pnance said:
I have been developing the old arista 125 in Microdol-X straight for years (I replenish), with fine grain results. I don't think either is safer, or more dangerous for that matter.
Arista Pro 125 was Ilford FP4+. Arista.EDU 100 is Forte, and Arista.EDU Ultra is Foma. Thus, the Arista Pro 125 results you report really have no bearing on what dxphoto is using.
As to the original question, I can't answer directly. I can say that I've done a couple of rolls of Arista.EDU (Foma) 100 in
DS-10 2+1 and I liked the results. Note that DS-10 is a mix-it-yourself developer; AFAIK, you can't buy it pre-mixed anywhere, although you might be able to use
Art Craft's "Name that Kit" service if you don't want to buy a stock of chemicals and measure everything yourself.
As to environmental impact, I don't know much about the chemical composition of Microdol-X, but DS-10 is a metol/ascorbic acid (MC) developer, while D-76 is a metol/hydroquinone (MQ) developer. Ascorbic acid is reputed to be more environmentally friendly than hydroquinone, but I doubt if the difference is really very significant, particularly on the scale of home darkroom use. I also don't know enough about the other differences in the formulas to comment on them. If you're interested in a commercial ascorbate developer, look into Kodak's XTOL or Paterson's FX-50, both of which are phenidone/ascorbic acid (PC) developers. (Technically, I believe XTOL, at least, uses Dimezone S and sodium ascorbate, but the effect is similar.)