 |
 | 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 / October 2005Paterson Acutol.
In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey Crawley called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest issue, he describes a constituent called Metoquinone as follows: METOQUINONE: An addition compound of two molecules of Metol & one molecule of Hydroquinone which was introduced by the Lumiere & Sejewetz firm in 1903. This has a high image-to-fog ratio and is the basis of Acutol B&W film developer. I wonder what other components go into the Acutol concentrate as the MSDS is very sparse. > In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey Crawley > called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest issue, he > describes a constituent called Metoquinone as follows: I assume you realise that Geoffrey Crawley is the inventor of a whole series of developers, prefixed by "FX". Many were published in the BJ Photographic Almanacs or Year Books; apart from those which were sold commercially such as Acutol, and FX-39.  SignatureM Stewart Milton Keynes, UK http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm Yes I am familiar with the independent FX formulae of Geoffrey Crawley, this particular paragraph mentions Metoquinone as being the basis of Acutol, which is the oldest of the Paterson range of film developers designed by Crawley. Thank you for replying Malcolm. >> In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey > Crawley [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Almanacs or Year Books; apart from those which were sold commercially such > as Acutol, and FX-39. >In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey Crawley >called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest issue, he [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Metoquinone sounds elegant, is mentioned but pretty well dismissed (or perhaps dismythed) in "The Theory of the Photographic Process, and I can't find any real difference in performance between Acutol and PC-TEA, which in case you missed it is 0.2 g phenidone and 10 g ascorbic or isoascorbic acid dissolved in hot triethanolamine (TEA) to make 100 ml. Dilute it 1 part plus 50 parts of water. Your stuff is not as good as Acutol, and you know it. > >In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey Crawley > >called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest issue, he [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > isoascorbic acid dissolved in hot triethanolamine (TEA) to make 100 ml. > Dilute it 1 part plus 50 parts of water. >Your stuff is not as good as Acutol, and you know it. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > That's not what you said when I sent you a sample of PC-TEA and the results of a comparison I did. You said "I didn't think they would be that close." I have used both, you know. I have some of that same batch of Acutol on my shelf. Do you suppose it will still have the activity that the PC-TEA from the same batch has? > >Your stuff is not as good as Acutol, and you know it. > That's not what you said when I sent you a sample of PC-TEA and the > results of a comparison I did. You said "I didn't think they would be > that close." I have used both, you know. I have some of that same batch > of Acutol on my shelf. Do you suppose it will still have the activity > that the PC-TEA from the same batch has? Yes, close is not 'as ggood', now is it? Close, but no cigar. The results I saw from your developers did not induce me to try them. I prefer the Paterson products, which are fairly inexpensive. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I don't think you ever saw any results from my developers. If you didn't even try the sample I sent, how do you know what you might have got out of PC-TEA? Anyway, close could be on either side. After they have both sat for a while in a partially full bottle, you will find them different enough. At any rate, the efficacy of metoquinone cannot be the difference if PC-TEA has no metol, now can it? Or maybe phenidone is just not as good as metol? Or ascorbic acid is just not as good as hydroquinone? If you like Acutol, go ahead and use it. Because you like it doesn't prove that metoquinone is the optimum developing agent. : > : > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] : hydroquinone? If you like Acutol, go ahead and use it. Because you like : it doesn't prove that metoquinone is the optimum developing agent. Ignore the troll!! Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you I looked at the negatives. That was enough. There was no reason, based on what I saw, for me to pursue your developer further. It had less shadow detail than the Acutol. > >>>Your stuff is not as good as Acutol, and you know it. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > hydroquinone? If you like Acutol, go ahead and use it. Because you like > it doesn't prove that metoquinone is the optimum developing agent. I went through one batch of Acutol, to satisfy my curiosity, and that was enough. I saw no advantage to using Acutol over PC-TEA, but several advantages to using PC-TEA over Acutol. My tests using a sensitometer to make my test exposures, and a densitometer to read the densities obtained, showed no speed advantage for freshly mixed Acutol, and a distinct speed disadvantage as the Acutol aged. PC-TEA was, of course, dead consistent. Grain and sharpness were practically indistinguishable between the two, but film speed and activity of Acutol declined at a surprising rate. If one likes the results obtained with freshly mixed Acutol, I can think of no better substitute than PC-TEA, which will deliver nearly identical results consistently, for the life of the concentrate, which is measured in years-decades. The negatives Patrick sent me showed less shadow detail in his formula than did Acutol. > I went through one batch of Acutol, to satisfy my curiosity, and that > was enough. I saw no advantage to using Acutol over PC-TEA, but several [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > deliver nearly identical results consistently, for the life of the > concentrate, which is measured in years-decades. : [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: us-ascii, 44 lines --] : >Your stuff is not as good as Acutol, and you know it. : > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] : of Acutol on my shelf. Do you suppose it will still have the activity : that the PC-TEA from the same batch has? The best thing for you to do is simply ingnore the troll. Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you >In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey Crawley >called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest issue, he [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Metoquinone sounds elegant, is mentioned but pretty well dismissed (or perhaps dismythed) in "The Theory of the Photographic Process, and I can't find any real difference in performance between Acutol and PC-TEA, which in case you missed it is 0.2 g phenidone and 10 g ascorbic or isoascorbic acid dissolved in hot triethanolamine (TEA) to make 100 ml. Dilute it 1 part plus 50 parts of water. Thanks Patrick, Crawley`s column can be quite interesting and entertaining to read. I was wondering what, if any advantage there would be in using Metoquinone over a careful balance of Metol & Hydroquinone added seperately. The Paterson MSDS don`t say which developing agents are used in their products so we don`t know if they`re MQ, PQ or MPQ etc. I think you would agree that it would be interesting to know a little bit about the ingredients that go into their developers, or at least I would be interested. >>In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey >>Crawley called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > acid dissolved in hot triethanolamine (TEA) to make 100 ml. Dilute it 1 > part plus 50 parts of water. >> In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey >> Crawley called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ascorbic or isoascorbic acid dissolved in hot triethanolamine (TEA) to > make 100 ml. Dilute it 1 part plus 50 parts of water. Sorry about the duplication. Something happened to cause it not to go through at first. The optimum ratio of hydroquinone to metol for superaddititivity is just about 4:1 I can see using MORE Q to increase the reserve but not less. Consider holding metol constant and increasing hydroquinone until max activity is attained. that will happen when there is 4 times as much hydroquinone as metol. Adding more hydroquinone will allow more film to be developed in a given volume of developer. The MSDS is not required to list any thing that is not present in the amounts required to do harm. We can't depend on getting any photographically pertinent information from the MSDS for any developer. > The optimum ratio of hydroquinone to metol for > superaddititivity is just about 4:1 I can see > using MORE Q to increase the reserve but > not less. There goes I don't know how many MQ developers. That includes D-76, D-23, Ansco 120, 130 including A. Adams VC version, Beer's VC, and who knows how many others. I'm quite sure superadditivity is way down the list of considerations when compounding a developer. We are speaking of the regenerative effect hydroquinone has upon metol. Having that ratio at 1:4 or higher would likely wipe out at least 4 out of 5 MQ developers ever concocted. Dan >> The optimum ratio of hydroquinone to metol for >> superaddititivity is just about 4:1 I can see [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > would likely wipe out at least 4 out of 5 MQ > developers ever concocted. Dan I always thought that the Adox MQ Borax developer was 1 gram of Metol to 4 grams of Hydroquinone, replies to my question of this in a previous thread shows 2 grams of