Microdol not Microdol-X

[MrBrowning]

I just bought a darkroom setup from a couple retiring to Florida and one of the many many many things I got was a can of Microdol. Whats the difference between Microdol and Microdol-X?

 

[MrBrowning]

Here's a picture.



So if i wanted to try and use it where would I start? would the times be the same as Microdol-X? Massive dev chart gives nothing. What is the probability that it's still good? I recived a bunch of other developers and papers that i'm not familiar with some of which expired back in '58.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

There was a long thread here about Microdol-X that covered the original version too; some good reading there. I also read some discussion, possibly in an old Photo Techniques magazine, about Arnold Gassan's search for the original Microdol formula with the idea that was what Ralph Eugene Meatyard used. That all seemed a bit speculative, but still kind of interesting.

I have plenty of old cans like that, and older, of various developers, and see them on eBay. I haven't noticed any collectors being much interested, but will be glad to find out they are. Still, I hang on to some because I value the package more than the contents. If it was something I had a use for, I'd probably open and use it. The contents of undamaged cans seem to hold up amazingly well.

 

[fotch]

That sealed can is a collector's quality piece. Opening it would be a crime, or should be. .............

What is it worth and to who? I have several old cans of photo chemicals.....maybe I can retire now.

 

[MrBrowning]

With few exception I don't collect. I like useable things and considering these go for just a few bucks on Ebay I think eventually I give it a try. Same with a bunch of the other old chemicals that I got. To me that's part of the fun of a score like this. Trying out something that you can't buy new and I'm to young to have tried in the first place.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

The empty cans make very nearly as nice a knick knack; my cat delights in knocking them off the mantle. Add a couple pebbles to the can for added sound effect and kitty entertainment value.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Back in the late '50s (before Microdol-X) I tried Microdol and didn't like it. Yes, it was 'fine grain', but D76 and D-76 1:1 gave me much better sharpness and contrast.

 

[MrBrowning]

Back in the late '50s (before Microdol-X) I tried Microdol and didn't like it. Yes, it was 'fine grain', but D76 and D-76 1:1 gave me much better sharpness and contrast.

How do you think it would work with IR film?

 

[MattKing]

How do you think it would work with IR film?

Do you really want the reduction in speed?

 

[MrBrowning]

Do you really want the reduction in speed?

Point taken.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

At 1:3 Microdol-X delivers close to box speed with good sharpness. I assume the original Microdol was very similar.

 

[Rick A]

I never liked Microdol-X, didn't like losing a full stop in speed just to get okay negatives. I could do that with Rodinal and get better negatives. If Microdol is anything like its successor then why bother, you have Rodinal which(IMO) is a far superior developer. You need to be shooting with the finished product in mind, and that should include which developer will get you there. If you open this can and use the contents with success, and want to continue, you won't be able to. For me, it just wouldn't be worth the effort to do the testing then run out of product.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have 3 boxes (packets) of Microdol, Microdol-X was released later in Europe. There were issues with Eastman Kodak films and dichroic fog with Microdol, Kodak UK films and Ilford, Agfa etc were less prone.

These developers including Perceptol are at there best with slow emulsions like Pan-X and PanF. The results can be outstanding.

Ian

 

[MrBrowning]

I never liked Microdol-X, didn't like losing a full stop in speed just to get okay negatives. I could do that with Rodinal and get better negatives. If Microdol is anything like its successor then why bother, you have Rodinal which(IMO) is a far superior developer. You need to be shooting with the finished product in mind, and that should include which developer will get you there. If you open this can and use the contents with success, and want to continue, you won't be able to. For me, it just wouldn't be worth the effort to do the testing then run out of product.

I wasn't thinking about repeat-ability or using it for a serious project. I was just thinking about trying it out to see what it was like. A fun little experiment to burn a couple rolls film.

 

[Rick A]

I wasn't thinking about repeat-ability or using it for a serious project. I was just thinking about trying it out to see what it was like. A fun little experiment to burn a couple rolls to burn a couple rolls of film.

Then have some fun.

 

[Jim Noel]

According to the 2 cans I have in front of me the suggested development times are a little different.
Microdol X - "For most Kodak films -- 9-13 minutes at 68 deg F."

Microdol - Tray
Verichrome Pan Roll and packs - 11 min
Verichrome Pan 828 and Plus X (135) - 9 min
Panatomic -X Roll - 7 min
Panatomic -X 135 - 5 min
Tri-X Roll and pack - 10 min
Tank times were about 10% longer due to less frequent agitation.

Microdol was recommended primarily for slow film, that is up to about Weston 100. Microdol -X had no such recommendation.

 

[MrBrowning]

According to the 2 cans I have in front of me the suggested development times are a little different.
Microdol X - "For most Kodak films -- 9-13 minutes at 68 deg F."

Microdol - Tray
Verichrome Pan Roll and packs - 11 min
Verichrome Pan 828 and Plus X (135) - 9 min
Panatomic -X Roll - 7 min
Panatomic -X 135 - 5 min
Tri-X Roll and pack - 10 min
Tank times were about 10% longer due to less frequent agitation.

Microdol was recommended primarily for slow film, that is up to about Weston 100. Microdol -X had no such recommendation.

Thanks for the info. I have some slow films that I have had for a while now and haven't shot. I guess I have a reason to now.

 

[Werewolfman]

Do you still have those cans of the old Microdol? If so, I'm interested. I love that old Microdol, not Microdol-X.

 

[Petraio Prime]

I never liked Microdol-X, didn't like losing a full stop in speed just to get okay negatives. I could do that with Rodinal and get better negatives. If Microdol is anything like its successor then why bother, you have Rodinal which(IMO) is a far superior developer. You need to be shooting with the finished product in mind, and that should include which developer will get you there. If you open this can and use the contents with success, and want to continue, you won't be able to. For me, it just wouldn't be worth the effort to do the testing then run out of product.

Posh. Rodinal is the worst developer, ever.

 

[MattKing]

Posh. Rodinal is the worst developer, ever.

The Church of Rodinal may seek to convert you.

 

[trendland]

What is it worth and to who? I have several old cans of photo chemicals.....maybe I can retire now.

Well - fotch may be you can retire 2 years earlyer as your plan is - so if you
have some chemicals in original canister
from this type ?

but obviously the best would be some
Rodinal cans of the very first production
line from 1893.......and me and perhaps others will be interested to shell live.


with regards

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Posh. Rodinal is the worst developer, ever.

Hey Petraio, why don't you post some of your photos so we can see why we are all doing everything so wrong? I am sure I am not alone in wondering how amazing your photographs must be.