JPSuisse
Well-known
John, thanks for posting, but I only kind of agree here.
For sure, I am starting over, but I would be starting over with DD-X too, as the films I tried, I did not like with DD-X. I particulary did not enjoy Tri-x and FP4 Plus in DD-X. Just my taste I guess. Along the way I got to use Rodinal and D-76 too!
I am getting getting great scans with ACUROL-N. I just want to bring the contrast down and to find my next combination for the next few years. This thread is about ACUROL-N, and my idea was to collect to knowledge for all about ACUROL-N.
JPSuisse
Well-known
Marek, please post an example! Next weekend I'll post Delta 3200 @ EI 500 in ACUROL!
John Bragg
Well-known
Good luck with your quest. I could never get Rodinal to play nice for scanning and settled on HC-110 as my standard developer. I am sure you will get the results you desire with some patient experimentation. Contrast control, for me, was all about higher dilution and once the correct exposure for shadow detail has been achieved, the rest is down to time and agitation regime. The old saying "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" still rings true. All photography is a compromise but aim to produce the negatives that are best for you and you alone.
JPSuisse
Well-known
Delta 3200 and ACUROL-N
Delta 3200 and ACUROL-N
So, today's experiment is Delta 3200 and ACUROL-N.
Conditions:
EI 500
13 Minutes development time
20 Degrees C
1+24
30 Seconds First Minute, 2 Agitations Each Following Minute
Commentary:
For starters, Spur recommends EI 500 and 15 minutes. I backed down on the development time given the high contrast for all the other film types I have developed based on Spur's recommended times so far.
The attached shot is not very pretty, but it happens to be the only subject I took by bracketing (Belichtungsreihe). What I found out was that the most underexposed of the bracketing had the best looking negative with regard to what I would consider printable, i.e. a wide variety of tones in the grey area and not bunched up on either end of the histogram. So, that is the picture I attached. It looks not so contrasty, (but maybe overexposed?). The details look quite sharp.
Conclusion:
The grain is definitely big for me. (But then what do you expect? The only fast film that had that nice tight grain was Neopan 1600). I am thinking increasing the EI to 640 - 800 range without changing the development time would put the tones right in the middle of the histogram and make a nice negative. This could be a viable replacement for Neopan 1600 which I always shot in that range. Probably, I will have to experiment some more though.
Delta 3200 and ACUROL-N
So, today's experiment is Delta 3200 and ACUROL-N.
Conditions:
EI 500
13 Minutes development time
20 Degrees C
1+24
30 Seconds First Minute, 2 Agitations Each Following Minute
Commentary:
For starters, Spur recommends EI 500 and 15 minutes. I backed down on the development time given the high contrast for all the other film types I have developed based on Spur's recommended times so far.
The attached shot is not very pretty, but it happens to be the only subject I took by bracketing (Belichtungsreihe). What I found out was that the most underexposed of the bracketing had the best looking negative with regard to what I would consider printable, i.e. a wide variety of tones in the grey area and not bunched up on either end of the histogram. So, that is the picture I attached. It looks not so contrasty, (but maybe overexposed?). The details look quite sharp.
Conclusion:
The grain is definitely big for me. (But then what do you expect? The only fast film that had that nice tight grain was Neopan 1600). I am thinking increasing the EI to 640 - 800 range without changing the development time would put the tones right in the middle of the histogram and make a nice negative. This could be a viable replacement for Neopan 1600 which I always shot in that range. Probably, I will have to experiment some more though.
Attachments
john_s
Well-known
The film that came to mind is/was Agfapan400. Although it competed with a number of well known 400 speed films, it was a bit deficient in speed: my source here is Geoffrey Crawley in his roundup of 400 speed films in BJP 18 October 2000. In this article, films were ranked by shadow detail, which happens to be my criterion for film speed too. He stated that films' speeds could not be evaluated until they were each developed to the same contrast. Since Agfa used a high contrast (0.65) for their standard advice, it could be argued that they were struggling to justify the 400 label. Notwithstanding that, I'm not saying that it wasn't "ISO 400." One can assume that it was. It's just that it wasn't as fast as some other films labeled as 400.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
You must have mis-read, or misunderstood, what Geoffrey wrote. Shadow detail and contrast "happen to be" the ISO speed criteria too: see http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps iso speeds.html You can't just decide to use a different gamma because you feel like it and call the result an ISO speed (first and second highlight). There are however certain qualifications.
