First Shots w/ Microdol-X. Any Ideas What Is Wrong?

[gone]

I developed some Tri-X negs in Microdol-X for the first time. They sure look odd. I followed the times and temps from digital truth....12 minutes at 68 degrees at 1:1, and added one minute to that. The agitation scheme was 30 seconds, then 2 inversions every 30 seconds. Strange tonality. These were shot in bright sun at iso 200 w/ a yellow filter, and I let the camera's meter take care of the filter factor. The shots I took at 400 seem a little better. These are just scans. I haven't got to the negs from the low light shots yet. Hopefully they look a little better.

 

[summicron1]

look fine to me. in what way do they look odd? Adding a minute would pushed them a titch, adding to the contrast a titch.

But as I said, they look fine.

 

[Sirius Glass]

look fine to me. in what way do they look odd? Adding a minute would pushed them a titch, adding to the contrast a titch.

But as I said, they look fine.

I agree. When I first read the OP, I wondered what is his/her beef? but I held back commenting in case I missed something.

 

[gone]

I suppose I'm just used to TD-16 (D76 variant) and Rodinal. The negs above look, to me, like what everyone complains about w/ this developer. Flat, and mush grain. Here's a couple of the low light samples that I took, and they look much better, but they still don't have any punch. Next time I'll overexpose it by at least one stop and add 2 or 3 minutes to the development time and see what I get.

 

[Vaughn]

"Mush grain" is how that developer works -- lots of silver solvent to dissolve the edges of the grain to give the impression og finer grain. I used it 1:3 for 120 film for several years. That dilution reduces the affect of the silver solvent. Nice negatives to print, but back then I was using mostly Pan X.

If your shadow detail is where you want it, do not change the exposure.

 

[gone]

Thank you for the tips. It may just be that this is the way this developer works, as you mentioned Vaughn. I don't care much about shadow detail one way or the other, but I'd like to see more contrast and deeper blacks, especially as this is Tri-X. It looks like %$#& Acros in some of the shots! Gray, grey, grey. No tonality. I realize it's just the first time w/ this developer, but I suspect it's not going to be capable of giving me what I'm after. Several people here warned me of this, so I can't say I'm surprised. The camera was an AE-1P w/ a FD 50 1.8 lens by the way. I considered 1:3, but the development time was around 20 minutes, and I dislike using long times like that. Too many opportunities to mess up the agitation cycle.

I actually shoot Tri-X at 100 now and then, but develop it in D76. Really hard to screw that combination up. Yes, it blocks up the shadows a little, but the tonality is really quite nice, and the blacks are to die for. Works better w/ 120 film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Next time use XTOL in stock solution.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I didn't catch he was using it 1:1. It's supposed to be 1:3 or yes, you're likely to get grain mush. Microdol is generally for roll and 35mm because of it being fine grain. What would be the point on LF negatives? Use Microdol 1:3 on 35mm always.

Are you saying that people should RTFM?

 

[MattKing]

The scanning/digital processing process basically determined how this looks for you. It adds so many variables to the question.

If something looks too grey, and the negatives appear to the eye to have a good range of tones, what you are seeing is the software, not the negatives.

 

[Vaughn]

Thank you for the tips. It may just be that this is the way this developer works, as you mentioned Vaughn. I don't care much about shadow detail one way or the other, but I'd like to see more contrast and deeper blacks, especially as this is Tri-X.
...

Sorry, when I wrote 'shadow detail', I meant are you getting the blacks you want. If you want deeper blacks and do not care about shadow detail, then you should be decreasing exposure, not increasing it. By keeping the same level of exposure, or giving it less exposure, (and increasing development) you will be increasing the contrast.

By increasing the exposure and increasing the development you will also be increasing the contrast -- but by no more than the above method (and possibly less) -- plus one ends up with a over-all denser negative.

Good luck!

 

[Vaughn]

...What would be the point on LF negatives? ...

A good question I should have asked myself many years back when I went to LF. I kept using Microdol-X at 1:3 with 4x5 for a couple years. That makes for some long development times using trays!!! Royal Pan was a locally available film at the time. I like the negatives. Eventually went to HC-110 and TMax100 when it came out. But generally D-76 for 120 film these days.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Read the Friendly Manual

 

[Slixtiesix]

I agree you should use 1:3 next time and expose at 200-250 iso. Good luck! It is also possible to work at 24°C to shorten the times a bit with metol developers without any disadvantage.

 

[gone]

I got a look at some of the shots that came out better on this roll, and may (may being the operative word here) have a better idea of what is going on. On the shots where the exposure is nailed, all looks fine. It's as good as any developer. On the shots where exposure is off, even one stop, it doesn't look so good. These were difficult lighting conditions outdoors, what w/ the noonish sun and the beach, so I expected to have some problems. And I had issues w/ this lens once before giving somewhat erratic results down on the beach w/ another developer (FD 50 1.8 w/ a yellow filter), so that may be a factor. After looking at negs that were made w/ the same film (Tri-X) in the same conditions, but were souped in D76, it looks like if I get everything right exposure wise, it's fine. But the Microdol-X doesn't appear to have the same flexibility as D76. This developer doesn't seem to like brightly lit beach skies as much as D76 either, but w/ only one roll shot, who knows on that one.

