Paterson Aculux?

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

mr. chip - 04 Nov 2004 00:51 GMT

Hello everyone.

Can anyone who has used Aculux share their experiences with it? What are
it's characteristics? I've used ID11/D76 in the past and have more recently
been using Xtol. How does it compare to those?

Thanks,

Simon.

Reply to this Message

Uranium Committee - 04 Nov 2004 15:39 GMT

> Hello everyone.
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Simon.

I used it some last spring. It's a fine-grain developer that does not
give very high speeds. It's a little sharper than D-76 with similar
grain and speed. What films are you using most?

Reply to this Message

mr. chip - 04 Nov 2004 15:57 GMT

> > Hello everyone.
> >
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> give very high speeds. It's a little sharper than D-76 with similar
> grain and speed. What films are you using most?

Pan F, Plus X, Acros, and SFX mainly.

Neopan 400 or Delta 3200 if I need the speed, Konica or Maco if I fancy a
bit of infrared.

And in medium format wherever I can.

Any experiences with the other Paterson developers would be appreciated too.
I'm clueless about them.

Simon.

Reply to this Message

Uranium Committee - 04 Nov 2004 23:22 GMT

> > "mr. chip" <simon@crinklechip.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<cmbqtf$7ld$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Simon.

FX-39 is designed for Ilford Delta films, and offers a little more
contrast, but less shadow speed, than Acutol. For conventional films,
Acutol is preferable. Aculux-2 is the fine-grain developer. I can send
you my personalized development times if you'd like. The ones supplied
by Paterson are horribly inaccurate, as are the times supplied by many
firms.

Reply to this Message