If I like Microdol-X will I like Xtol

[RLangham]

So this is my first venture into fine grain developers. I had a can of Microdol-X that appeared to be 70’s for literally five years at this point.

D-76 1:1 with expired Fomapan 400 rated at 200 was getting me down. I just couldn’t seem to get it to do much contrast and even at the recommended time for Foma 400 @200, I was getting a lot of blown out skies. Plus I find the film subjectively pretty grainy, maybe because it’s expired. Times being what they are, I’m using the rest of this expired 100’ roll before I break out my brand new roll.

So I decided recently to mix up this quart of Microdol-X. Mixing it went fine and the solution was very slightly yellow in color, which is what it’s supposed to look like, so I felt good about using it. Finding a development time was not straightforward but understanding that it actually regains some accutance when diluted made sense of what I was seeing, where 1:1 dilution times will actually be somewhat shorter than stock times. From similar films I guessed that Fomapan 400 @200 in MD-X 1:1 would need about 8-9 minutes at 70F. So I split the difference and developed a roll for 8:30.

Amazing the difference. I haven’t scanned it yet but it’s clearly an improvement looking at the negative. Nice neutral grays, dense but not opaque highlights, translucent shadows.

Obviously a quart of this stuff, getting used in 1:1 as a one shot dev, doesn’t go far, and this seems like a developer that oxidizes quicker than some as well (but even in a half full jug I should be good for a month). If I like it, is it worth it to get that MD-X clone that’s out there, or should I look into other fine grain developers?

Obviously some of the MD-X behaviors, like losing about a stop of speed at stock, having long long dev times at high dilution and so on, are a little uncouth. Is that fine grain developers as a rule?

 

[Craig]

There are 3 characteristics of a film - developer combination: Speed, grain and sharpness. There is a formula for something called DQE: Detective Quantum Efficiency, which is a mathematical way of representing those 3 qualities of the developer.

In general, for any developer, the total comes out to approximately the same number. What that means is that to have the fine grain of Microdol X, you are giving up speed and sharpness. The same for any other developer, if you excel in one quality, the others are suppressed. The analogy is a pillow of constant volume: punch it in one dimension (length, width or height) and the others must also change.

Xtol was the first developer in many years that actually increased the DQE number compared to D76 or Microdol. This means you can have finer grain than D76 without a speed penalty for example.

If you like the results of Microdol X, then try Ilford Perceptol. It's basically the same formula, but is in current production so you don't need to hunt for old stock Kodak developer.

I quite like how Xtol works, it is replentishable with itself, so running a replentished system makes for very economical processing. You do lose about 1/3 of a stop replenished compared to new Xtol, but the economy might be worth it. If you have a bulk roll of film it might be worth a try, as you have the results from Microdol X to compare to.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

For conventional developers, it's pretty hard to beat XTol.

 

[chuckroast]

So this is my first venture into fine grain developers. I had a can of Microdol-X that appeared to be 70’s for literally five years at this point.

D-76 1:1 with expired Fomapan 400 rated at 200 was getting me down. I just couldn’t seem to get it to do much contrast and even at the recommended time for Foma 400 @200, I was getting a lot of blown out skies. Plus I find the film subjectively pretty grainy, maybe because it’s expired. Times being what they are, I’m using the rest of this expired 100’ roll before I break out my brand new roll.

So I decided recently to mix up this quart of Microdol-X. Mixing it went fine and the solution was very slightly yellow in color, which is what it’s supposed to look like, so I felt good about using it. Finding a development time was not straightforward but understanding that it actually regains some accutance when diluted made sense of what I was seeing, where 1:1 dilution times will actually be somewhat shorter than stock times. From similar films I guessed that Fomapan 400 @200 in MD-X 1:1 would need about 8-9 minutes at 70F. So I split the difference and developed a roll for 8:30.

Amazing the difference. I haven’t scanned it yet but it’s clearly an improvement looking at the negative. Nice neutral grays, dense but not opaque highlights, translucent shadows.

