Paterson Acutol.
Keith Tapscott
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.
Malcolm Stewart
news:432ad272$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> 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.
--
M Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
http://www.megalith.freeserve.co.uk/oddimage.htm
Keith Tapscott
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.
"Malcolm Stewart" <malcolm...@megalith.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:dgf4l5$90d$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
PATRICK GAINER
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.
PATRICK GAINER
Keith Tapscott
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.
"PATRICK GAINER" <pga...@rtol.net> wrote in message
news:432ee...@news.vic.com...
PATRICK GAINER
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.
dan.c...@att.net
PATRICK GAINER wrote:
>
> 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
Keith Tapscott
<dan.c...@att.net> wrote in message
news:1127337835.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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.
UC
UC
Keith Tapscott
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.
"UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127397993.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
UC
it's very nice with the faster films. I don't see the need for Aculux-2
at all.
Keith Tapscott
>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.
>
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!)
UC
Keith Tapscott wrote:
> "UC" <uraniumc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1127407045.3...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >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 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
> 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!)
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.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> 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 ...
--
Nicholas 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
UC
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.
Frank Pittel
: "Keith Tapscott" <keith`s_...@home.com> wrote
: > 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!!! :-)
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Keith Tapscott
two per year of Kodak HIE infra-red. It`s the developer choice that I am
pondering over.news:1127490098.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Keith Tapscott
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.
"Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
news:xrudnU7_v4i...@giganews.com...
PATRICK GAINER
PATRICK GAINER
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.
UC
PATRICK GAINER wrote:
> UC wrote:
>
> >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.
UC
Keith Tapscott wrote:
> 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.
Frank Pittel
: [-- text/plain, encoding 7bit, charset: us-ascii, 44 lines --]
: UC wrote:
The best thing for you to do is simply ingnore the troll.
PATRICK GAINER
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.
PATRICK GAINER
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.
Frank Pittel
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!!
: "Frank Pittel" <f...@warlock.deepthought.com> wrote in message
Frank Pittel
UC
on what I saw, for me to pursue your developer further. It had less
shadow detail than the Acutol.
uja...@hotmail.com
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.
UC
than did Acutol.