I can't wait to see how they print. A previous attempt using 1+6 dilution for 12.5 minutes resulted in very dense negatives.

Where is the page of FDC corrections?

Should be here.

I also can't wait to see the results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, fotomas said:

Should be here.

I also can't wait to see the results.

I took one scene at 1/500 @ f/8, f/5.6, and f/4. The negatives don't show a whole lot of difference. The compensating action of this formula (Sold as Paterson Acuspecial back in the day) is rather stronger than most. It is not a fine-grain developer, but since T-Max 400 is so fine-grained, that should not matter. I am very glad that the formula is available at last.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Results of test with T-Max 400 in FX-21 (15X concentrate) 1+9, 10 minutes @69/68F are quite good. I used my 50mm Summilux-R type II (E60). Exposure were made @ 1/500 s between f/4 and f/8. Extremely clear day, brilliant sunshine.

First off, grain is almost imperceptible in 7X enlargements on Ilford MGV RC glossy. Condenser enlarger (Fujimoto G70) filtration 15M. Lens: Leitz 50mm f/4.5 Focotar-2.

Sharpness is superb.

These could be the best prints I have ever seen from an ISO 400 film.

For slower films (e.g., Pan-F+, FP4+) higher dilutions are indicated. I estimate that FP4+ would look best at 1+11 or 1+12 (10-11 mins). Pan F+ looks good at 1+14 for 13.5 minutes. 

The FX-21 developer gives strong compensation, which tends to offset the curve shape of TMY2, to make it work more like Tri-X or HP5+. See tests:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/t-max-400-has-boomerang-curve.101340/

20130316-tmy2-boomerang-jpg.48305

130312-hp5-214d-xtol-closespeed-jpg.48306

See also:

https://photo.imx.nl/Film/Film/page33.html

Acuspecial FX-21 appeared by autumn 1969

A new type of soft working 'surface' developer invented by Geoffrey Crawley. "It is designed to give a special result with modern high performance slow and medium speed miniature films 5-200 ASA but may also be used with higher speed films. Acuspecial produces a negative of 'engraving' type sharpness and definition, coupled with extremely fine grain. The emphasis on this type of definition is obtained with a minimum reduction in continuous tonal gradation, and this is offset by exceptional separation of tones on fine detail. The disadvantages of streaking and inconsistency of action, usual to surface developers, have been overcome. There is an effective film speed increase of a half-stop.

Acuspecial does not replace Acutol which continues to give the optimum balance of tonal gradation, sharpness and definition. But the 'engraving' type negative given by the new developer, and the control of contrast which its soft working action provides, make it an important new tool for the knowledgeable photographer in the miniature and sub-miniature fields. Acuspecial is available as a highly concentrated liquid which is normally diluted 1:29 for use. Full instructions are supplied. Recommended prices: 55ml (2fl.oz) bottle 5/- 250ml (8.8fl.oz) bottle 17/6."

Acuspecial was originally sold in the 55ml size only but, due to interest expressed by professionals, the 250ml size was made available by December 1969.

tn_Acuspecial_FX-21.jpg

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ran some more TMY-2 and Delta 400 over the weekend. The Delta 400 was developed in FX-39 II (commercial product https://www.freestylephoto.biz/33830-Adox-FX-39-II-Film-Developer-500-ml) diluted 1+14 for 9.25 minutes @ 68F/20C.

The TMY-2 was developed in FX-21 (from Crawley's formula, with sodium hydroxide) diluted 1+9 for 10 minutes. I made 7X prints with my Fujimoto G70 enlarger (http://35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=54712) in condenser configuration using my Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5 lens @ f/6 (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/leica-leitz-focotar-lens-50mm-4-caps-1792600830). 

The scene contained an extreme brightness range, from a white car in brilliant sunshine to dark plants in the shadows. The negatives were exposed on different days, but the light conditions were the same: brilliant sunshine. I bracketed (1/500 second @ f/4, f/5.6, f/8), but used only the f/5.6 negatives to print. 

