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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

superfinegrain magic to pyro magic

If I'm being cynical, it's because the pyro-obsessed often have inherently poor process controls (and, dare I say it, fall into a pretty clear demographic) - pyro developers can drastically widen those error bars, and they discover (without cognisance) that a thinner neg is a finer grained neg, thus they then demand that everyone accept that 2+2=5.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.

Credit to Jay DeFehr IMO for formulating a developer which in my test produced finer grain than Perceptol.

Halcyon p-phenylenediamine developer test

Opinion is divided over PPD, some say it has unique properties, others that it was replaced by Microdol (now discontinued) and by Perceptol (still available) as an ultrafine grain developer.(See the Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop for more details) PPD can cause permanent allergy...

www.photrio.com

But Kodak did photographers a favor by promoting Henn's work and avoiding the dermatitis caused by PPD.

 

[chuckroast]

If I'm being cynical, it's because the pyro-obsessed often have inherently poor process controls (and, dare I say it, fall into a pretty clear demographic) - pyro developers can drastically widen those error bars, and they discover (without cognisance) that a thinner neg is a finer grained neg, thus they then demand that everyone accept that 2+2=5.

A bit unfair and at least a brush far too wide.

There are many of us - including many here - with considerable years of experience who do practice tight process controls but are also interested in pushing the boundaries of a particular approach. Pyro in its various manifestations serves me well for certain classes of work. Stand development, ditto. Highly dilute MQ developers, ditto. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

What I have noticed with sad regularity across a fairly wide breadth of photographic forums is an almost instantaneous willingness to say "that's not it" rather than showing an alternative by actually posting a photograph.

Whenever I can, I support a claim or observation with a scan of a silver print so others may judge for themselves the merits of said observations.

How many photographers does it take to change a lightbulb?

20. One to change the bulb, and 19 to say "I could have done it better."

 

[DREW WILEY]

Pyro users = poor process control? What century are you referring to, Lachlan? I use as high a degree of process control as is relevant to the task. For certain technical applications, I have thermoregulators which can hold processing temps inside of 0.1 deg F. But for routine photography, that would be ridiculous overkill. But I'm not a pyro fanatic at all. I have numerous other developers on hand, or which I can make up at will. PMK just happens to be quite versatile for me personally, and gave a distinct improvement in highlight repro, especially back in real graded paper days.

Appropriate grain structure depends on the image. For a smooth complexion portrait, inconspicuous soft grain might be entirely appropriate. But a deliberately gritty combat photo might benefit from just the opposite. Then there are the trade-offs, like gaining more acutance with 1:3 Microdol or Perceptol due to a little more grain growth with longer dev time.

 

[Craig]

Whenever I can, I support a claim or observation with a scan of a silver print so others may judge for themselves the merits of said observations.

After a print is scanned and viewed on different monitors of different calibrations ( or none), I'm not sure than any subtleties can be determined by the viewers here which would be visible on the original print under optimum lighting conditions.

 

[chuckroast]

After a print is scanned and viewed on different monitors of different calibrations ( or none), I'm not sure than any subtleties can be determined by the viewers here which would be visible on the original print under optimum lighting conditions.

They complete subtleties of the print cannot be seen on a transmissive monitor, but such scans can still be used to illustrate an idea. There is nothing like looking at a real silver print. And calibrated or not, no monitor can duplicate that reflected look.

 

[psmithp]

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.

​

Magic is in the eye of the beholder