First, ISO standards allow for films to be rated to the nearest third stop (usually upwards) so a film that is ISO 320 can be sold as ISO 400.
Second, ISO speeds do vary from batch to batch. Thus Ilford FP4 is typically at least ISO 125 but may be 140 or even 150, all in the same developer.This also explains the first qualification above.
Third, ISO standards require testing of both "green" (fresh off the line) film and matured (a minimum of a year, as far as I recall). Some film speeds continue to change after more than a year.
Fourth, you need to define "shadow detail". ISO standards do: 0,10 above fb+f. The shape of the curve (the length of the toe) will affect the density of shadow detail at other exposures.
Fifth, ISO standards no longer specify an ISO standard developer (and didn't then, as far as I recall). The manufacturer can use any developer, though they must specify which one they used. The most notorious example of this is Fomapan 200, a superb film which is almost identical in speed in any given developer to Ilford FP4. Only in speed increasing developers does it creep up to, or just over, ISO 160 -- thereby allowing (qualification 1) to be sold as ISO 200. Ilford HP4 could be sold as ISo 200 too. Fuji Acros is about 80 in most developers too, or was when I tested it (and when I say "tested", I mean with a densitometer, not just eyeballing it).
Sixth, ISO speeds are not necessarily the optima for exposure: they are merely a highly standardized way of comparing speeds. They are not perfect, but they are a lot better than relying on the marketing department. All manufacturers tell you to adjust your film speed and development regime to suit your own requirements and preferences. I commonly develop Ilford HP5 in Ilford DD-X, true ISO 500+, but expose it as if it were ISO 400 because I prefer the tonality.
Seventh, the optimum speed for your meter will depend on how you are metering. If I use a true one-degree spot meter and meter the darkest area in which I want texture, I rate HP5 in DD-X at 500. If I'm using an in-camera meter on a cloudy day, I'll use 320-400. If it's a sunny day, I'll use 250-320. Of course I don't actually change the ISO: I just make different allowances when setting the shutter speed and aperture.
To sum up, the true ISO speeds of some films are indeed slightly different from the speeds on the box (third highlight) -- but this is absolutely nothing to do with using different shadow detail criteria or different contrasts, and as I said before, to maintain that it does betrays an ignorance of how ISO speeds are determined.
I hope this clarifies matters.
Cheers,
R.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Fotohuis
Well-known
Yes, a very interesting topic. I am glad I have a densitometer to recalculate all iso speeds with a particular developer. In general the best data is the manufacturer data and then do the rest of the job yourself. Digital Truth is full of errors .....
mfogiel
Veteran
For RPX 100 I expose at EI 64 and develop in 10cc of Acurol N in a 900cc tank. 8 minc at 20C with 30sec continuous agitation and 5 sec quick inversions every 30 secs thereafter. If you wet print, you can develop 1 minute longer. I believe I made a test roll of RPX 100 exposing between EI16 and EI 2000. I've developed at the same dilution for 20 minutes at 24C with 30sec+5sec every 5 mins. All shots could be scanned without huge problems, although the range EI 32-500 worked best. This is a VERY easy film-developer combo.
Fotohuis
Well-known
For your favorite PX 125 I can suggest: Try Kodak 5222 Double-X. iso 100 in an ultra fine grain developer and possible to expose on iso 800 in a speed enhancing type developer like Microphen. Average iso 250 in daylight and really flexible like Tri-X 400 but much cheaper.
For Rollei RPX I can suggest try the Rollei RPX-D developer, also made by SPUR for Rollei. It is a perfect match!
