 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 2004Acutol vs. Rodinal
I'm familiar with Rodinal and was just wondering if Paterson's Acutol is similar, or a different bird altogether. AFAIK they are two different species. Jorge aldenphoto@aol.com (Ken Smith) wrote in news:eb5d68c1.0403221315.50de0c92 @posting.google.com: > I'm familiar with Rodinal and was just wondering if Paterson's Acutol > is similar, or a different bird altogether. > AFAIK they are two different species. > > Jorge Anyone care to address their relative differences? I'm getting ready to do some film/dev. calibrations for FP4 (120) and have been considering these 2. As it stands, I may stick to D76, which is what I've used for HP5+ (35mm). I'd welcome any opinions. SH > > AFAIK they are two different species. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I've used for HP5+ (35mm). I'd welcome any opinions. > SH Acutol is far superior to D76 or Rodinal. Not even close. Try 1+14 for about 7-8 minutes, depending on whether you use a condenser enlarger or diffusion. > I'm familiar with Rodinal and was just wondering if Paterson's Acutol > is similar, or a different bird altogether. Acutol is a completely differnt kind of formulation, and is vastly superior to Rodinal. > From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) > Organization: http://groups.google.com [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Acutol is a completely differnt kind of formulation, and is vastly > superior to Rodinal. Hey! Some guy named Hans Beckert is saying the exact thing on Photo.net. Isn't that a coincidence! Do you know that guy, Hans? err, I mean, do you know Hans, Mike? > > From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) > > Organization: http://groups.google.com [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Do you know that guy, Hans? err, I mean, do you know Hans, Mike? Great minds think alike. Parallel univerities. A Rolling Stone is Bill Wyman. > From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) > Organization: http://groups.google.com [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Great minds think alike. Yep, same arrogance covering up for a poor understanding of photographic materials. Too bad so many newbies have had to be corrected after receiving your faulty advice. C'mon Mike/Hans, don't be such a slimy little pussy! 'fess up! What is your real name? Rumor has it several moderators are thinking of banning you completely from Photo.net. That would make sense, as less dogma and inaccurate information are always striven for. But please, please Mike/Hans, post that poorly exposed, badly composed, and unsightly rhino picture again! Nothing like a real life example of your skills. > > From: mikescarpitti@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) > > Organization: http://groups.google.com [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > unsightly rhino picture again! Nothing like a real life example of your > skills. Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. How bout the guy with the understanding of photographic materials? Both Acutol and Rodinal are considered accuntence developers, so what's the difference? I ask because B&H cannot ship Rodinal, and I'm in the boonies. Day Four and counting. > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Day Four and counting. Ever try these guys? http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=9&CategoryID= 31&langID=0 They make a Rodinal version and you can also buy the parts and make it yourself. > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. Agreed. With Richard, Michael and so many others gone, it's hardly worth the bother anymore. Unfortunately what is left are a few with more opinions than facts. > How bout the guy with the understanding of photographic materials? A vanishing breed. > Both Acutol and Rodinal are considered accuntence developers, so what's > the difference? I ask because B&H cannot ship Rodinal, and I'm in the boonies. Unfortunately I've never used Acutol but from the comments I've read I wouldn't put it in the same group of formulas as Rodinal. More like Microphen/ID-68. Slight speed increase and an increase in granularity when compared with D-76. > Day Four and counting. Don't let the lack of good contribution annoy you so. It's not worth it. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > Both Acutol and Rodinal are considered accuntence developers, so what's > the difference? I ask because B&H cannot ship Rodinal, and I'm in the boonies. BTW, why don't you just mix your own ? Make a concentrated D23 and dilute to your preference. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email I've never used Acutol, but I will give you my viewpoint (straight...) Acutol was formulated by Crawley, of FX-1, FX-2, etc fame, so it's a modern developer, quite possibly with the same accutance but less grainy than Rodinal (I've used Rodinal with 35mm film for grain effects). If you consider less grain important, go for Acutol. If you do not, and want the Rodinal look, J&C (http://www.jandcphotography.com/) will ship the R09, stated as an pre- WW2 version of Rodinal, made in the ex-western Germany. Pick your choice. Jorge > Both Acutol and Rodinal are considered accuntence developers, so > what's the difference? I ask because B&H cannot ship Rodinal, and > I'm in the boonies. > > Day Four and counting. > I've never used Acutol, but I will give you my viewpoint (straight...) > Acutol was formulated by Crawley, of FX-1, FX-2, etc fame, so it's a [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > Day Four and counting. Acutol is quite different chemically and in its effects from FX-1 or FX-2. It does not compress mid-tones the way those do. It is sharper and finer-grained than Rodinal. [---] >If you do not, and want the Rodinal look, J&C >(http://www.jandcphotography.com/) will ship the R09, stated as an pre- >WW2 version of Rodinal, made in the ex-western Germany. I though R09 was made by Calbe, which is in the former East Germany. > [---] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I though R09 was made by Calbe, which is in the former East Germany. Ok, Ive messed eastern with western... Jorge > [---] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I though R09 was made by Calbe, which is in the former East Germany. Hello:-) There is also a Rodinal version made by Foma from Czech Republic, Fomadon R09. http://www.foma.cz I've used it for a year or two. The bottle I once bought had been out of date for a year but it worked well, for half the price;-) It's great with APX100 and works fine with other films. I've used it mainly in 1:100 dilution, and times for Rodinal. I've also tried Acutol recently, but I haven't made many prints from TMY and FP4+ developed with it, so I won't comment it and compare with R09. Regards, Blazej Malachowski > There is also a Rodinal version made by Foma from Czech Republic, Fomadon > R09. btw have you tried fomadon w27? can you share any subjective comments? -- ian green Xeto : photo & graphic project http://xeto.front.ru . Don't you just love these "better than" conversation that never show outcomes? Killfile 'em all. > Don't you just love these "better than" conversation that never show > outcomes? Killfile 'em all. i would just love the idea to try myself all this precious (spelling?) stuff discussing here but .... so i'm reading everything on this subject checking opinions regarding thing available to me should i shut up? -- ian green Xeto : photo & graphic project http://xeto.front.ru . > > There is also a Rodinal version made by Foma from Czech Republic, Fomadon > > R09. > > btw have you tried fomadon w27? > can you share any subjective comments? I'm just about to buy it:-) From what I've heard, it hasn't been available in Poland for some time, but now it seems to be. I've read that it's a copy of X-tol. A friend of my recommended W-27 with Neopan 400. Besides R09, I also tried W-17, a copy of Microphen, but just twice. Regards, Blazej Malachowski > > > There is also a Rodinal version made by Foma from Czech Republic, > Fomadon > > > R09. does it have the discussed here famous rodinal longivity? what can you say about grain? > > btw have you tried fomadon w27? > > I'm just about to buy it:-) From what I've heard, it hasn't been available > in Poland for some time, but now it seems to be. I've read that it's a copy > of X-tol. A friend of my recommended W-27 with Neopan 400. x-tol? so i have 1 thing less to try.... neopan is fuji? > Besides R09, I also tried W-17, a copy of Microphen, but just twice. something wrong with it? > Regards, > Blazej Malachowski i'm using bulk fomapan 100 film with foma chemistry fomadon excel + fomafix rapid tried fomapan 400 but disliked it for "pale" & "soft grainy" (after 100 ;)) look thanks for info -- ian green Xeto : photo & graphic project http://xeto.front.ru . > > > > There is also a Rodinal version made by Foma from Czech Republic, > > Fomadon > > > > R09. > > does it have the discussed here famous rodinal longivity? > what can you say about grain? It seems to have. Mine was kept in half full bottle for a couple of months and still worked. The second bottle's expiration date was around 2002, but my friend tested it recently. Everything's ok. Grain from Ilfordpan 400 is hardly visible on a 13x18cm print(usually I don't enlarge more). It's sharp. > > > btw have you tried fomadon w27? > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > x-tol? so i have 1 thing less to try.... > neopan is fuji? Yes, Fuji Neopan. > > Besides R09, I also tried W-17, a copy of Microphen, but just twice. > > something wrong with it? I don't know, it was my first developer ever used:-), but then I sticked to R09, because of convenience. > > Regards, > > Blazej Malachowski [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tried fomapan 400 but disliked it for "pale" & "soft grainy" (after 100 ;)) > look :-) What about storing Fomadon Excel? Did you have any problems? > thanks for info You're welcome. Blazej > > i'm using bulk fomapan 100 film with foma chemistry > > fomadon excel + fomafix rapid > > tried fomapan 400 but disliked it for "pale" & "soft grainy" (after 100 ;)) look > :-) What about storing Fomadon Excel? Did you have any problems? i'm too short (greedy?) of chemicals so i can't test it really the only thing i'm sure about it: it works the same after been stored at 20C/dark/plastic-bottle for 2 weeks here (moscow) they're selling it in 1L boxes it's really "fine grain" at least compared to common local developer -- ian green Xeto : photo & graphic project http://xeto.front.ru . > > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. > > How