Metol. I beleive that Metol is the sole developing agent in D-23, Ansco 120 and Solution A of Dr. Beers. > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Well, nobody said that other ratios won't work. The question was addressed in "The Theory of the Photographic Process" as to whether the metoquinone compound was the explanation of superadditivity between hydroquinone and metol, and the answer in that same reference book was "No." You can prove that to yourself by mixing D-76, which has a ratio of 2:5 M:Q and then adding hydroquinone a little at a time until you get to 2:8 or higher. Does activity increase? Does quality decrease? You will also find that in such MQ print developers as D-72 the ratio is 1:4 M:Q. My favorite homebrew for a number of years was 0.1 g phenidone + anywhere from 6 to 12 g hydroquinone + 100 g sodium sulfite in a liter of water, used full strength and reused on as many as 12 standard rolls without replenishment. No one has proved that superadditivity is the result only of regeneration of phenidone or metol by hydroquinone. Furthermore, there is no known compound of phenidone and hydroquinone analogous to metoquinone. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > is no known compound of phenidone and hydroquinone analogous to > metoquinone. I have to qualify that last ststement. There was a report at the time of publication of the existence of phenhydroquinone, but not in solution. If there were an accepted optimum developer, we would not be here. We probably wouldn't have any fun. Imagine: "Honey, bring home some developer." "What brand, dear?" "Oh, any one. They're all the same." The commedian, Maury Amsterdam, was a pretty good cellist. He used it in one of his comedy skits. He would be sitting at his cello, playing the same note over and again. A person would ask him "Why are you always playing the same note? Others play lots of different notes." He would say "Those others are looking for it. I've found it." Maybe UC is a commedian. What issue is this? > In the Amateur Photographer magazine is a column written by Geoffrey Crawley > called Geoffrey Crawley`s Dictionary Definitions, in the latest issue, he [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I wonder what other components go into the Acutol concentrate as the MSDS > is very sparse. It`s a very short piece in the issue dated 17th September 2005 on page 28 in a section called AP Answers +. Crawley is the magazines Photo-science consultant. This week covering the letter M in photographic terms, Metol, Metoquinone etc. Acutol, the oldest of the Paterson developers remains very popular and deservedly so. I was just curious of some of the components used in the developer concentrate. > What issue is this? > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> MSDS >> is very sparse. I use Acutol all the time. I have been playing with FX-39 lately, and it's very nice with the faster films. I don't see the need for Aculux-2 at all. > It`s a very short piece in the issue dated 17th September 2005 on page 28 in > a section called AP Answers +. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >> MSDS > >> is very sparse. >I use Acutol all the time. I have been playing with FX-39 lately, and > it's very nice with the faster films. I don't see the need for Aculux-2 > at all. Paterson Aculux 2 seems to be the most popular of the Paterson developers in the UK. I tend to use FP4 Plus as standard in 35mm and HP5 Plus in #120 rolls. I also use occasionally, Kodak HIE infra-red and process them all in D-76. The Ilford films are readily available where I live and I have enjoyed using them for many years. I have used all the popular films such as Agfa, Fuji, Ilford & Kodak including the latest Neopan 100 Acros, all of them are very good but it is the Ilford one`s that I have enjoyed using the most. D-76 comes in packs to make 1 US gallon which is a bit much for me these days, so I am considering the use of a liquid concentrate for convenience. Acutol is recommended for use with slow & medium speed films which are already very fine grained & Aculux is suggested for ISO 400 or faster to keep grain to a minimum. FX-39 is suggested for T-grain films like T-MAX & core crystal grain films like Delta & Neopan films. Another option might be DD-X or Fotospeed FD-10 as an all-round yield balancing developer. The choice is baffling me for which to choose for my regular films.(Sigh!) > >I use Acutol all the time. I have been playing with FX-39 lately, and > > it's very nice with the faster films. I don't see the need for Aculux-2 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the UK. I tend to use FP4 Plus as standard in 35mm and HP5 Plus in #120 > rolls. I have been using Acutol with everything, but I am beginning extended trials of FX-39. It seems that FX-39 is a bit better for fast films of all types, as it gives sommewhat finer grain with excellent sharpness, but at the expense of some small loss of speed. Aculux-2 offers even less speed. > I also use occasionally, Kodak HIE infra-red and process them all in D-76. > The Ilford films are readily available where I live and I have enjoyed using [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > DD-X or Fotospeed FD-10 as an all-round yield balancing developer. The > choice is baffling me for which to choose for my regular films.(Sigh!) Cut your choices down to the Neopans and Acutol/FX-39. That's where I am headed. The more I use the Neopans, the more I like them. I no longer use any Kodak B&W films at all. I don't like having to choose among the Ilford films (there are too many). Delta? Cubic? So I am going to start narrowing it down to the Neopans and FP4 Plus when I need a medium-speed film. Right now, 80% of my film usage is Neopan 400. > The choice is baffling me ... which [developer] to choose > for my regular films.(Sigh!) It makes not a shred of difference - strangely that seems to be the reason why everyone is so adamant that their choice is the right one ... SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm Nick: Developers have less influence than the film choice, but the combination is the key. I sugest strongly that he reduce the number of films to two or three, and reduce the developers to two. > > The choice is baffling me ... which [developer] to choose > > for my regular films.(Sigh!) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm As I said, FP4 Plus for 35mm, HP5 Plus for medium format and the odd roll or two per year of Kodak HIE infra-red. It`s the developer choice that I am pondering over. > Nick: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com >> Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm > As I said, FP4 Plus for 35mm, HP5 Plus for medium format and the odd roll or > two per year of Kodak HIE infra-red. It`s the developer choice that I am > pondering over. Then I would suggest Acutol for the FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus, with perhaps something different, such as Aculux-2 or Microdol-X for the HIE. Since there is hardly a better combo than FP4 in Acutol, I would say: Problem solved. > > Nick: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >> To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com > >> Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm : > The choice is baffling me ... which [developer] to choose : > for my regular films.(Sigh!) : It makes not a shred of difference - strangely that seems : to be the reason why everyone is so adamant that their : choice is the right one ... The difference is that my choice really is the right one!!! :-) Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you I suspect that you are perfectly satisfied with your regular 100TMX & T-MAX RS combination, particularly in 4x5. It would be interesting to read your opinion of the Efke 25 and TFX-2 combo that you tried recently. Thanks Frank. > : > The choice is baffling me ... which [developer] to choose > : > for my regular films.(Sigh!) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The difference is that my choice really is the right one!!! :-) : I suspect that you are perfectly satisfied with your regular 100TMX & T-MAX : RS combination, particularly in 4x5. While I am very happy with Tmax-100/Tmax-rs I do think it's silly to think that it's the only film and developer combination that should be used. : It would be interesting to read your opinion of the Efke 25 and TFX-2 combo : that you tried recently. : Thanks Frank. I just managed to get through the film speed and development time tests earlier in the week and just made my first prints. I'm exposing the film at an EI of 20 and am processing the film with my combi-plan tank. I am agitating the film for twenty seconds after pouring in the developer and again for five seconds every three minutes. As a continuation of my experimentation I'm using J&C's "classic polygrade" paper. I'm not sure how to describe the results that I've gotten so far. The prints have a "pop" to them that I can't describe in words. One thing I do know is that the very dilute tfx-2 that I'm using gives me a lot of compensation in the highlights. This is complemented by using the "semi-stand" development. That combined with the distinct shoulder I get from the film does an incredible job of controlling the highlights!! The images I shot would have been very contrasty and difficult to print with Tmax. However with the Efke negatives I made a single test strip and printed with a #2 filter. There is the possibility that I may consider switching to it in full time!! : > : > The choice is baffling me ... which [developer] to choose : > : > for my regular films.(Sigh!) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : > : > The difference is that my choice really is the right one!!! :-) Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
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.