Because it seems to be you are developing in a Jobo system on 24C RPX-D is then very easy to use.
Acurol-N seems to be giving ultra high sharpness with speed loss. A kind of FX-1 but not suitable for all films.
For Rollei RPX I can suggest try the Rollei RPX-D developer, also made by SPUR for Rollei. It is a perfect match!
Because it seems to be you are developing in a Jobo system on 24C RPX-D is then very easy to use.
Acurol-N seems to be giving ultra high sharpness with speed loss. A kind of FX-1 but not suitable for all films.
ashfaque
Learning
RPX 25 with Acurol-N or HRX
RPX 25 with Acurol-N or HRX
Hi John,
I don't have my negatives (, and other things) near me now. But I can offer my non-scientific and qualitative impression of RPX 25 now:
(1) Contrast of RPX 25 is not as tough to control as Retro 80S's is, regardless of which developer I used (HRX, Acurol-N, R09).
(2) Grain is very similar to Retro 80s - s.t. SPUR HRX. If you want some resolution numbers check this post from Henning.
(4) Concerning Acurol-N + RPX 25 combination : I exposed them at ISO 25, instead of 20. Under a Kaiser Slimlite LED Light Box (Model # 2448), I liked the results. They are a bit on the high contrast side, but ok for me.
(3) You can expose this film at ISO 50 as well. See R. Puhle's post here, where he liked the outcome @ ISO 50 with HRX. However, please read Heribert's response there as well.
BTW, I translated RPX 25's tech. datasheet in English with the help of Uwe Pilz. Hope you find it useful.
Bests,
Ashfaque
RPX 25 with Acurol-N or HRX
Hi John,
I don't have my negatives (, and other things) near me now. But I can offer my non-scientific and qualitative impression of RPX 25 now:
(1) Contrast of RPX 25 is not as tough to control as Retro 80S's is, regardless of which developer I used (HRX, Acurol-N, R09).
(2) Grain is very similar to Retro 80s - s.t. SPUR HRX. If you want some resolution numbers check this post from Henning.
(4) Concerning Acurol-N + RPX 25 combination : I exposed them at ISO 25, instead of 20. Under a Kaiser Slimlite LED Light Box (Model # 2448), I liked the results. They are a bit on the high contrast side, but ok for me.
(3) You can expose this film at ISO 50 as well. See R. Puhle's post here, where he liked the outcome @ ISO 50 with HRX. However, please read Heribert's response there as well.
BTW, I translated RPX 25's tech. datasheet in English with the help of Uwe Pilz. Hope you find it useful.
Bests,
Ashfaque
JPSuisse
Well-known
Hi Ashfaque, thanks so much for these comments before I try using this combination! Looking at all my obligations, looks like I'll be posting some samples late May or early June!
By the way, my German is pretty good and your translation looks quite good to me. So, congrats on that!
Regards, John
By the way, my German is pretty good and your translation looks quite good to me. So, congrats on that!
Regards, John
JPSuisse
Well-known
So, finally back on this project. Just developed some RETRO 80S at EI 20. Will post on Saturday...
Mfogiel, when you say 10cc of ACUROL-N, do you mean 1+24?
Mfogiel, when you say 10cc of ACUROL-N, do you mean 1+24?
albireo
Established
Apologies for reviving an old thread.
I would be interested in testing Spur Acurol N to develop my Fomapan 100 and 200 medium format negatives.
I use with satisfaction Fomadon R09 (Foma's Rodinal recipe) and enjoy the results in my hybrid workflow (I develop but can't print, so I scan and process in the digital realm).
I'm quite happy with Rodinal but I heard that Acurol-N can be considered as having all the good traits of Rodinal and none of the bad ones, hence my curiosity.
I cannot find a Fomapan 200+Acurol-N recipe on digitaltruth so I'd have to experiment, unless someone has experience with the combo.
Any help/suggestions appreciated.
I would be interested in testing Spur Acurol N to develop my Fomapan 100 and 200 medium format negatives.
