Microdol-X (again, sorry)

[Lachlan Young]

But what would be the developing time for this potion

It's drastically accelerated by the NaOH.

However, if you want to try the exhaustion effects of highly dilute Metol developers, Beutler is safer and better (and is what PMK is a muddled retelling of). And some modern PQ formulae are engineered to properly square the circle. This was an area of quite extensive research within the big research labs, even if not all of it made it to commercial products (mainly because under the tough test conditions of double blind print comparisons, D-76/ ID-11 is very, very hard to beat across a wide array of magnifications - and yes, they have very clearly tested the staining formulae and found them irrelevant, otherwise the considerable organic synthesis capacity of these companies would have been brought to bear).

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Sheet film exposed at box speed, semistand for about 45min is a good starting point. 2min initial agitation and 15 sec at 23min should but you in the ballpark.

All the usual caveats about properly suspending the film minimally and well above the tank when doing semistand apply.

 

[chuckroast]

It's drastically accelerated by the NaOH.

However, if you want to try the exhaustion effects of highly dilute Metol developers, Beutler is safer and better (and is what PMK is a muddled retelling of). And some modern PQ formulae are engineered to properly square the circle. This was an area of quite extensive research within the big research labs, even if not all of it made it to commercial products (mainly because under the tough test conditions of double blind print comparisons, D-76/ ID-11 is very, very hard to beat across a wide array of magnifications - and yes, they have very clearly tested the staining formulae and found them irrelevant, otherwise the considerable organic synthesis capacity of these companies would have been brought to bear).

D-76 is hard to beat for most thing and most usual uses. But I find MQ developer tonal rendering too harsh for my taste when doing long, low agitation development. The D-23/NaOH combination gives me very balanced, extremely sharp negatives, at least with Foma 100.

You can get there a lot of ways doing semistand/EMA. I've tried many of them among which includes, say, DK-50 1+5 and HC110 1+128, so I am not religious about this, but I do like the aforementioned D-23 combo a lot.

I keep my notes here:


https://gitbucket.tundraware.com/tundra/Stand-Development

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

Im genuinely interested - which PQ developer do you consider to be “better” (for your needs, of course)?

I ask because I’ve become very fond of PMK in the past 5 years and find it hard to imagine anything better (to get what I want from a photograph). Although to be completely honest, comparisons I’ve made have also illustrated how easily some of the simplest developers can be manipulated to perform similarly. (Looking at you, D-23)
For example, you can alter the behavior of a developer significantly changing the dilution from 1:1 to 1:3.

 

[Milpool]

It's drastically accelerated by the NaOH.

However, if you want to try the exhaustion effects of highly dilute Metol developers, Beutler is safer and better (and is what PMK is a muddled retelling of). And some modern PQ formulae are engineered to properly square the circle. This was an area of quite extensive research within the big research labs, even if not all of it made it to commercial products (mainly because under the tough test conditions of double blind print comparisons, D-76/ ID-11 is very, very hard to beat across a wide array of magnifications - and yes, they have very clearly tested the staining formulae and found them irrelevant, otherwise the considerable organic synthesis capacity of these companies would have been brought to bear).

LOL somehow this thread went from the superfinegrain magic to pyro magic.

 

[chuckroast]

LOL somehow this thread went from the superfinegrain magic to pyro magic.

All developers when used correctly will get you 80% there. The magic is in the last 20%.

97.456% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[F4U]

Sheet film exposed at box speed, semistand for about 45min is a good starting point. 2min initial agitation and 15 sec at 23min should but you in the ballpark.

All the usual caveats about properly suspending the film minimally and well above the tank when doing semistand apply.

Thank you. I believe i'll pass on that, as i don't have the patience to do stand development. In earlier posts I spoke of Microdol x 1:3 on the Kodak roll films of the 70's. All of that is long gone now, so its really moot. With the state of films and chemicals availabilty the way they are now, I believe I'll just stick with D-23 straight on the roll films and Rodinal on the sheet films. No stand or other exotic methods. Just time and temperature straight off the directions supplied with or for the product . For the better or worse of it. Apparently something happens when you get old, and a lot of times some things just aren' t so important any more. Not much of an explanation or excuse, but apprently true in my case.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lachlan's prejudice against staining pyro formulas is all too predictable. Real world results have told me otherwise for decades now. But that should not be confused with all this "super-fine" grain talk, which might or might not offer any improvement in actual acutance, depending.

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is just my personal preference and observation when it comes to super-fine gran developers. They work fine for some films, film sizes and subjects, but not all. A women's portrait on FP4+ developed in Perceptol full strength would be fine with me, but not for a landscape scene or industrial scene with fine detail. Just as Rodinal 1+25 on 35mm film would not be my first choice for that same women's portrait. I'm a medium grain type person and find a print with a little grain is perceived to be sharper and crisper to these old eyes. One thing I am death against in any of my photos is "MUSH" type grain. I want a certain amount of what I call "crispness" or I won't waste my time working any further with a negative. I like Rodinal with certain films and certain formats. XT-3 Replenished with almost anything and Pyrocat HDC pretty much the same as XT-3R. I've used Perceptol 1+2 and 1+3 with HP5+ and Delta 100, but never really saw any benefit over XT-3R. Plus, the developing times are pretty long for Perceptol 1+3, but I'm not totally against the time aspect.