bout the guy with the understanding of photographic materials? Here! > Both Acutol and Rodinal are considered accuntence developers, so what's > the difference? I ask because B&H cannot ship Rodinal, and I'm in the boonies. > > Day Four and counting. Rodinal was formulated in 1881, and is composed of para-aminophenol developing agent activated by potassium hydroxide, and is quite stable for a long period of time. It is not a very 'refined' developer, and is not optimized for modern films. Acutol dates from 1961, and is optimized for modern conventional films. Acutol uses Metol and hydroquinone, and perhaps phenidone. It offers finer grain, more speed, better sharpness, and better tonality than Rodinal. Rodinal is better-known, but inferior. > Rodinal is better-known, but inferior. Actually that is not true - again. Rodinal offers bigger (maybe even sharper) grain, better tonality (as you can see, this is 100% subjective), more shelf life, much more capacity, is cheaper to use and availability is very good. And for larger negatives the acutance and sharpness is completely sufficient for all situations. Whether a photo is good or not depends totally on other things... Whether it is better or worse than some other developer is up to the user in question - up to his/her preferences. This is not that black and white as you allways seem to think :) Severi S. >Actually that is not true - again. Rodinal offers bigger (maybe even >sharper) grain, better tonality (as you can see, this is 100% >subjective), more shelf life, much more capacity, is cheaper to use and >availability is very good. Don't forget versatility. Rodinal can be used to develop Tech Pan and other high contrast films when used at the 1:100 dilution. Also it has been reported to work as a good warm-tone paper developer when used at the 1:4 dilutions. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > >Actually that is not true - again. Rodinal offers bigger (maybe even > >sharper) grain, better tonality (as you can see, this is 100% [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Also it has been reported to work as a good warm-tone paper developer > when used at the 1:4 dilutions. Acutol can also be used with TechPan, when diluted suitably. > > Rodinal is better-known, but inferior. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > sharpness is completely sufficient for all situations. Whether a photo > is good or not depends totally on other things... 'Cheaper' I grant, but nought else. Acutol is superior to Rodinal in all other respects. Do a comparison yourself and see. > Whether it is better or worse than some other developer is up to the > user in question - up to his/her preferences. This is not that black and > white as you allways seem to think :) > > Severi S. On 3/27/2004 10:53 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: >> > Rodinal is better-known, but inferior. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 'Cheaper' I grant, but nought else. Acutol is superior to Rodinal in > all other respects. Do a comparison yourself and see. OK. Gauntlet thrown down. Anyone want to do some tests?  Signature... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered to make his own case on his own show. - Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show on CNBC (3/17/04) : On 3/27/2004 10:53 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: : > Severi Salminen <severi.salminen@NOT_THISsiba.fi> wrote in message : > news:<GOY8c.228$G57.213@read3.inet.fi>... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : > 'Cheaper' I grant, but nought else. Acutol is superior to Rodinal in : > all other respects. Do a comparison yourself and see. : OK. Gauntlet thrown down. Anyone want to do some tests? No. Since scarpitti says acutol is superior to rodinal I'm going to take it as a matter of faith that rodinal is superior in every way. There two reasons for this. The first is that I've seen prints made from 4x5 negatives enlarged to 16x20 and the results needed to be seen to be believed. The second is scarpitti's track record. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : On 3/27/2004 10:53 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > enlarged to 16x20 and the results needed to be seen to be believed. The > second is scarpitti's track record. Bush is better than Kerry. On 3/27/2004 9:05 PM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > Bush is better than Kerry. Now you're *really* trolling, buddy. Signature... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered to make his own case on his own show. - Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show on CNBC (3/17/04) : > : On 3/27/2004 10:53 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: : > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] : > enlarged to 16x20 and the results needed to be seen to be believed. The : > second is scarpitti's track record. : Bush is better than Kerry. That's the first thing that you've been right about for many months. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com > : > : On 3/27/2004 10:53 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > That's the first thing that you've been right about for many months. Oh, really? I thought evrything I said was wrong. : > : > : On 3/27/2004 10:53 AM Michael Scarpitti spake thus: : > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] : > : > That's the first thing that you've been right about for many months. : Oh, really? I thought evrything I said was wrong. It came as a shock to me also. Then again even a stopped is right twice a day. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com On 3/28/2004 3:04 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > Michael Scarpitti <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> trolled thusly: > > : Bush is better than Kerry. > > That's the first thing that you've been right about for many months. Lessee: no WMD in Iraq. No connection between Iraq and 9/11. Haven't caught Bin Laden. Now we hear *from his own "antiterrorism" chief that he was basically asleep at the switch. Let his buddies at Halliburton get rich off the war in Iraq. Economy going down the toilet (spending down one of the biggest *surpluses* in U.S. history). Underlings at the White House are starting to trip over each other's lies. So just how far are you, Mr. Frank Lemming, willing to follow our Fearless Leader over the cliff? Oh, I forgot; you're a robot, an automaton who takes orders from the likes of R. Limbaugh, M. Savage et al. Never mind. Signature... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered to make his own case on his own show. - Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show on CNBC (3/17/04) The sad part is that you know that this is a troll and still couldn't resist taking the bait. Although there's no way to know for sure but I'll bet more libs listen to Rush the conservatives. I personally ave up on Rush 6-8 years ago when I decided that he was far to liberal for my liking. I don't listen much anymore and I never go out of my way to listen to his show. A lot of my conservative friends feel the same way. Nice try at projection though. : On 3/28/2004 3:04 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: : > Michael Scarpitti <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> trolled thusly: : > : > : Bush is better than Kerry. : > : > That's the first thing that you've been right about for many months. : Lessee: no WMD in Iraq. No connection between Iraq and 9/11. Haven't caught : Bin Laden. Now we hear *from his own "antiterrorism" chief that he was : basically asleep at the switch. Let his buddies at Halliburton get rich off : the war in Iraq. Economy going down the toilet (spending down one of the : biggest *surpluses* in U.S. history). Underlings at the White House are : starting to trip over each other's lies. : So just how far are you, Mr. Frank Lemming, willing to follow our Fearless : Leader over the cliff? : Oh, I forgot; you're a robot, an automaton who takes orders from the likes of : R. Limbaugh, M. Savage et al. Never mind. : - Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show : on CNBC (3/17/04) SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com On 3/28/2004 1:30 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: > The sad part is that you know that this is a troll and still couldn't > resist taking the bait. Well, no: actually, I was responding to *you*, who is the one with the bait and hook still in his mouth. > Although there's no way to know for sure but I'll bet more libs listen to > Rush the conservatives. I personally ave up on Rush 6-8 years ago when I > decided that he was far to liberal for my liking. I don't listen much > anymore and I never go out of my way to listen to his show. A lot of my > conservative friends feel the same way. Nice try at projection though. You took exception to a side issue but still didn't answer my question, which is how far you're willing to buy the lies and deceptions and incompetencies of the administration you support. > : On 3/28/2004 3:04 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > : Oh, I forgot; you're a robot, an automaton who takes orders from the > likes of : R. Limbaugh, M. Savage et al. Never mind. Signature... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered to make his own case on his own show. - Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show on CNBC (3/17/04) C'mon...stick to the subject matter...we get enough poltics via the media...I don't want to be innoculated with it here!!! >On 3/28/2004 3:04 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Oh, I forgot; you're a robot, an automaton who takes orders from the likes of >R. Limbaugh, M. Savage et al. Never mind. >we get enough poltics via the media.. We do ? Regards, John (Who doesn't listen to the radio much, TV at all and doesn't tolerate lying, thieving, stealing politicians. >(spending down one of the biggest *surpluses* in U.S. history) Yeah. "Surpluses". Pure bunk. The debt:$7,138,130,405,174.85. Your share:$24,307.66. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > On 3/28/2004 3:04 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Oh, I forgot; you're a robot, an automaton who takes orders from the likes of > R. Limbaugh, M. Savage et al. Never mind. Are you really so dense as this? I'm appalled anyone who can read and write would be so blind. You guys lost me....but I tried to develop the truth in Bushinal but it was way toooo grainy and not very sharp. moda > > On 3/28/2004 3:04 AM Frank Pittel spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Are you really so dense as this? I'm appalled anyone who can read and > write would be so blind. >: Bush is better than Kerry. > >That's the first thing that you've been right about for many months. The better what is the question. They're both politicians. The lowest scum on the planet. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > > Actually that is not true - again. Rodinal offers bigger (maybe even > > sharper) grain, better tonality (as you can see, this is 100% [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'Cheaper' I grant, but nought else. Acutol is superior to Rodinal in > all other respects. Do a comparison yourself and see. So you only agree on cost. Ok, let me see... Are you saying that the next _is_ true (it is the opposite what I wrote above): 1. Rodinal gives smaller grain than Acutol. - I think you said yourself that _Acutol_ gives smaller grain. Go figure... 2. Acutol can be used when diluted to 1 + 200 or even more. - Looking at Paterson site they only list 1+19 as a usable dilution. I'd be surprised if 1 + 200 works well. Does it? 3. Acutol lasts longer than (say) 15 years in opened bottle. 4. A 500ml bottle of Acutol can process over 100 films. - Well, if 5ml of Actol is enough for one roll of film, then it is possible. That would also need about 1 + 50 dilution. 5. Acutol can be bought from Anttila here in Finland. - I know it can't... So again I must say that you are wrong. Rodinal is actually superior to Acutol and I encourage everyone to at least try it. Severi S. > > > Actually that is not true - again. Rodinal offers bigger (maybe even > > > sharper) grain, better tonality (as you can see, this is 100% [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - I think you said yourself that _Acutol_ gives smaller grain. Go figure... Correct. Acutol gives finer grain than Rodinal. > 2. Acutol can be used when diluted to 1 + 200 or even more. No, the range is 1+9 to about 1+25 or so. > - Looking at Paterson site they only list 1+19 as a usable dilution. I'd be > surprised if 1 + 200 works well. Does it? It is not suitable for that dilution, except perhaps with TechPan or similar films. > 3. Acutol lasts longer than (say) 15 years in opened bottle. Rodinal is very stable. Acutol is like most other metol-htdroquinone developers. > 4. A 500ml bottle of Acutol can process over 100 films. > > - Well, if 5ml of Actol is enough for one roll of film, then it is possible. > That would also need about 1 + 50 dilution. Buy the 1000ml bottles. > 5. Acutol can be bought from Anttila here in Finland. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Severi S. Superior in what way? Cheapness? Longevity? These are not photographically significant features. > > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Day Four and counting. Pardoni, that's acutance. Where was my mind? > > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. If it is not a p-aminophenol, Rodinal, type it is most likely a a metol, FX-1 - Beutler, type. A little sulfite, metol, and carbonate and you're set to go. Dan > > > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. > > If it is not a p-aminophenol, Rodinal, type it is most likely a > a metol, FX-1 - Beutler, type. > A little sulfite, metol, and carbonate and you're set to go. Dan Acutol is not based on FX-1, it has hydroquinone, metol, etc.... Acutol-S (also known as FX 15) is a solvent developer based on Metol, hydroquinone, and Phenidone. It is derived from D-76. The current Acutol may be a slightly different beast, but I suspect it shares the heritage. The properties are similar, but it is supposed to have better sharpness, which may mean less solvent. Traditional Rodinol is a non-solvent, p-aminiphenol based developer. The commercially available version from Agfa is proprietary, and it probably differs from the published formulas. Non-solvent developers tend to be somewhat sharper than solvent developers, but they have much more noticeable grain. Both Acutol and FX 15 have excellent sharpness, however (as does D-76). I feel the solvent developers give a smoother tonality, and I prefer them, but that's a personal choice. > > Good Grief, try and get a simple answer out of this group anymore. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Pardoni, that's acutance. Where was my mind? > Acutol-S (also known as FX 15) is a solvent developer based on Metol, > hydroquinone, and Phenidone. It is derived from D-76. The current Acutol [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > excellent sharpness, however (as does D-76). I feel the solvent developers > give a smoother tonality, and I prefer them, but that's a personal choice. Acutol preceded Acutol-S. I first used Acutol in the 60's IIRC. Acutol is not FX-15. I think it's formula is still proprietary. There is no unique connection between solvent content and smoothness or granularity or sharpness. A sulfite-free developer may have all those qualities. > > Acutol-S (also known as FX 15) is a solvent developer based on Metol, > > hydroquinone, and Phenidone. It is derived from D-76. The current Acutol [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > granularity or sharpness. A sulfite-free developer may have all those > qualities. Acutol-S is no longer available, and was similar to the published formula FX-15. Acutol and Acutol-S are not related except in name. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.