I use with satisfaction Fomadon R09 (Foma's Rodinal recipe) and enjoy the results in my hybrid workflow (I develop but can't print, so I scan and process in the digital realm).
I'm quite happy with Rodinal but I heard that Acurol-N can be considered as having all the good traits of Rodinal and none of the bad ones, hence my curiosity.
I cannot find a Fomapan 200+Acurol-N recipe on digitaltruth so I'd have to experiment, unless someone has experience with the combo.
Any help/suggestions appreciated.
Fotohuis
Well-known
For the FP100 (E.I. 80) I would stay on R09/Rodinal. For the FP200 (E.I. 160) Xtol or Foma's Fomadon Excel W27 (a Xtol clone) is a very good choice. When printing in a classical way I would also recommend Pyrocat-HDC (Sandy King) however less suitable for scanning.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
My frustration with Spur Acurol N is that you have to pull the film to get the best out of it.
The other problem is it does not last remotely as well as Rodinal and two films of mine were horribly under-developed in 9 months old (open with a third used - it was dark like Rodinal) Acurol N. As it rarely gets use from me, most ended up being wasted and I hate developing errors.
The other problem is it does not last remotely as well as Rodinal and two films of mine were horribly under-developed in 9 months old (open with a third used - it was dark like Rodinal) Acurol N. As it rarely gets use from me, most ended up being wasted and I hate developing errors.
albireo
Established
Hi both, thanks for your reply.
Fotohuis - yes I really like Fomadon Excel, use it all the time, especially with Foma 400. I find powder developers somewhat inconvenient, though, and tend to prefer concentrated ones at the moment.
Back to Spur Acurol-N: I decided to go ahead and test the Acurol-N, mostly out of curiosity. I purchased a small bottle of the product, which came with a data sheet with processing & handling recommendations, including film-specific ones.
Interestingly, the data sheet has data for Fomapan 200, too. I tend to use Fomadon R09 exclusively at 1+50, and the corresponding Acurol-N recipe for Fomapan 200, according to the data sheet, is as follows:
-Temperature: 20 C degrees
-Inversion plan: 30 sec permanently, then two inversions (for 120 film) x minute
-Film speed: 125 ISO
-Time: 11 minutes
I was a bit surprised about the indication to expose at 125 ISO. I routinely expose Foma 200 in R09 at 160 or box speed, without problems. I decided to stick to the above, anyway, and exposed at 125EI.
@CharlesDAMorgan - as I understand it this is what you found when you mentioned you dislike the fact that the film must be pulled to work with this developer?
Anyway, I have just finished processing the test film and immediately after hanging the film to dry I noticed something odd - the extreme contrast of the negatives. Highlights appear very dense, and shadows almost transparent, though both extremes seem to somewhat retain some detail.
I have not significantly altered any other variables in my shooting (same camera I used before, same metering, incident via a Sekonic meter). I wonder if it's a problem of overdevelopment, overagitation, poor metering on my side, or a combination of the above. Thing is, I've never seen such contrast on my negatives before, using foma film and Fomadon R09/LQN/Excel developers.
I attach a sample film strip to hopefully clarify:
Of the three test shots shown, the one I'm more confident about is n.8 (N.5 and n.6/7 were shot in rather contrasty conditions, and I can't exclude a large metering error on my side). I have scanned and inverted n.8 using my standard workflow and this is what I can come up with
The white building (top-right) does retain some detail, however it's very grainy - I wonder if this is due to my scanner being unable to fully 'penetrate' the sooty black mass in the negative and returning a 'noisy' scan?
Anyhow, I'm sure I can improve on the development side - should I try reducing development to 10 minutes? Any other recommendations welcome.
Fotohuis - yes I really like Fomadon Excel, use it all the time, especially with Foma 400. I find powder developers somewhat inconvenient, though, and tend to prefer concentrated ones at the moment.
Back to Spur Acurol-N: I decided to go ahead and test the Acurol-N, mostly out of curiosity. I purchased a small bottle of the product, which came with a data sheet with processing & handling recommendations, including film-specific ones.