Obviously a quart of this stuff, getting used in 1:1 as a one shot dev, doesn’t go far, and this seems like a developer that oxidizes quicker than some as well (but even in a half full jug I should be good for a month). If I like it, is it worth it to get that MD-X clone that’s out there, or should I look into other fine grain developers?

Obviously some of the MD-X behaviors, like losing about a stop of speed at stock, having long long dev times at high dilution and so on, are a little uncouth. Is that fine grain developers as a rule?

Developers are kind of like wine varietals - the ability to explore them is nearly infinite.

One developer I would commend if you like Microdol-X but would like something a bit sharper, is Pyrocat. This developer can be used in any number of ways. Because it stains the negative a slight brown color, it tends to hide grain. I do not scan, but I am told it is an excellent choice for scanned films.

If you stick with Microdol, you'll have the problem that's it's no longer made. I think Ilford has a similar product, Perceptol, you might consider.

You can also make up your own nearly identical to Microdol developer by making a D-23 and adding salt. The particulars can be found here and on the internet.

One word of caution though. Any developer has to be mastered for a given film and exposure regimen. D-76 is perfectly capable of very fine negatives if you learn how to expose for it and develop accordingly. That is to say, changing developers is not - in and of itself - a magic bullet.

I speak as someone who has experience with D-23, D-76, DK-50, Microdol-X, PMK Pyro, Pyrocat, FX-2, Pyro 510, HC-110, and probably others I am forgetting. Each of these requires the aforementioned "tuning the exposure for the film and development for the exposure". Thus, it's best to pick one developer at a time and work with it until you nail it down.

 

[Paul Howell]

Freestyle sells a version Microdol X, about $20 a gallon.

LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer (Makes 1 Gallon)

The LegacyPro brand of black and white chemicals are formulated to work similar or the same as the Kodak brand of black and white chemicals. Rest assured that using the LegacyPro brand will save you money while achieving the same…

www.freestylephoto.com

 

[chuckroast]

Freestyle sells a version Microdol X, about $20 a gallon.

LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer (Makes 1 Gallon)

The LegacyPro brand of black and white chemicals are formulated to work similar or the same as the Kodak brand of black and white chemicals. Rest assured that using the LegacyPro brand will save you money while achieving the same…

www.freestylephoto.com

I'd forgotten about that.

These days, I mostly mix up my own developers because: A) It's much cheaper and B) I don't want to have to depend on the whim of manufacturers going in- and out of stock.

 

[RLangham]

One word of caution though. Any developer has to be mastered for a given film and exposure regimen. D-76 is perfectly capable of very fine negatives if you learn how to expose for it and develop accordingly. That is to say, changing developers is not - in and of itself - a magic bullet.

No, certainly not. MD-X was just something I happened to have a sealed can of, and I liked the results. It may just indicate a type of developer to trend towards to be getting the kind of subjective results I like. The crazy thing is, at one time I liked 1:3 Dektol for Fomapan, and that can’t be optimal.

To tell you the truth I’m getting back into film after a long absence and I had forgotten some things. I was treating this Fomapan like an expired color film, in that I was rating it at 1/2 box speed. I’m realizing now that this was an idea I’d had long ago as a cocky teenager who spent film like there was no tomorrow, and even realized back then that B/W film doesn’t work well like that.

There are 3 characteristics of a film - developer combination: Speed, grain and sharpness. There is a formula for something called DQE: Detective Quantum Efficiency, which is a mathematical way of representing those 3 qualities of the developer.

In general, for any developer, the total comes out to approximately the same number. What that means is that to have the fine grain of Microdol X, you are giving up speed and sharpness. The same for any other developer, if you excel in one quality, the others are suppressed. The analogy is a pillow of constant volume: punch it in one dimension (length, width or height) and the others must also change.

Xtol was the first developer in many years that actually increased the DQE number compared to D76 or Microdol. This means you can have finer grain than D76 without a speed penalty for example.