If you look at the rock pic on the link below, I simply moved the camera's ISO from 200 (w/ a yellow filter) to 400, and got a huge difference on the neg. After going back to some ISO tests I did w/ Tri-X and D76, there was not this sort of difference. So I am going to buy some more Tri-X and shoot in in my Nikkormat to get the FD 50 1.8 lens out of the equation and see what's up. Anyway, on the shots that worked, it looks just fine.

http://s1241.photobucket.com/user/stevemareno/slideshow/mr browning two?sort=3

 

[gone]

I got a look at some of the shots that came out better on this roll, and may (may being the operative word here) have a better idea of what is going on. On the shots where the exposure is nailed, all looks fine. It's as good as any developer. On the shots where exposure is off, even one stop, it doesn't look so good. These were difficult lighting conditions outdoors, what w/ the noonish sun and the beach, so I expected to have some problems. And I had issues w/ this lens once before giving somewhat erratic results down on the beach w/ another developer (FD 50 1.8 w/ a yellow filter), so that may be a factor. After looking at negs that were made w/ the same film (Tri-X) in the same conditions, but were souped in D76, it looks like if I get everything right exposure wise, it's fine. But the Microdol-X doesn't appear to have the same flexibility as D76. Well, what do I expect? How do you improve on Tri-X in D76 for flexibility? I don't think you do. This developer doesn't seem to like brightly lit beach skies as much as D76 either, but w/ only one roll shot, who knows on that one.

If you look at the rock pic on the link below, I simply moved the camera's ISO from 200 (w/ a yellow filter) to 400, and got a huge difference on the neg. After going back to some ISO tests I did w/ Tri-X and D76, there was not this sort of difference. So I am going to buy some more Tri-X and shoot in in my Nikkormat to get the FD 50 1.8 lens out of the equation and see what's up. Anyway, on the shots that worked, it looks just fine.

http://s1241.photobucket.com/user/stevemareno/slideshow/mr browning two?sort=3

 

[moltogordo]

As APUGuser19 said.

Microdol-X is a fine grain developer that tames contrast . . . . it has a very different look. I personally use it only if I want a big enlargement (11x14) off of a high contrast (bright sunlight) scene. I really consider it to be a special purpose developer.

It will have a much "flatter" look than your D76 or Rodinal on normal contrast subjects. If you want to split the difference, you might try Xtol.

 

[flavio81]

I always read that it gave "mushy grain", and thus i'd guess that's why it's recommended to be used with fine grain films (ISO 125 and below), where the grain would more or less "dissapear".

Alas, i could have bought fresh and sealed Microdol-X when i started developing films but i stayed with D76... The "X" scared me, "X" as in "unknown, mysterious."

 

[gone]

That X fascinates me too.

I switched over to using the developer full strength instead of at 1:1 (8 minutes at 68 degrees), changed cameras to a Nikkormat FTn w/ an H 50 2 lens (and halfway through the roll put the film into an FG that was hacked to shoot the non AI H 50 lens), and switched films to Arista EDU Ultra 100 that was metered around 60 (w/ a yellow filter). Much nicer. Very happy now. From now on I use this developer full strength w/ the Arista film in the Nikon, and stick to D76/TD-16 w/ Tri-X. That will work :]

 

[Sirius Glass]

That X fascinates me too.

I switched over to using the developer full strength instead of at 1:1 (8 minutes at 68 degrees), changed cameras to a Nikkormat FTn w/ an H 50 2 lens (and halfway through the roll put the film into an FG that was hacked to shoot the non AI H 50 lens), and switched films to Arista EDU Ultra 100 that was metered around 60 (w/ a yellow filter). Much nicer. Very happy now. From now on I use this developer full strength w/ the Arista film in the Nikon, and stick to D76/TD-16 w/ Tri-X. That will work :]

I like these.

 

[gone]

This is a very nice developer, but it works better for me at full strength, rather than diluted. These are my first attempts at developing Shanghai GP3 Pan 100 in it. They're over exposed, and over developed, but show promise. If exposed and developed correctly (there are no times on the massive development chart for this combination), it looks like 10 minutes at 68 degrees might be good. From an Agfa Isola w/ a yellow filter at high noon. These got 13 minutes, which turned out to be too much. The contrast is off the wall, but the grain is very tight. The Shanghai film in this developer looks very similar to Tri-X in D76 to my eyes.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I know MD-X is a very flexible developer. I use it 1:3 as everyone does but full strength is very useful over here in the bright Hawaiian sun; shaving off a bit of real film speed comes in handy and 1:0 especially Replenished gives a very soft yet clean look to those bright white bridal gowns (especially those UV enhanced ones LOL!) in full sun. A similar look can be from Xtol replenished but Tmax 100 at 50 in MD-X 1:0 either fresh or replenished gives as close as I've ever found to Panatomic-X and was Kodak official Panatomic-X replacement when they discontinued Pan-X. Perceptol 1:0 is close but that mystery X (see my persistent inquires of Photo Engineer over the years LOL!) really does something when used 1:0.

 

[Peter Schrager]

riding waves what is 1:0 dilution??

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Thats short for full strength

 

[Sirius Glass]

 

[nworth]

They actually look pretty good, but I know how you feel that they look odd. That was my first impression, too, when I tried Microdol-X many years ago. It's why I didn't continue to use that developer. Microdol-X is different than D-76 or other developers. Aside from the tonal differences, you will have to adjust your exposure (although these look like you have it pretty well down). Microdol-X produces somewhat less film speed and somewhat less tonal range than D-76. My first instinct was to ask if you used real Microdol-X (which had a couple of variants over its life) or one of the many Microdol-X substitutes that have been proposed. They will all act a little differently. But whatever you used, it looks pretty much like the Microdol-X I remember.