The Delta 400 negatives seemed to have slightly more contrast, and printed at 0.0 filtration on the color head. The T-Max 400 negatives printed best with 15M filtration. A little more development of the TMY-2 or a little less of the Delta would have matched them perfectly. 

The results showed that the TMY-2 has a little better sharpness and somewhat finer grain, but you have to look close to see it. I prefer the T-Max 400, but unless 16 x 20 enlargements are the goal, I would be happy with either combo.

It seems to me these pairings bring out the best results from the films.

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2022 at 10:39 AM, Ornello said:

Ran some more TMY-2 and Delta 400 over the weekend. The Delta 400 was developed in FX-39 II (commercial product https://www.freestylephoto.biz/33830-Adox-FX-39-II-Film-Developer-500-ml) diluted 1+14 for 9.25 minutes @ 68F/20C.

The TMY-2 was developed in FX-21 (from Crawley's formula, with sodium hydroxide) diluted 1+9 for 10 minutes. I made 7X prints with my Fujimoto G70 enlarger (http://35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=54712) in condenser configuration using my Focotar-2 50mm f/4.5 lens @ f/6 (https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/leica-leitz-focotar-lens-50mm-4-caps-1792600830). 

The scene contained an extreme brightness range, from a white car in brilliant sunshine to dark plants in the shadows. The negatives were exposed on different days, but the light conditions were the same: brilliant sunshine. I bracketed (1/500 second @ f/4, f/5.6, f/8), but used only the f/5.6 negatives to print. 

The Delta 400 negatives seemed to have slightly more contrast, and printed at 0.0 filtration on the color head. The T-Max 400 negatives printed best with 15M filtration. A little more development of the TMY-2 or a little less of the Delta would have matched them perfectly. 

The results showed that the TMY-2 has a little better sharpness and somewhat finer grain, but you have to look close to see it. I prefer the T-Max 400, but unless 16 x 20 enlargements are the goal, I would be happy with either combo.

It seems to me these pairings bring out the best results from the films.

A friend says he has a scanner and will make scans for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to user Ornello for understanding that the formula for FX-21 as published must have been erroneous. He was correct. I had inadvertently omitted the line for sodium hydroxide, as has been discussed earlier in this thread. I have now updated the Film Developing Cookbook resource page: 

http://www.graphos.org/page3.html

Crawley would be so happy to see people using this formula with modern films. However, for the reasons discussed in FDC2, the potassium iodide component is unlikely to have a perceptible effect on 'high iodide' films. On the other hand, it cannot do any harm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BillT said:

Thanks to user Ornello for understanding that the formula for FX-21 as published must have been erroneous. He was correct. I had inadvertently omitted the line for sodium hydroxide, as has been discussed earlier in this thread. I have now updated the Film Developing Cookbook resource page: 

http://www.graphos.org/page3.html

Crawley would be so happy to see people using this formula with modern films. However, for the reasons discussed in FDC2, the potassium iodide component is unlikely to have a perceptible effect on 'high iodide' films. On the other hand, it cannot do any harm. 

Since the omission was unknown to me, I added the sodium hydroxide (5 grammes, powder) after the mix had been completed (and tried), and it works fine that way. I advocate trying this developer formula on TMY-2 (T-Max 400), because of its upper curve shape. This formula works well with Pan-F + too, a film that is almost unusable otherwise. I am going to process some T-Max 400 film tonight with it and will report on my results soon.

I use eye protection and nose mask when measuring this out.

It would be interesting if Bill could suggest modifications to FX-21 to improve it/adapt it for T-Max 400.

The return of Acutol is devoutly to be wished! What are the prospects for this with PF?

Edited by Ornello
Link to post
Share on other sites

Developed another T-Max 400 test roll yesterday and made test prints last night. Film was developed in FX-21 diluted 1+9 (from 15X concentrate) for 11 minutes @ 68F/20C. Prints look awesome! This will probably become my standard B&W film and developer. 

