Microdol-X (again, sorry)

darkroommike · Jun 15, 2025

I came here from Facebook tonight, a discussion about using an old bag of D-76, and some fella went off about how he hates Tri-X/D-76 and cornered the market on Microdol-X when it was discontinued the first time. And how he double bagged it, froze it, etc. etc. and LOVES the tonality with Tri-X and Microdol-X 1:3 (I presume as God intended). Even if true it was WAY off topic.

So, was Tri-X and Microdol-X 1:3 "magic"? Or is this guy fully invested in his own delusion?

If you were to take the current "improved" Tri-X and process it in original Microdol-X would that combination possess the same "magic"?

Hypothetically, will Perceptol 1+3 possess the same "magic" as Microdol-X 1:3, with Tri-X (old), Tri-X (new) or HP-5+?

What about LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer? Is it really "just like Kodak used to make"? Or just more BS.

I know there have been dozens of threads and endless speculation about what made Microdol-X "special" but I take most of them with a grain of salt (ahem).

I went online and bought a can of Microdol-X but I hate getting married to any developer I can not make myself. If the formula is not published I want nothing to do with it but I am curious.

Milpool · Jun 15, 2025

The X was 4-chlororesorcinol. Not the cheapest compound to acquire. However these various bits of mid-century magic made their way into emulsions since then.

Perceptol would be similar. When it comes to “tonality”, Microdol-X did/does nothing D-76 or any other general purpose solvent developer doesn’t do. 1+3 isn’t magic either. It just makes it a little grainier, possibly a little sharper than stock strength.

darkroommike said:
I came here from Facebook tonight, a discussion about using an old bag of D-76, and some fella went off about how he hates Tri-X/D-76 and cornered the market on Microdol-X when it was discontinued the first time. And how he double bagged it, froze it, etc. etc. and LOVES the tonality with Tri-X and Microdol-X 1:3 (I presume as God intended). Even if true it was WAY off topic.

So, was Tri-X and Microdol-X 1:3 "magic"? Or is this guy fully invested in his own delusion?

If you were to take the current "improved" Tri-X and process it in original Microdol-X would that combination possess the same "magic"?

Hypothetically, will Perceptol 1+3 possess the same "magic" as Microdol-X 1:3, with Tri-X (old), Tri-X (new) or HP-5+?

What about LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer? Is it really "just like Kodak used to make"? Or just more BS.

I know there have been dozens of threads and endless speculation about what made Microdol-X "special" but I take most of them with a grain of salt (ahem).

I went online and bought a can of Microdol-X but I hate getting married to any developer I can not make myself. If the formula is not published I want nothing to do with it but I am curious.

F4U · Jun 16, 2025

Never apologize for starting a Microdol X thread. Back in the day of 35mm peak of perfection, TriX and Microdol X 1:3 could give you 11x14 every bit as sharp and grainless as 4x5. I know because I did it regularly. Back then we didn't have computers and the internet with its keyboard know-it-alls telling you Microdol X made the film slower. Or turned the grain mushy, or hurt sharpness. None of that. I know nothing about Perceptol as I grew up in SE US. Nobody even knew who Ilford was. But that Microdol X WAS magic. But now, there is no Tri-x, at least not the same as it was then, and Microdol is long gone. Kodak may have declared bankruptcy and sold the rights, and even the formula. You believe they sold the name of the secret magic ingriedients along with it? Not hardly.

Craig · Jun 16, 2025

I remember trying Microdol back in the day, and there was nothing special about it. Film is much better now, give me Delta or Tmax over Tri-X any day.

Perceptol is basically the same if you want to try it for yourself.

mshchem · Jun 16, 2025

My Dad always used Microdol X, I did too until I started using HC-110.

Great name

Might be fun to try again. Magic is made, give it a try.

