2 bath macrodol-x

BradS said:

...but.....D23 is not a two bath developer. ?:confused:
Perhaps, you're thinking of D-23 with an alkaline after bath?

Click to expand...

Maybe I used the term "two bath" loosely and should have said divided instead. D-23 has a first bath that is 7.5 grams of metol + 100 grams of sodium sulfite for bath "A" and bath "B" contains either Borax or Kodalk. I hear a true two bath is suppose to do no developing in the bath "A" and is in there just to soak the developer in to the emulsion. Then it's put into bath "B" where it fully develops. Go to unblinkingeye.com and look at Joseph Lipka's article D-23 divided.

JW PHOTO said:

Maybe I used the term "two bath" loosely and should have said divided instead. D-23 has a first bath that is 7.5 grams of metol + 100 grams of sodium sulfite for bath "A" and bath "B" contains either Borax or Kodalk. I hear a true two bath is suppose to do no developing in the bath "A" and is in there just to soak the developer in to the emulsion. Then it's put into bath "B" where it fully develops. Go to unblinkingeye.com and look at Joseph Lipka's article D-23 divided.

Click to expand...

That is D23 with an alkaline after bath. Your "bath A" is exactly D23.
D23 is not a divided developer...
D23 is exactly 100g Sodium Sulfite and 7.5g Motel in water to make 1 liter.

BradS said:

That is D23 with an alkaline after bath. Your "bath A" is exactly D23.
D23 is not a divided developer...
D23 is exactly 100g Sodium Sulfite and 7.5g Motel in water to make 1 liter.

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that, but look at Thornton's Two Bath developer and you'll see the same thing and it is called a "two bath" developer. Leica's, Adam's, Stoeckler's were all the same base just different makeups and they were also called "two bath" developers.

This is what had me initially confused as D23 is not two bath.

So:

1. A true two bath requires solvent in part B only

2. A developer such as this one being discussed, where development takes place in bath A and B requires solven in both parts.

3. All true 2 bath developers are hard to optimize as they vary from film to film. I stress this.

4. Ctrl + scroll = nothing, but ctrl + + does magnify. Thanks all for this neat trick for the oldsters going blind! Now I can't get back to the original size! (I know, ctrl + - )

5. You see how easy it is to find a patent if you know who did what?


PE

JW PHOTO said:

Yes, I know that, but look at Thornton's Two Bath developer and you'll see the same thing and it is called a "two bath" developer. Leica's, Adam's, Stoeckler's were all the same base just different makeups and they were also called "two bath" developers.

Click to expand...

but you see the difference - right?
Those guys were all using D23 and following it with some alkaline second bath. It would be more accurate therefore to refer to those methods by their respective names. Surely, you agree that it is incorrect to call Stoekler's simply "D23".

(actually, if I remember correctly, Thornton's first bath is not D23. It's been a long time.)

BradS said:

but you see the difference - right?
Those guys were all using D23 and following it with some alkaline second bath. It would be more accurate therefore to refer to those methods by their respective names. Surely, you agree that it is incorrect to call Stoekler's simply "D23".

(actually, if I remember correctly, Thornton's first bath is not D23. It's been a long time.)

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not arguing and I agree with you about the term "two bath" being loosely used. I like to think of a true two bath developer as one like Diafine where no development takes place in the first bath. Of course I have also heard some folks who have used Diafine claim that there is a very small amount of development that does take place in bath "A". Thornton's Two Bath has something like 6.25 or 6.50 grams of metol and only 85 grams of Sodium Sulfite, but it's on the same exact principle anyway.

Photo Engineer said:

This is what had me initially confused as D23 is not two bath.

So:

1. A true two bath requires solvent in part B only

2. A developer such as this one being discussed, where development takes place in bath A and B requires solven in both parts.

3. All true 2 bath developers are hard to optimize as they vary from film to film. I stress this.

4. Ctrl + scroll = nothing, but ctrl + + does magnify. Thanks all for this neat trick for the oldsters going blind! Now I can't get back to the original size! (I know, ctrl + - )

5. You see how easy it is to find a patent if you know who did what?


PE

Click to expand...