If you like the results of Microdol X, then try Ilford Perceptol. It's basically the same formula, but is in current production so you don't need to hunt for old stock Kodak developer.

I quite like how Xtol works, it is replentishable with itself, so running a replentished system makes for very economical processing. You do lose about 1/3 of a stop replenished compared to new Xtol, but the economy might be worth it. If you have a bulk roll of film it might be worth a try, as you have the results from Microdol X to compare to.

I had seen Perceptol compared to MD-X but I didn’t know if it was close enough to be treated as equivalent.

I think you’re selling me on Xtol though.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fomapan films are infamously overoptimistic about their box speed ratings. I'd cut the speed in half even with a brand new box.

Although I generally use pyro developers, I do use other developers too, including tweaks of Perceptol (either prepackaged or home brew). At 1:3 and longer dev time, you'll get more increase of grain growth along with higher edge acutance than at 1:1, plus a little more semi-compensating effect. The result is said to be similar to
Microdol at similar dilution; the formulas are similar. I have no experience with Xtol, so can't compare that.

 

[Paul Howell]

No, certainly not. MD-X was just something I happened to have a sealed can of, and I liked the results. It may just indicate a type of developer to trend towards to be getting the kind of subjective results I like. The crazy thing is, at one time I liked 1:3 Dektol for Fomapan, and that can’t be optimal.

To tell you the truth I’m getting back into film after a long absence and I had forgotten some things. I was treating this Fomapan like an expired color film, in that I was rating it at 1/2 box speed. I’m realizing now that this was an idea I’d had long ago as a cocky teenager who spent film like there was no tomorrow, and even realized back then that B/W film doesn’t work well like that.




I had seen Perceptol compared to MD-X but I didn’t know if it was close enough to be treated as equivalent.

I think you’re selling me on Xtol though.

Although both provide similar results I don't think they are the same formula as ID 11 is a clone of D76. If you are using Foma films then Mic X and Perceptol are a good choice for Foma 400 which can be grainy. If shooting Tmax 400 Delta 400, Tirx or HP5 the grain is much improved and in generally a fine grain developer is not needed. The only reason I don't use Xtol is that only comes in a 5 liter size and I dont shoot enough film these days to use 5 liters. I use Clayton f76+ which provies the same charaterics as D76 but I can buy Freestyle house version in a small bottle which works for me. .

 

[koraks]

Foma 400 @200, I was getting a lot of blown out skies

Sounds like a scanning problem.

Whether or not you will like XTOL is impossible to say, but very easy for you to find out. Note that the Kodak-branded product is no longer sold as 'XTOL', but as 'XDEV': https://kodak.photosys.com/collecti...cts/xtol-developer-powder-packet-cat-105-8338 It's the same stuff, however. Clones are also marketed, e.g. Fomadon Excel. There's also the possibility to mix a DIY variant that behaves identically to 'real' XTOL. Look for "mytol" or "instant mytol" formulas.

I use a variant of instant mytol as one of my main developers. I mix it from powder right before use, and used that way, it's an economic, reliable and well-performing developer. I cannot wax lyrical about how the negatives look because I'm not a poet. They look (and scan and print) perfectly fine, generally with finer grain than most other developers and good shadow detail (effective film speed). The other B&W developer I use frequently is Pyrocat. I honestly can't say I prefer one over the other; the final images look pretty much the same. They each have their subtle pros & cons in terms of e.g. usability and very minor (to the point of insignificant) image quality differences.

 

[RLangham]

Sounds like a scanning problem.