F4U · Jun 16, 2025

Back in the day in 35mm there was Tri X, Plus X, and Panatomic X. There were 2 popular best selling developers: D-76 and Microdol X. D-76 was good stuff up to 8x10, but was grainy, It was also grainy on Plus X. And on Panatomic, it wasn't the grain that was the deal killer. It was the contrast. Way too much. Microdol X was smooth as silk and sharp as a tack on all of it. I bought the quart glass bottles of it. I loved the developer and the brown glass bottles afterwards were great for keeping my toners and other photographic potions. I don't believe in magic or ghosts or witchcraft or spells or any of that. And I only half swallow much of the 'hard science" baloney I hear of these days. but Pepsi really is better than Coke, even if they are the same . And Microdol X really WAS something special. But these days Kodak and Ilford and Agfa and most of the other companies went bankrupt and sold assets to pay debts and tax. We will never know if exact formulas went with those deals. In a way we're all left to our own ingenenuity to make the best of what little we CAN get. Now I use D23 made from ebay igredients. And no, it's not Microdol X, by any means. Make-do as best you can is the key phrase. Regards

John Wiegerink · Jun 16, 2025

F4U said:
Back in the day in 35mm there was Tri X, Plus X, and Panatomic X. There were 2 popular best selling developers: D-76 and Microdol X. D-76 was good stuff up to 8x10, but was grainy, It was also grainy on Plus X. And on Panatomic, it wasn't the grain that was the deal killer. It was the contrast. Way too much. Microdol X was smooth as silk and sharp as a tack on all of it. I bought the quart glass bottles of it. I loved the developer and the brown glass bottles afterwards were great for keeping my toners and other photographic potions. I don't believe in magic or ghosts or witchcraft or spells or any of that. And I only half swallow much of the 'hard science" baloney I hear of these days. but Pepsi really is better than Coke, even if they are the same . And Microdol X really WAS something special. But these days Kodak and Ilford and Agfa and most of the other companies went bankrupt and sold assets to pay debts and tax. We will never know if exact formulas went with those deals. In a way we're all left to our own ingenenuity to make the best of what little we CAN get. Now I use D23 made from ebay igredients. And no, it's not Microdol X, by any means. Make-do as best you can is the key phrase. Regards

You could make your own Microdol or Perceptol by adding pickling salt to your already mixed D23. As for Microdol-X, there were many discussions here with one of this forums known authorities on Kodaks chemistry, who went by the name Photo Engineer. He is no longer with us, God I do miss him, but he was a longtime employee of Eastman Kodak in Rodchecter, NY. We pressed him and pressed him for discloser to what the magic X was in Microdol-X. He finally broke his silence shortly before he passed. I'll leave it to you to search this forum if you are interested in finding out.

darkroommike · Jun 16, 2025

Milpool said:
The X was 4-chlororesorcinol. Not the cheapest compound to acquire. However these various bits of mid-century magic made their way into emulsions since then.

Perceptol would be similar. When it comes to “tonality”, Microdol-X did/does nothing D-76 or any other general purpose solvent developer doesn’t do. 1+3 isn’t magic either. It just makes it a little grainier, possibly a little sharper than stock strength.

I see that 4-chlororesorcinol was also used in hair dyes. Makes me think that it is a cousin to PPD and the Color Dev. agents, especially CD-4 (not chemically but in the way it was employed).

darkroommike · Jun 16, 2025

So what I am picking up from all of this is that it's "hoodoo" not science. One thing I noticed back in the day was that the color of the developed images using Microdol-X (and Polydol for that matter) was different from that from D-76 and HC-110 and that may have contributed to the "hoodoo". When in college I worked in a lab that used Polydol for 70mm and sheet film and I liked it just fine. I do sort of wish that Kodak, etm. would release the official formulas for all their discontinued developers.

Nokton48 · Jun 16, 2025

Have a Cigar by Nokton48, on Flickr

Minolta SRT101 85mm F1.7 MC Rokkor Eastman XX Legacy Mic-X
Omega DII 80mm F4 Rodagon Aristo 5x7 RC Multigrade Dev

Nokton48 · Jun 16, 2025

Heron Pickerington Ponds XX 800mm Fll by Nokton48, on Flickr

Minolta SRT101 800mm Fll ED Rokkor lens Eastman 5222 XX Legacy Mic-X. Omega DII 80mm F4 Rodagon Aristo 5x7 RC #2 Multigrade dev

Nokton48 · Jun 16, 2025

I mixed up a gallon in dark glass jug Straight Legacy Mic-X. I stopped using it after THREE YEARS. Since it's a deep tank developer, it lasts a very long time, gets better as it "seasoned". Easy to make the Mic-X Replenisher too, I follow the Kodak recipe. 3/4 water 1 gallon powder, then add Carbonate per the Kodak Data Sheet. Easy Peasy.