Odd that CTRL+scroll wheel doesn't work for you. I tried it in all three browsers I have installed (IE 9, Firefox 26 and Chrome 32) and it works in all three.

Anyway, CTRL 0 will reset the size to default. Glad at least the other method works for you.

You can go into windows and just make everything larger. I stopped using windows over a decade ago, so don't know where they moved the feature, but I'm sure it's still there.

Roger Cole said:

For item 1, on a Windows machine, hold down the CTRL key while using the mouse scroll wheel. This will magnify the display in most browsers. Heck, my vision is corrected to 20/20 and I still use it on some sites.

Click to expand...

Thank you, thank you, thank you. To Roger and all the others for the magnification hints. That is a lot easier than having to use a menu which is already hard to read to change an option to make it easier.

And also thank you to all that had a kind word for me.

Jerry

Didn't mean to leave that part out either Jerry, I really appreciate your input here and hope you continue to participate for a very long time!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't want to sound too dumb, just because I might have a record of it, but has anybody thought of simply taking an old package of Microdol X to some chemists and having it identified?
And BTW, Microdol is the stuff, I'll tell you what.

Tom1956 said:

I don't want to sound too dumb, just because I might have a record of it, but has anybody thought of simply taking an old package of Microdol X to some chemists and having it identified?
And BTW, Microdol is the stuff, I'll tell you what.

Click to expand...

Might be kind of hard to break down and analyze, but I suppose it could be done. I use Ilford Perceptol often and really like it, but I almost never use it straight or even 1:1. I'm a 1:3 person myself and for most of the films I use it works very well. Better with some than others, but pretty good with most of them.

Gerald C Koch said:

Thank you, thank you, thank you. To Roger and all the others for the magnification hints. That is a lot easier than having to use a menu which is already hard to read to change an option to make it easier.

And also thank you to all that had a kind word for me.

Jerry

Click to expand...

Jerry,
Isn't this internet thing just the cats meow? You have a problem or question and just like magic the answer appears before your very eyes. I love it, but do spend a little more time than I like in front of the monitor.

1:3 almost goes without saying IMO. Magic stuff. Tri-X speed, Panatomic grain.

Tom1956 said:

1:3 almost goes without saying IMO. Magic stuff. Tri-X speed, Panatomic grain.

Click to expand...

I think Microdol-X and Perceptol kind of got a bad rap when folks label them as "fine grain" reduced speed developers. It is true that they do have a high solvent content and in order to get good shadow detail you should cut your speed in half, but that's at full strength and is exactly why I opt for longer development times of the 1:3 dilution. Diluted 1:3 is like cutting the Sodium Sulfite down from 100grams to 33 1/3 grams, which means much less solvent action going on. Plus, I can rate my film back to near box speed and still have very good shadow detail to boot. Oh, one other thing and that is my negatives are not soft! Good stuff and the folks that use it, know it. The folks that don't? JohnW

In the 41 years since I bought my first quart can of Microdol, I've never listened to the scoffers. They're screwy. Through the years I bought the quart bottles pre-mixed with official Rochester water, because I kept the bottles for other neat photographic potions.

Tom1956 said:

In the 41 years since I bought my first quart can of Microdol, I've never listened to the scoffers. They're screwy. Through the years I bought the quart bottles pre-mixed with official Rochester water, because I kept the bottles for other neat photographic potions.

Click to expand...

Well, you certainly should know if it works or not after that amount of time. I was late to the party and used mainly ID11 and Edwal's FG7. Wasn't until about 30 + or - years ago for me, but I still remember saying to myself, "this stuff ain't half bad", after looking at my first roll of Tri-X 35mm souped in it. And that wasn't even 1:3 either. I still miss FG7, but there's so many good developers now that it's not funny.

JW PHOTO said:

Diluted 1:3 is like cutting the Sodium Sulfite down from 100grams to 33 1/3 grams, which means much less solvent action going on. Plus, I can rate my film back to near box speed and still have very good shadow detail to boot. Oh, one other thing and that is my negatives are not soft! Good stuff and the folks that use it, know it. The folks that don't? JohnW

Click to expand...

