diexactol et al

Film Photography & Darkroom discussion

Moderator: Keith Tapscott.

Post Reply
pirateoversixty
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

diexactol et al

Post by pirateoversixty »

dont' know if this has been discussed before, but does anyone have any experience with this line of chemicals and derivitives? photogs formulary makes them sound like the proverbial silver bullet.
Jim

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

pirateoversixty wrote:dont' know if this has been discussed before, but does anyone have any experience with this line of chemicals and derivitives? photogs formulary makes them sound like the proverbial silver bullet.
Jim
Di-Xactol is a catechol (pyrocatechin) developer designed by the late Barry Thornton and is still made by Peter Hogan, although he also has his own Prescysol & Prescysol EF developers which are similar.

I'm not a connoisseur of pyro or catechol developers, so I can't be of much help. You can find out more information from his website and contact him directly.

http://www.monochromephotography.com/

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Ornello »

Staining developers have no particular value in small-format photography.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: diexactol et al

Post by pirateoversixty »

apparently the barry thornton stuff isn't all that popular in the States. i have tried his version of d-23 two-part developer, but it doesn't seem to work any better than anything else. been getting satisfactory results with parodinal, beutlar's neofin, and good old d-76, also home made.
thanx for replies.
jim

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

pirateoversixty wrote:apparently the barry thornton stuff isn't all that popular in the States. i have tried his version of d-23 two-part developer, but it doesn't seem to work any better than anything else. been getting satisfactory results with parodinal, beutlar's neofin, and good old d-76, also home made.
thanx for replies.
jim
The real magic bullet comes from getting to know your film and developer properly. Playing around with too many different films and developers usually ends up giving disappointing results.
There are some interesting discussions on some photo-forums about non-staining developers versus staining developers if you look in the right place. Just beware of certain threads which lead to nasty spats.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

pirateoversixty wrote:apparently the barry thornton stuff isn't all that popular in the States. i have tried his version of d-23 two-part developer, but it doesn't seem to work any better than anything else. been getting satisfactory results with parodinal, beutlar's neofin, and good old d-76, also home made.
thanx for replies.
jim
D-76/ID-11 takes some beating, believe me.

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=28

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Ornello »

D-76 (or something similar) 1:1 is very difficult to beat. Rodinal doesn't beat it, not at all.

Keith Tapscott.
Posts: 533
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 8:58 am
Location: Plymouth, England.

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Keith Tapscott. »

Some of the modern liquid concentrates from various manufacturers are good as well. Ilford's own DDX was designed as developer to give similar results to ID-11 and is of the buffered-borax type.
It probably fits mid way between ID-11 and Microphen which itself is a PQ variant of the D-76 type.
You might find this link of interest.
http://www.philpankov.com/-/philpankov/ ... sp?ID=1420

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Ornello »

I did test many B&W films about 5 years ago, and found that Fuji Neopan Acros is somewhat faster (EI 64 vs EI 32 for Pan-F) but it is easier to develop (Pan-F develops very rapidly). As far as grain or sharpness, to me it seems a tossup. Color response to green is noticeably better with Fuji B&W films.

So, I would say to this guy: try Acros in DDX.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: diexactol et al

Post by pirateoversixty »

Not too eager to add another developer to the collection, but have read that ddx does a good job. will have to give that some thought. thanx
jim

Ornello
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 9:49 am

Re: diexactol et al

Post by Ornello »

I did not use DDX, I used Paterson liquid developers, but DDX is supposed to be very similar. I was more concerned with the films, and by any measure Acros is a superior film to Pan-F.

pirateoversixty
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 1:21 pm
Location: Peoria, Illinois

Re: diexactol et al

Post by pirateoversixty »

yep; that would be a film developer.
Jim

Post Reply