About the possible use of Kodak Technidol

[AgBr_Jarm]

A few years ago, in 2011, I happened to find some Kodak Technidol for sale at the store where I regularly shopped and, of course, I couldn't resist and bought what they had. Even knowing that I didn't have the right film, it was an opportunity to experiment and learn, or at least I would know if it still worked.

After looking for some information and after a lot of extrapolation, I did my experiments with what I had on hand at the time: Rollei 80s; APX 100; Acros 100; Neopan 1600. With the Rollei @80 I only liked the results in photos of scenes with low contrast, in photos of scenes with a lot of contrast the detail in the shadows was insufficient (in my eyes). The APX @100 and the Acros @ 80 presented similar results that I liked very, very much, with details in the shadows and highlights (the prints made great gifts for family and friends). The madness with Neopan @800 resulted in better results compared to Rollei, which surprised me... or maybe I could have done a better job with Rollei.
Having finished the experiment, I put away the Technidol and moved on to other experiments.

I can share the details for each film, I only developed one of each, but I would like to draw on your experience because I'm thinking of going back to Technidol (I still have 12 bottles and faith that it still works).
What I have available at the moment... still the Rollei 80s and the APX 100, maybe a couple of Adox CMS 20, Fomapan 200 and Rollei SUPERPAN 200. Naturally, I'm open to other suggestions, provided they can be obtained without too much difficulty.
My main motivation is to have the opportunity to build upon the experience you can share!

Considering how I've used Technidol and the film, and how I plan to use it in the future, a slap on the wrist is also acceptable , preferably accompanied your experience.

 

[MarkS]

Technidol was invented as a low-contrast developer, for use with the inherently high-contrast Technical Pan film. Careful use of that film and developer would yield negatives of "normal" contrast for pictorial photography.
Using Technidol to develop standard pictorial films is likely to give low-contrast, flat results, and who knows, perhaps a speed loss too. I don't know of anyone (before you) who has used Technidol successfully that way. Not least because it is long discontinued.
That developer would be best used to process any of the repurposed microfilms out there, which are all inherently high contrast. But careful testing of exposure and development may give you a usable answer.

 

[Chuck1]

I've never used technidol, but I have a box of tech pan in the freezer.
So I'm eager to hear about this developer.