Or a lens problem or a photographer problem in some cases. But yeah I’m working on getting a camera scanning setup that should be more durable than these old consumer flatbed film scanners that keep breaking on me. Hopefully it will make better looking scans too

 

[koraks]

It's almost certainly a scanning issue. The software bundled with many scanners, when left to interpret a negative automatically, will lop off image data that's there alright in the negative. There are solutions to work around this. A camera scanning setup is generally less prone to this issue provided you get the exposure right (when making the 'scan') and, more importantly, there's no software bundled with your setup that automatically messes up your scans! You'll generally rely on a more manually-operated approach, which implies you make conscious decisions throughout the process, and this gives you a good chance of avoiding such problems and getting the most out of your negatives. I bet that your 'blown out' negatives can be re-scanned to show perfectly fine highlights that aren't blocked up.
I've used Foma 400 for a while and have also processed rolls of it for someone else; it's just not a film that will easily block up in the highlights at all. In fact, it's really hard to get very high densities with it as required for e.g. salt prints.

 

[RLangham]

It's almost certainly a scanning issue. The software bundled with many scanners, when left to interpret a negative automatically, will lop off image data that's there alright in the negative. There are solutions to work around this. A camera scanning setup is generally less prone to this issue provided you get the exposure right (when making the 'scan') and, more importantly, there's no software bundled with your setup that automatically messes up your scans! You'll generally rely on a more manually-operated approach, which implies you make conscious decisions throughout the process, and this gives you a good chance of avoiding such problems and getting the most out of your negatives. I bet that your 'blown out' negatives can be re-scanned to show perfectly fine highlights that aren't blocked up.
I've used Foma 400 for a while and have also processed rolls of it for someone else; it's just not a film that will easily block up in the highlights at all. In fact, it's really hard to get very high densities with it as required for e.g. salt prints.

I’ve got 95% of a camera scanning rig bought. Just need to get an extension tube and build some kind of wooden jig to hold it all.

I still wonder about the resolving power I’ll be able to achieve.

 

[koraks]

Cool, looking forward to hearing how you like it! Please share some results if/when you're ready!

 

[RLangham]

Cool, looking forward to hearing how you like it! Please share some results if/when you're ready!

I will!

 

[braxus]

B&H has Mic X for sale as well, which is basically the same thing. I did a test and video between Mic X and Xtol a few years ago. What I noticed was Microdol X mushes the grain somewhat, smoothing it over. Xtol actually keeps the grain sharp, yet still fine grained. Not as fine as Mic X though. It also seems Xtol had brighter highlights, so maybe more contrast. I dont recall any other factors worth mentioning.

 

[RLangham]

B&H has Mic X for sale as well, which is basically the same thing. I did a test and video between Mic X and Xtol a few years ago. What I noticed was Microdol X mushes the grain somewhat, smoothing it over. Xtol actually keeps the grain sharp, yet still fine grained. Not as fine as Mic X though. It also seems Xtol had brighter highlights, so maybe more contrast. I dont recall any other factors worth mentioning.

I've been told that with Microdol X and similar developers where metol is the developing ingredient, the developed silver crystals will look like they've had their corners "cut off" when seen under a microscope. I have no idea if that's true or what chemical process it is that causes that. But crystallization is weird.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Sounds like a scanning problem.

Foma 400 can suffer from some troublesome internal reflection/ halation/ flare (probably lack of absorber dyes etc) which can send sky density disproportionately high (with obvious halation at the edges) very readily under some conditions. These flarier materials largely need more minimal exposure than people sometimes expect (and sometimes a different aim contrast).

 

[koraks]

Yes, that's true; it is prone to halation which can indeed show up as reduced separation in highlights.

 

[RLangham]

Foma 400 can suffer from some troublesome internal reflection/ halation/ flare (probably lack of absorber dyes etc) which can send sky density disproportionately high (with obvious halation at the edges) very readily under some conditions. These flarier materials largely need more minimal exposure than people sometimes expect (and sometimes a different aim contrast).

Well, maybe it’s time for me to switch to Arista EDU. I have some expired EDU pan in my second bulk roller but the label was messed up when I got it and I don’t remember what speed the seller told me it was. I think it’s 100… shot some under indoor conditions last night at a concert, handheld at long speeds with the mirror locked up. Still think it’ll be shaky but we’ll see what the exposure looked like. I’ll develop it in d-76 under the assumption that it’s the EDU 100 at box speed.