Test scenes were taken in brilliant sunshine of houses with trees, porches, and white cars. Exposures were made from f/11 to f/4 with 50mm Summilux-R type II (E60). Negatives at f/5.6 were chosen as best, having more than adequate shadow detail. What I like about this combo is that highlight detail is maintained even with exposure adequate to get good shadow detail. This is hard to do without losing mid-tone gradation. This combo does an excellent job of maintaining mid-tone gradation. Sharpness is fantastic, and grain is barely visible. 

I cannot see much need for anything finer-grained, but if so, it will probably be Fujifilm Acros II. This is a scan made on an office copier, low resolution to fit on this site. The car is white, but the house is a putty color. As you can see, the SBR is enormous, yet there is plenty of shadow detail in the porch behind the white car. On Pan-F+, this would probably not be visible. There is more shadow detail visible in the print than what shows up here in this scan.

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!

Edited by Ornello
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
On 5/12/2022 at 2:49 PM, Ornello said:

Results of test with T-Max 400 in FX-21 (15X concentrate) 1+9, 10 minutes @69/68F are quite good. I used my 50mm Summilux-R type II (E60). Exposure were made @ 1/500 s between f/4 and f/8. Extremely clear day, brilliant sunshine.

First off, grain is almost imperceptible in 7X enlargements on Ilford MGV RC glossy. Condenser enlarger (Fujimoto G70) filtration 15M. Lens: Leitz 50mm f/4.5 Focotar-2.

Sharpness is superb.

These could be the best prints I have ever seen from an ISO 400 film.

For slower films (e.g., Pan-F+, FP4+) higher dilutions are indicated. I estimate that FP4+ would look best at 1+11 or 1+12 (10-11 mins). Pan F+ looks good at 1+14 for 13.5 minutes. 

The FX-21 developer gives strong compensation, which tends to offset the curve shape of TMY2, to make it work more like Tri-X or HP5+. See tests:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/t-max-400-has-boomerang-curve.101340/

See also:

https://photo.imx.nl/Film/Film/page33.html

Acuspecial FX-21 appeared by autumn 1969

A new type of soft working 'surface' developer invented by Geoffrey Crawley. "It is designed to give a special result with modern high performance slow and medium speed miniature films 5-200 ASA but may also be used with higher speed films. Acuspecial produces a negative of 'engraving' type sharpness and definition, coupled with extremely fine grain. The emphasis on this type of definition is obtained with a minimum reduction in continuous tonal gradation, and this is offset by exceptional separation of tones on fine detail. The disadvantages of streaking and inconsistency of action, usual to surface developers, have been overcome. There is an effective film speed increase of a half-stop.

Acuspecial does not replace Acutol which continues to give the optimum balance of tonal gradation, sharpness and definition. But the 'engraving' type negative given by the new developer, and the control of contrast which its soft working action provides, make it an important new tool for the knowledgeable photographer in the miniature and sub-miniature fields. Acuspecial is available as a highly concentrated liquid which is normally diluted 1:29 for use. Full instructions are supplied. Recommended prices: 55ml (2fl.oz) bottle 5/- 250ml (8.8fl.oz) bottle 17/6."

Acuspecial was originally sold in the 55ml size only but, due to interest expressed by professionals, the 250ml size was made available by December 1969.

Sorry to seem like a dumbass, but you say that you use dilutions of 1+9 or 1+14, but the advertising for Acuspecial says 1+29.

Shouldn't the formula you have given be much more concentrated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

John asked why I published the formula half strength. The reason is that in order to get to full strength, Crawley added additional ingredients to help solubility and stability of the formula, and this system I did not consider myself at liberty to disclose. All of this is clearly explained on page 75 of The Film Developing Cookbook, 2nd edition, 2020. To be clear, FX 21 can be seen as a further diluted evolution of FX 14/Acutol, which I have not published. And I must make very clear that Crawley never let any of his commercial formulas alone. They were always being involved. He would expect people to make adjustments to suit the constant evolution of films. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...