With Eastman XX Movie Film my development was often 28 minutes at 66F, on a Unicolor Uniroller. I like that it needs very long dev times. I've never overdeveloped with Legacy Mic-X.

retina_restoration · Jun 16, 2025

darkroommike said:
So what I am picking up from all of this is that it's "hoodoo" not science. One thing I noticed back in the day was that the color of the developed images using Microdol-X (and Polydol for that matter) was different from that from D-76 and HC-110 and that may have contributed to the "hoodoo". When in college I worked in a lab that used Polydol for 70mm and sheet film and I liked it just fine. I do sort of wish that Kodak, etm. would release the official formulas for all their discontinued developers.

Anchell & Troop published an "equivalent" recipe for Microdol-X in the Film Developing Cookbook (pp. 91-95), and the book goes into considerable detail about the developer, it's various iterations, and what you can make (or buy) that will do the same things. While the precise Kodak formula for Microdol-X hasn't been published, A&T have laid out with considerable accuracy exactly what it was made of. If you want to make it, you can. (Or get Perceptol, which is an equivalent)
I suggest you get a copy of the Film Developing Cookbook and read up on it yourself. It's loaded with historical and practical information.

That said, there’s little point in fantasizing about pairings like Tri-X from the 1970s and Microdol-X when Tri-X isn’t the same film at all in 2025. When someone describes a film and developer combination with “Magical” properties, you should be skeptical. While it might have properties that some perceive as better than others, “Magical” is most likely to be imagined, not factual. We tend to see what we want to see.

pentaxuser · Jun 16, 2025

darkroommike said:
Hypothetically, will Perceptol 1+3 possess the same "magic" as Microdol-X 1:3, with Tri-X (old), Tri-X (new) or HP-5+?

You anticipated my first question. Hasn't there been a recent discussion here on Photrio to the effect that while there is likely to be no "magic bullett" developer/film combo then such a concept's likelihood diminishes even further when developers are in the same group such as Microdol and Perceptol ?

Magic is for children's stories and young lovers. The only kind of magic that was genuine used to be Black Magic - it came in a black box and was excellent.

However I say "used to be" because there are a lot more kinds of chocolates and chocolate boxes around now with equally good chocolates

pentaxuser

Milpool · Jun 16, 2025

darkroommike said:
I see that 4-chlororesorcinol was also used in hair dyes. Makes me think that it is a cousin to PPD and the Color Dev. agents, especially CD-4 (not chemically but in the way it was employed).

No, it was added to Microdol to reduce the chances of getting dichroic fog with certain films (this was a risk in the old days when using highly solvent / extra fine grain developers).

Richard Henn (Kodak) investigated this and found two compounds (one being chlororesorcinol) which helped and there were two patents. At the time they were referred to as "anti-stain" agents. According to the late Ron Mowrey Henn disclosed in a conversation that chlororesorcinol was used in Microdol-X (although it never appeared on any MSDS I could find - even as a trade secret compound). Since the operating principle was basically lessening physical development, over time Microdol-X seems to have gained a reputation (justified or not) for being sharper than Microdol etc.

I actually have a supply of chlororesorcinol. I had wanted to try adding it to the usual home-brew Microdol formula, compare with Perceptol etc. but haven't gotten around to it.

DREW WILEY · Jun 16, 2025

Those who have tried both Microdol X and Perceptol claim very similar performance. I personally use Perceptol 1:3 with TMax100 in all formats in order to improve its edge acutance. I get identical results whether from prepackaged Ilford Perceptol or my own home brew mixed up from scratch. It's important to use real sodium chloride, and not table salt (which contains additives). No exotic ingredients needed. D76 and regular D23 will not result in the same effect, at least in this case.

When it comes to HP5 or Tri-X, or even TMY400, or Delta 100, I distinctly prefer PMK pryo instead.

chuckroast · Jun 16, 2025

darkroommike said:
I came here from Facebook tonight, a discussion about using an old bag of D-76, and some fella went off about how he hates Tri-X/D-76 and cornered the market on Microdol-X when it was discontinued the first time. And how he double bagged it, froze it, etc. etc. and LOVES the tonality with Tri-X and Microdol-X 1:3 (I presume as God intended). Even if true it was WAY off topic.

So, was Tri-X and Microdol-X 1:3 "magic"? Or is this guy fully invested in his own delusion?

If you were to take the current "improved" Tri-X and process it in original Microdol-X would that combination possess the same "magic"?

Hypothetically, will Perceptol 1+3 possess the same "magic" as Microdol-X 1:3, with Tri-X (old), Tri-X (new) or HP-5+?

