Neofin Blau Vs Beutler

Guy Pinhas

Guy Pinhas

Well-known
Local time
10:37 PM
Joined
Mar 25, 2016
Messages
235
Location
Amsterdam
View My Gallery
So if Neofin Blau and Beutler is, as many claim, the same, should the method of developing (inversion, timing etc) be the same as well? Since Beutler is a two bath solution how does that translate?

Why am I asking?

Just shot some Tri-X at 200 ISO and I would normally use Rodinal but since I was given a couple of vials of Neofin Blau, I figured, why not try?
This is what I am planning to do: Two rolls of 35mm film in a 500ml developing can, add Neofin Blau to 450mml of water at the recommended temperature, three gentle inversion every minute for ten minutes, then rinse and fix etc. Does that sound about right?

Anyone who has experience with shooting Tri-X @200 (or HP5) and developing with Neofin Blau, please, feel free to chime in 🙂

Thanks for taking the time.

Guy.
 
The original "Beutler", proposed in "Meine Dunkelkammerpraxis" by Willi Beutler, was a four part kit (Metol stock, HC stock, plus carbonate and bromide solutions) to mix a variety of developers from. Neofin Blau is a one-shot small vial version of what proved to be the most popular recipe from that kit, created by Willi Beutler with Tetenal, as the original kit was difficult to mix and preserve. Udo Raffay later reduced the kit to two parts, essentially Beutler A and C (in Germany that was generally known as "the Raffay") doing away with those parts not used in Neofin Blau.

As long as you stick to the same recipe, all three are chemically the same. You can break apart the Raffay (which is intended to be just a two-part kit, not a two-bath developer) or vary the mix, and you can mix just about any Metol-Hydroquinone developer ever conceived out of the four piece kit - but then you have something other than Neofin Blau.
 
ashfaque said:
Similar outcomes but not the same. See this thread (post # 5 onwards). I'm almost certain you'll find more info if you search APUG. 🙂
Click to expand...

Maybe. A MSDS is not a recipe, but a list of substances that MAY be contained. Listing substances that are not contained is sometimes used to obfuscate the recipe. And besides, it is questionable whether "modern" Neofin Blau would be any use if it still was the same as the Beutler era Neofin Blau - it was a pushing, fine grain high acutance developer for Agfapan 15 and Adox KB17, a class of slow films that might be completely extinct (modern Pan F might be the last descendent, and that behaves very different nowadays).
 
ashfaque said:
Similar outcomes but not the same. See this thread (post # 5 onwards). I'm almost certain you'll find more info if you search APUG. 🙂
Click to expand...

"Not recommended for Tri-X and HP5+"

Okay, might not be the best combo but the MDC does give 20 minutes with Tri-X at box speed. I think I might just use Rodinal. I am in no rush though, so let's see if anyone out there can chime in. I will check more on APUG.

Thanks and keep 'em comin' 🙂
 
Sevo: I didn't know about those changes (name and recipe wise) until I saw those posts from Ian and others. As for MSDS I agree with you.

Anyway, if it helps anyone, I'll be using Beutler for Rollei Retro 80S. I've seen some very impressive results from John Enea with that combo at ISO 80. The shadow details, which is a super PITA to extrapolate from RR80S, is excellent.

Guy: Beautler is geared towards slow-medium films. So I personally wont try it with HP5 Plus or Tri-X at 400. Don't know at 200 as I've never used or thought about that combo (or with N.Blau).

BTW, I personally don't rely on MDC. I think RFF, APUG & FADU members can help you to make a more informed decision. I know I do. 🙂

Bests,
Ashfaque
 
you should read Tom A's thread on beutler. a lot of good info there. its very simple to mix yourself and gives great film speed, clean negs and very high acutance. 20 min for tri-x seems high, especially for it being shot at 200. Tom gives a time, if I remember correctly, for tri-x around 11 min shot at 400

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70461
 
Since Beutler is a two bath solution how does that translate?
Click to expand...

Just for the record, Beutler is NOT a two bath developer. It is a single bath, which is mixed from two stock solutions (A and B) and water, just before use.

I have used Beutler for a very long time (10+ years), but with ISO 50 and 100 films. Beutler is not a fine grain developer, so most people do not like results with HP5+ or Tri-X.

Times for Beutler are close to what you would get with D-76 1:1, as a ballpark starting point.
 
Beutler is containing Metol and is used in a 1+1+8 or 1+1+10 dilution. Tetenal Neofin Blau is using Pyrocatechine (Brenzcatechin in German). Amaloco had a simmilar version Amaloco AM50 (also a non staining Pyrocatechin developer, made around 1929). Also known is the Hans Windisch Pyrocatechin developer, about the same era.

Like Tetenal Neofin Blau (Blue) the packing of Amaloco AM50 was exactly the same.