The sad thing is I recently paid $90 for a brand new 100’ roll of the Foma 400.

 

[spark]

FWIW- Ilford Perceptol is pretty much the same as Microdol-X. So is Fuji Microfine except for a little phosphate. Kodak D-25 is a little further away.

Microfine is sold in Japan very cheaply, and is promoted as the preferred developer for Acros and Acros II. You can find it on ebay and some Japanese mail order sites but shipping costs to USA are very high right now.

 

[dynachrome]

I have used Microfine with the original ACROS with good results. At one time I ordered it from a seller in Japan. I also had friends pick some up when they were in Japan. I still have a good supply of it. When I used Microdol-X years ago I mostly used it 1:3. At that dilution it did not give fine grain but did give good sharpness and full speed.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

So this is my first venture into fine grain developers. I had a can of Microdol-X that appeared to be 70’s for literally five years at this point.

D-76 1:1 with expired Fomapan 400 rated at 200 was getting me down. I just couldn’t seem to get it to do much contrast and even at the recommended time for Foma 400 @200, I was getting a lot of blown out skies. Plus I find the film subjectively pretty grainy, maybe because it’s expired. Times being what they are, I’m using the rest of this expired 100’ roll before I break out my brand new roll.

So I decided recently to mix up this quart of Microdol-X. Mixing it went fine and the solution was very slightly yellow in color, which is what it’s supposed to look like, so I felt good about using it. Finding a development time was not straightforward but understanding that it actually regains some accutance when diluted made sense of what I was seeing, where 1:1 dilution times will actually be somewhat shorter than stock times. From similar films I guessed that Fomapan 400 @200 in MD-X 1:1 would need about 8-9 minutes at 70F. So I split the difference and developed a roll for 8:30.

Amazing the difference. I haven’t scanned it yet but it’s clearly an improvement looking at the negative. Nice neutral grays, dense but not opaque highlights, translucent shadows.

Obviously a quart of this stuff, getting used in 1:1 as a one shot dev, doesn’t go far, and this seems like a developer that oxidizes quicker than some as well (but even in a half full jug I should be good for a month). If I like it, is it worth it to get that MD-X clone that’s out there, or should I look into other fine grain developers?

Obviously some of the MD-X behaviors, like losing about a stop of speed at stock, having long long dev times at high dilution and so on, are a little uncouth. Is that fine grain developers as a rule?

I don't see why you want super-fine-grain developers like Microdol-X. Today's films are so fine-grained that anything like that is unnecessary. I made 16 x 20 prints from Tri-X 50 years ago in which the grain is almost invisible. D-76 1:1 is all that you need. What kind of enlarger are you using? Tri-X is far superior to Fomopan. So is HP5+. I use T-Max 400, and the grain in my prints is almost imperceptible.

 

[koraks]

maybe it’s time for me to switch to Arista EDU

You do know that is Fomapan, yes?

 

[RLangham]

You do know that is Fomapan, yes?

I do now. Well gosh. I just have bad luck after bad luck I guess. Luckily the Arista I had in the freezer was free and I didn’t buy any since then.

My second roll in Microdol-X came out all blurry at the start and I had no idea why… was beginning to question if diluting it 1:3 was a mistake.

Then I realized I had abruptly come near the Mississippi river in 85 degree weather on a wet day, and pulled the Leica out of my pocket to shoot some pictures of the ships and boats without giving it any time to warm up. I must have had condensation on both sides of the lens; I sure did on the VF/RF, so that should have told me.

In fact humidity is coming to be a constant problem here; I had forgotten how much havoc it plays with cameras. My SR/T was intermittently failing to drop the mirror. Let it sit in my air conditioned house for a day and it works as good as ever.

So in terms of bulk 100m x35mm, is there an economy option that’s NOT foma? Or should I just bite the bullet and start getting the good stuff, possibly by the roll?