I agree that D23 1+3 gives excellent results, I've been very happy with it for the last 9 months or so. I don't quite agree with your math though... (with 1+3 the sodium sulfite becomes 25g a liter assuming you actually mean 1PLUS3).

As far as less solvent action, I would agree with that but just how much less I'm not sure. It has been pointed out to me that while there is less SS the time in that SS is lengthened which also plays a part.

Michael R 1974 said:

Beyond that there is very little out there with respect to modern films. And one will quickly find all sorts of confusing things such as conflicting instructions with respect to times, agitation etc. In the case of D-23+alkali bath, or the many other variants of Metol-sulfite (A)/Alkali (B) development (Stoeckler, Leitz, Vestal, Farber, Thornton, etc. etc.), realize that all the normal variables present in one-bath development apply: Time, temperature, agitation. And of course with relatively short times in bath A, and relatively fast development in bath B, achieving development uniformity can be tricky. This is also true of some true two-bath procedures in which the second bath is more alkaline (eg: divided Pyro/Cat formulas with carbonate alkali).

Click to expand...

I have also found the above to be true... While I had good luck with Thorton's Two Bath I have not found reason to use it over D23 1+3.

Firstly, I would like to point out that, whichever developer you choose to use that gives you the results that you want is fine by me. I just want to point out that the opinions offered in this thread regarding two-bath developers are, in my opinion, incorrect as they do not reflect my practical experience of using two-bath developers.

Two bath developers are extremely tricky to use, especially if you use more than one type of film, because no two films will pick up part A in the same way.

Click to expand...

I am afraid that I couldn't disagree more. I have been using two-bath developers (Thornton's since he first published his formula) for more years than I care to remember with consistent success. Different manufacturer's films can be successfully processed together provide that they are if the same ISO speed rating (irrespective of personal EI used). The argument that "no two films will pick up part A in the same way" may be theoretically correct but this is not borne out in my practical experience - having processed literally 1,000s of rolls of film (mine, colleagues, students and friends).

In the case of Thornton's two-bath, I can state that it is extremely consistent, easy to make, cheap, easy to use and delivers negatives that never have blown out highlights. It is, however, no magic bullet and should be employed for normal to high contrast scenes. It is not suitable for achieving higher EIs nor 'push' processing and certainly not for very flatly lit scenes. One interesting side point is that, since I have been using Thornton's two-bath with Delta 400 (my standard film for many years), I have stopped needing to use filters for good rendition of skies.

In the case of D-23+alkali bath, or the many other variants of Metol-sulfite (A)/Alkali (B) development (Stoeckler, Leitz, Vestal, Farber, Thornton, etc. etc.), realize that all the normal variables present in one-bath development apply: Time, temperature, agitation.

Click to expand...

You are quite correct – I can never believe how many people on the internet bandy around the 'wisdom' that, with two-bath developers, they are virtually impervious to time, temperature and agitation. This is not the case. They are perhaps more forgiving than some other developers but good practice needs to be employed and this means that they need to be used (as with all processing) in a consistent and repeatable manner.

And of course with relatively short times in bath A, and relatively fast development in bath B, achieving development uniformity can be tricky.

Click to expand...

Here I beg to differ. All of the various two-bath developers that I have used have had the same times for Bath A and Bath B. Certainly, with slow (up to ISO 50) films in Thorton's two-bath the given processing times of 3.5 minutes in each bath are somewhat short but I have never had any uniformity issues in any format (35mm – 5" x 7"). However, this may well be because I always use a pre-soak and I always start developing with 4 inversions in the first 30 seconds followed by one inversion per following 30 seconds.

As I said at the start, use what gives you the results you want BUT if you are looking to try out a different developer because of contrast, blown-out highlights, grain, consistency issues then I would recommend adding Thornton's two-bath to your list.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

At one time people would make the distinction between two-bath developers and divided developers. For a true two-bath developer development is inhibited by some means. Usually this is done by a low pH in the first bath but other mechanisms can also be used. Kodak in one of its two-bath formulas uses a high concentration of sucrose (table sugar) in the first bath to inhibit development there. In a divided developer development takes place in both baths. Using D-23 with an alkaline second bath puts it in the second category.