These developers are suitable for slow- and medium speed film because they are not fine grain type developers at all. The previous Efke 25-50 Fotokemika films were doing great in above developers.

Geoffrey Crawley made a small modification on the original Beutler developer by adding a trace of Potassiumiodide to it. This version is called FX-1.
 
Neofin contains phenidone and HQ, no trace of pyro. But the formula (name as well!) has changed several times since its introduction in 1954.
 
Fotohuis said:
Geoffrey Crawley made a small modification on the original Beutler developer by adding a trace of Potassiumiodide to it. This version is called FX-1.
Click to expand...

According to Anchell & Troop "The Film Developing Cookbook" as well as adding the trace of iodide the Beutler was further modified by Crawley reducing both the Metol and the Sodium Carbonate in FX-1.

Note: this is from the second printing, the first contained some errors: on page 126, where the formula for FX-1 stock solution is completely erroneous, even though the working solution formula, on page 59,is correct.

The iodide has been questioned, repeatedly, over time and Crawley himself has stated it is not useful in "modern" films, definition of modern to be decided !!

http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php...-was-mr-crawleys-intention.38931/#post-557094

Crawley introduced the formula FX-1 in 1961 and noted the iodide was only useful in a restricted number of film available even at that time.

The Tri-X emulsion we are now provided with is not the same as it was in 1961, for the OP.
 
Several years ago I developed a roll of Tri-X 35 in Beutler just to see what it looked like. The acutance was great, there was some grain, but I didn't find it objectionable in an 8X10 print. I would probably not use it for cloudscapes, but it can be a good developer even for high speed films and it does act somewhat as a compensating developer.
 
One of the best films in Beutler A+B or FX-1 is the Efke 25 film from Fotokemika. However this film is not available anymore. A last 25pcs. however are waiting in my fridge (135-36 and 120 roll films). The dilution 1+1+10 gives the best results.
Beutler or FX-1 is very simple to make from scratch chemicals. I did some tests to see any difference on Beutler or FX-1 however even with my Leica M7 gear and lenses and enlargements till 40x50cm I could not find the difference, so it is neglectible.
 
4836794988_1a6b250cf7_b.jpg
[/url]F538 #2 Nikon Rf Month by T&T and Mr B Abrahamsson, on Flickr[/IMG]

TriX at 400 iso n Beutler 1:1:8 for 11 min. It is not fime grained ny any means - but not tp "gritty". Beutler is sensitive to agitation - if you over agitate, contrast buds up quickly. With slower film, the acceptance is more pronounced, but with TriX/XX less so.
I do pre-wash for 1 minute when using Beutler - not much difference, but just in case.
My agitation cycle for the 5 reel tanks is 30sec. vigorous shake and tap, then 2 slow inversions every 50 sec. If I know that the film has been shot under high contrast situations, agitation at 2 minute intervals.
It is a great "stand by" developer as in A and B mix, it lasts quite a long time.
 
I just purchased a package of Tetenal Neofin Blue from Freestyle.
I was surprised to see times for Tri-X and HP5+ in the instructions.

But I bought this stuff to develop some Panatomic-X I acquired.
Not surprisingly no time is listed for this long-discontinued film.

I plan to use one 30ml vial plus water to make 700ml for two rolls 35mm.
Any suggestions for a development time for my ancient Panatomic-X?

TIA,
Chris
 
Fotohuis said:
Beutler or FX-1 is very simple to make from scratch chemicals. I did some tests to see any difference on Beutler or FX-1 however even with my Leica M7 gear and lenses and enlargements till 40x50cm I could not find the difference, so it is neglectible.
Click to expand...

Even at the launch of FX-1 it was said you needed a microscope to see the difference, somewhat comforting for the pixel peepers to know they have a history!!
 
ChrisPlatt said:
I just purchased a package of Tetenal Neofin Blue from Freestyle.
Any suggestions for a development time for my ancient Panatomic-X?

TIA,
Chris
Click to expand...

Test roll required, the times given in the literature would be for fresh film not "ancient" stock.
As PanF was around 5mins for 50iso ISTR that would be a start, but BRACKET.

Altman and Henn at Kodak and Richard Henry both showed D-25 stock to be the developer of choice for Pan-X. (and Henry showed this despite using continuous, roller, agitation!!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

boojum
Film, How Kodak Makes it Today
Replies
1
Views
777
dexdog
D
J
  • Article Article
Weird & Wonderful Scale Focusing 35mm cameras: 11 cool models of bygone era that are still fun user-collectibles!
Replies
10
Views
1K
Muggins
Muggins
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
B
New year resolutions (photo-centered) for 2025
2 3
Replies
41
Views
2K
JohnGellings
J
G
Neopan SSS 200 and Kodak Panatomic-X from 1980’s !!!!
Replies
8
Views
1K
raydm6
raydm6
Back
Top Bottom