What about LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer? Is it really "just like Kodak used to make"? Or just more BS.

I know there have been dozens of threads and endless speculation about what made Microdol-X "special" but I take most of them with a grain of salt (ahem).

I went online and bought a can of Microdol-X but I hate getting married to any developer I can not make myself. If the formula is not published I want nothing to do with it but I am curious.

Many good answers here already but my 2 cents in no particular order:

Microdol-X was fine grained because it was a solvent developer - the lack of grain came at the cost of acutance.
Various formulae can be found about the internet but it's basically D-23 with salt added - easily made on your own.
Tri-X is quite different today that it was back in the day. It's been reformulated enough times that I wouldn't even call the 400TX currently in use "Tri-X". The only true Tri-X these days is 320TXP in sheet film so far as I have been able to determine.
As it happens, I've just done a bunch of testing with 400TX in 35mm and 120 using varying dilutions of D-76 and Pyrocat-HDC (both of which can be home grown). For normal agitation, I find D-76 1:1 for 7.5-8 min about right. For semistand development, I am leaning toward Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:200 for 25 min. The latter has the advantage that the stain covers some of the grain when silver printing, while maintaining excellent sharpness, though I am still fiddling with times and dilutions.
The truth is that if you do your due diligence and test carefully, you can get pretty wonderful results from anything. You can make D-23 and D-76 operate as pure solvent developers or as very high acutance developers. You can dilute Microdol-X and get better acutance at the cost of increased grain.
After tons of testing, I have come to the conclusion that - for my style of working - HC-110B, D-76 1:1 or D-23 1:1 give me best results when agitating conventionally. For low agitation schemes like semistand or EMA, I find that Pyrocat-HD works best for most circumstances. When I want really high acutance with low agitation, I use D23 1+9, adding 0.5 g/l of Sodium Hydroxide (shoutout to @Raghu Kuvempunagar for that suggestion). I've also found the higher dilutions like 1+4 of MQ developers (D-76, DK-50) for low agitation work ok for larger formats but give me unpleasant grittiness with 35mm.

Again, these are my findings and YMMV ...

P.S. Oh, and when I shoot landscapes with lots of clouds on larger formats, nothing beats PMK...

retina_restoration · Jun 16, 2025

DREW WILEY said:
When it comes to HP5 or Tri-X, or even TMY400, or Delta 100, I distinctly prefer PMK pryo instead.

Me too - I use it with most all of the films I use. PMK has never disappointed me.

And FWIW, you can easily make your own "Microdol-X clone" by taking 5g of Metol, 100g of Sodium sulfite, and adding 30g of Sodium chloride, to make a liter of solution. Couldn't be simpler.

Paul Howell · Jun 16, 2025

To piggy back on what others have said, in the 60s and 70 Microdol X when paired with 35mm Trix GAF 500, HP4 was very good, down side was loss of film speed. By the mid 80s to 90s grain had much smaller in most fast film, by that time GAF 500 was long gone and in the U.S Foma and other Eastern European films were hard to find. I stopped using Microdol X and swithced to D76, DK 50, Clayton F76+. I might think about using Microdol with Foma 400, or even Tmax 3200.

Lachlan Young · Jun 16, 2025

Milpool said:
No, it was added to Microdol to reduce the chances of getting dichroic fog with certain films (this was a risk in the old days when using highly solvent / extra fine grain developers).

Richard Henn (Kodak) investigated this and found two compounds (one being chlororesorcinol) which helped and there were two patents. At the time they were referred to as "anti-stain" agents. According to the late Ron Mowrey Henn disclosed in a conversation that chlororesorcinol was used in Microdol-X (although it never appeared on any MSDS I could find - even as a trade secret compound). Since the operating principle was basically lessening physical development, over time Microdol-X seems to have gained a reputation (justified or not) for being sharper than Microdol etc.

I actually have a supply of chlororesorcinol. I had wanted to try adding it to the usual home-brew Microdol formula, compare with Perceptol etc. but haven't gotten around to it.

Adding to this, the other important point Henn made that Ron reported at one point was that dilute Microdol-X etc was like 'a low pH Rodinal' - which makes much more sense when knowledge of the bell-curve distribution of pH against sharpness is known (peaks at pH 10, D-76/ Microdol and Rodinal are all about level).