Maybe the two bath versus divided is why I wanted to disagree about being impervious to time/temperature. My experience with Diafine is that it is impervious to such changes provided the minimums are met, just like the box says. Some films are now specified as 5 minutes each bath instead of 3. I have, years ago, run Tri-X and Plus-X together in the same tank with 10 minutes per bath with results absolutely indistinguishable from 3 minutes per bath.

At some point the wet time might hurt something, just as at some point of high temperature the emulsion might reticulate or melt, but within reason, and within the (I think it's 70F-85F) temperature range specified on the box, I can't tell any difference by extending the time, even by double or more, nor by different temperatures among those I've tried.

I only use it some, mainly for pushing Tri-X when it isn't dark enough to justify TMZ or Delta 3200, and for controlling Pan F+ with a bit more effective speed, but it's certainly easy to use for those films, easier than any normal developer and works great for those purposes.

Just wondering if Freestyle is the best source for getting fresh Microdol-X (sold as LegacyPro Mic-x)? That is where I got my last supply.

Dave

Well, after a few trials I have some results.



What a lovely look at my server rack at 3 am.

full size images (Thornton and Microdol-X) are on flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/sets/72157639557582105/ . View all sizes to look at the grain.

The film was ORWO N74+, not a fine grain film by any stretch but Thornton gives really good results. I buy 400' reels and love to play with this.

I develop 4.5 mins for bath A and B in Thornton, stand with 1 rapid even shake, 1 tap and leave alone for the duration. This gives the highest acutance and compensation possible.

30g/l was added to D23 for A and 60g/l was added to B (Sodium Metaborite 12g/l).

The PH of both A baths only differed by .1. The second baths were identical. The dev times for both sets of chemistry were identical and visually gave the same densities. I would expect any procedures you already have would give comparable results.

I chose 60g of NaCL in the second bath to insure I saw something. I wasn't trying to nail down a formula, just to see if it was worth exploring further.

if you looked at the two samples full size, the Thornton is only slightly higher in grain but the Microdol-X has noticeably less acutance. Considering these are 35mm, I consider the IQ to be very good. However, I think the salt will stay on the shelf.

Thanks to all in the thread. The discussion was helpful.

First, regarding Thornton's developer not being suitable for flat scenes, any divided Metol-sulfite developer can be used for flat scenes. Extending time in bath A increases contrast.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but this is false information according to my experience. My practical experience indicates to me that it is Bath B that effects contrast: 12g of Sodium Metaborate is the standard for Bath B and the N+ dilution is 20g of Sodium Metaborate

99% of all my photographs are developed with the N version of Bath B. I have never had any negative where I felt that it should have been developed using the N- version of Bath B. The N+ version of Bath B is useful but not in the sense of a strict +1 stop expansion (which can be much better achieved by selenium toning the negative). If I photograph something that has dark shadows and bright highlights but also a significant part of the scene is relatively lacking in mid-tone separation then I use the N+ version of Bath B. This has a significant effect on expanding the mid-tones of a scene that was lacking such a mid-tone separation.

Thornton's two-bath is NOT good for flat scenes - full stop - if you want a good dynamic range.

Can I just emphasise that I am ONLY referring to practical 'real world' outcomes.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de

First, let me say that analysis of any complex mix of organic and inorganic materials is going to be tedious, lengthy and expensive.

Now, on to the reality of using 2 baths! Let us consider a film with 2000 mg of gelatin per square meter and another with 400 mg in the same area. Assume both are of the same hardness. The first film will absorb about 1/2 of the ingredients in part A as the second film and thus development will differ.

Now, assume two identical films at 400 mg, but one is very hard and robust and the other is quite soft. The first film will absorb quite a bit less of part A than the second due to swell being different. In this case, the different amount of absorption is not easily determined, but in the previous paragraph, it is more easily determined.

One can cut exact samples of each and weigh them before and after treatment with both A and B and also measure densities and other qualities. I have done these experiments and have found that the added variations make use of divided developers much more difficult to predict.

The fact that someone can get qualitative results which satisfy them means nothing in terms of measurable information from the film itself.

But, as I have said often: If it works for you, use it!

PE