Interestingly, the data sheet has data for Fomapan 200, too. I tend to use Fomadon R09 exclusively at 1+50, and the corresponding Acurol-N recipe for Fomapan 200, according to the data sheet, is as follows:
-Temperature: 20 C degrees
-Inversion plan: 30 sec permanently, then two inversions (for 120 film) x minute
-Film speed: 125 ISO
-Time: 11 minutes
I was a bit surprised about the indication to expose at 125 ISO. I routinely expose Foma 200 in R09 at 160 or box speed, without problems. I decided to stick to the above, anyway, and exposed at 125EI.
@CharlesDAMorgan - as I understand it this is what you found when you mentioned you dislike the fact that the film must be pulled to work with this developer?
Anyway, I have just finished processing the test film and immediately after hanging the film to dry I noticed something odd - the extreme contrast of the negatives. Highlights appear very dense, and shadows almost transparent, though both extremes seem to somewhat retain some detail.
I have not significantly altered any other variables in my shooting (same camera I used before, same metering, incident via a Sekonic meter). I wonder if it's a problem of overdevelopment, overagitation, poor metering on my side, or a combination of the above. Thing is, I've never seen such contrast on my negatives before, using foma film and Fomadon R09/LQN/Excel developers.
I attach a sample film strip to hopefully clarify:
Of the three test shots shown, the one I'm more confident about is n.8 (N.5 and n.6/7 were shot in rather contrasty conditions, and I can't exclude a large metering error on my side). I have scanned and inverted n.8 using my standard workflow and this is what I can come up with
The white building (top-right) does retain some detail, however it's very grainy - I wonder if this is due to my scanner being unable to fully 'penetrate' the sooty black mass in the negative and returning a 'noisy' scan?
Anyhow, I'm sure I can improve on the development side - should I try reducing development to 10 minutes? Any other recommendations welcome.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
Yes to your question Albireo, it's the shooting at lower than box speed that cuts its use for me - which leads to the developer ageing faster than I'd like.
I would experiment with 30 secs less to start with. The bulk of the photo is really nicely developed, but the highlights are too dense on the negative.
I would experiment with 30 secs less to start with. The bulk of the photo is really nicely developed, but the highlights are too dense on the negative.
albireo
Established
Thanks for this Charles. I will try as you suggest and report back.
Interesting that you found this doesn't last nearly as long as advertised. Shelf life seems to be one of the selling points of the product - the data sheet suggests this should remain stable for 3/4 years 'sealed in its original bottle', though I'm not sure whether here sealed means unopened or not.
In any case - I will experiment some more and report back. Would love to hear other users' opinion on this, too.
Interesting that you found this doesn't last nearly as long as advertised. Shelf life seems to be one of the selling points of the product - the data sheet suggests this should remain stable for 3/4 years 'sealed in its original bottle', though I'm not sure whether here sealed means unopened or not.
In any case - I will experiment some more and report back. Would love to hear other users' opinion on this, too.
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I think sealed it would last 3/4 years, but unsealed as mine was with about a quarter used, it really was exhausted.
By coincidence I found the Acurol N development time chart and it gives likely contrast too - at 11 minutes for 200 shot at 125 it is listed as high contrast. Add in a very high contrast scene and I suspect your highlights have been totally overdeveloped. Doing a google, someone who uses Acurol for Foma 100 shot at 50 suggested much shorter times than Acurol give.
Anyway, in the light of that, I'd try it at 1 minute less on a high contrast scene, and see how you get on!
By coincidence I found the Acurol N development time chart and it gives likely contrast too - at 11 minutes for 200 shot at 125 it is listed as high contrast. Add in a very high contrast scene and I suspect your highlights have been totally overdeveloped. Doing a google, someone who uses Acurol for Foma 100 shot at 50 suggested much shorter times than Acurol give.
Anyway, in the light of that, I'd try it at 1 minute less on a high contrast scene, and see how you get on!