Anyone developing Foma films in Microdol-X?

[gone]

I have several rolls of film that need to be developed, and was thinking of using Microdol-X. In the distant past I used it w/ Arista EDU Ultra 100 (not knowing it was a Foma film) and liked the look. The films to be developed are Tri-X, Foma 400, and Foma 200. Developing the 200 in it is probably a bad idea, but has anyone tried it w/ Tri-X (shot at 250) or Foma 400? I might even try the Foma 200, the two other developers I tried it in didn't look that great.

 

[gone]

That's pretty much as I remember it, fine grain and lots of contrast, at least w/ the Foma 100 film. Thanks michael.

I rummaged around and finally found some old Tri-X negs that were developed in Mic-X, and they have a totally different look from the Foma 100 film that was developed in it. The Foma negs are really contrasty and not finely grained, while the Tri-X negs are smooth and nearly grainless, even smoother than if they'd been developed in D76.

Very surprising, and now I know why I stopped using that developer w/ Tri-X. Those negs are sorta grayish and just too clean and digital like, even at 1:1. Might try over developing it and using more agitation. Here's one of the Tri-X negs in Mic X. Not exactly what I was after.

 

[Peter Schrager]

All my roll film tmy400 and trix get processed in xtol 1+2
Semi stand....works everytime and gives me full speed ahead.
Tmy400 13@68 semi
Trix 12@70 semi

 

[Auer]

I like it a lot for Foma 200, I use the Legacy Pro Mic-X variant.



City Frame-106 by Eric Auer, on Flickr