From Henn's articles (they're relatively easy to find via Google Books) launching Microdol, D-23 was engineered to equal the performance of various much-hyped fine-grain developers of the era (777, Edwal 10 & 12 and others of varying levels of end user exposure to raw PPD), D-25 to best them, and Microdol to produce something more efficient than D-25.

chuckroast · Jun 16, 2025

DREW WILEY said:
When it comes to HP5 or Tri-X, or even TMY400, or Delta 100, I distinctly prefer PMK pryo instead.

I like PMK a lot too, but I've never gotten happy results with it on 35mm traditional films like Tri-X, Plus-X, FP4+... I find the results look gritty in varying degrees.

Lachlan Young · Jun 16, 2025

chuckroast said:
I find the results look gritty in varying degrees

The real heavy lifting in that developer (including the highlight density control) is being done by a muddled re-telling of Beutler.

Beutler is very, very sharp working, but not terribly fine grained. Better optimised PQ developers can deliver heightened sharpness but more controlled granularity too.

John Wiegerink · Jun 16, 2025

darkroommike said:
So what I am picking up from all of this is that it's "hoodoo" not science. One thing I noticed back in the day was that the color of the developed images using Microdol-X (and Polydol for that matter) was different from that from D-76 and HC-110 and that may have contributed to the "hoodoo". When in college I worked in a lab that used Polydol for 70mm and sheet film and I liked it just fine. I do sort of wish that Kodak, etm. would release the official formulas for all their discontinued developers.

Color! That's why I pestered Ron for the Microdol-X formula or missing ingredient . My negatives using old VerichromePan B&W film and Microdolol-X had a light tea-coffee-brown like stain to them that I didn't get with Perceptol or Kodaks Microdol. The pestering was more out of curiosity than anything else.

darkroommike · Jun 16, 2025

John Wiegerink said:
Color! That's why I pestered Ron for the Microdol-X formula or missing ingredient . My negatives using old VerichromePan B&W film and Microdolol-X had a light tea-coffee-brown like stain to them that I didn't get with Perceptol or Kodaks Microdol. The pestering was more out of curiosity than anything else.

I don't know that it was a stain or just caused by silver grain with smaller particles.

F4U · Jun 17, 2025

chuckroast said:
Many good answers here already but my 2 cents in no particular order:

Microdol-X was fine grained because it was a solvent developer - the lack of grain came at the cost of acutance.

Various formulae can be found about the internet but it's basically D-23 with salt added - easily made on your own.

Tri-X is quite different today that it was back in the day. It's been reformulated enough times that I wouldn't even call the 400TX currently in use "Tri-X". The only true Tri-X these days is 320TXP in sheet film so far as I have been able to determine.

As it happens, I've just done a bunch of testing with 400TX in 35mm and 120 using varying dilutions of D-76 and Pyrocat-HDC (both of which can be home grown). For normal agitation, I find D-76 1:1 for 7.5-8 min about right. For semistand development, I am leaning toward Pyrocat-HDC 1.5:1:200 for 25 min. The latter has the advantage that the stain covers some of the grain when silver printing, while maintaining excellent sharpness, though I am still fiddling with times and dilutions.

The truth is that if you do your due diligence and test carefully, you can get pretty wonderful results from anything. You can make D-23 and D-76 operate as pure solvent developers or as very high acutance developers. You can dilute Microdol-X and get better acutance at the cost of increased grain.

After tons of testing, I have come to the conclusion that - for my style of working - HC-110B, D-76 1:1 or D-23 1:1 give me best results when agitating conventionally. For low agitation schemes like semistand or EMA, I find that Pyrocat-HD works best for most circumstances. When I want really high acutance with low agitation, I use D23 1+9, adding 0.5 g/l of Sodium Hydroxide (shoutout to @Raghu Kuvempunagar for that suggestion). I've also found the higher dilutions like 1+4 of MQ developers (D-76, DK-50) for low agitation work ok for larger formats but give me unpleasant grittiness with 35mm.

Again, these are my findings and YMMV ...

P.S. Oh, and when I shoot landscapes with lots of clouds on larger formats, nothing beats PMK...

Interesting. But what would be the developing time for this potion? Perhaps 6 weeks? I'm not trying to sound contrary, because I'm of an adventurous personality who is just liable to try such an idea. But not if I am going to be tipping my tank 3 times every 30 seconds interminably.

Microdol-X (again, sorry)

​

​

​

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency