Microdol X Developer

[braxus]

Having known the Kodak film Panatomic X, was recommended to use Microdol X for best results. Apparently that developer brought out the best in that particular film. First off why is this developer no longer available? What was it well known for in terms of developing qualities? I have read it produces a really fine grain with 1 stop extra speed, but is that about it? I see packages of this developer on Ebay, so I could try it. Who has used this stuff before? How toxic is it? And would a developer like Xtol beat anything Microdol X can do? Also would it be beneficial to stay with Kodaks variant of this developer, or would Legacy Pro's Mic-X developer be pretty much identical?

PDF below.

 

[Anon Ymous]

It was discontinued because sales were low, not enough people bought it. Ilford Perceptol is a very good substitute. It gave very fine grain at the expense of speed (1 stop less or thereabouts) and sharpness. If lowest granularity is your top priority, then it's a good choice. The speed and sharpness penalty was decreased if used diluted. It's not particularly toxic, less so than D76. Xtol is sharper and has a serious advantage in ISO speed. It's probably slightly coarser grained, but a fair comparison is very hard.

 

[braxus]

I think you get better tonality too if used 1:3 dilution- correct? I wouldnt mind trying this developer, just to see its results. Legacy Pro Mic X might be the choice there. So basically using it undiluted, the only real benefit is extremely fine and mushy grain?

LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer (Makes 1 Gallon)

LegacyPro black and white processing chemicals have been developed with the same or similar formulations as Kodak chemicals!Legacy Pro Mic-X yields a low fog level with films such as Kodak Plus-x Pan, Tri-X Pan and T-Max Professional Films. Mic-X is designed…

www.freestylephoto.com

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1313625-REG/legacy_pro_749710_mic_x_film_developer_to.html

 

[Anon Ymous]

Yes, the Legacy Pro clone could be a very good substitute too. Actually, there's also a homebrew formula to try if you fancy mixing your own. Tonality is very vague, so I'll refrain from commenting. Keep in mind though that at this dilution and using too little developer could result in pronounced shoulder and basically low highlight contrast. If it's good or bad, it debatable.

So basically using it undiluted, the only real benefit is extremely fine and mushy grain?

Uh, yes.

 

[braxus]

I know this probably wouldn't be recommended, but what if you developed a roll of half straight Microdol X and half Xtol straight in the same solution? I'm being silly, but curious as well.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Well, are you curious enough?

 

[braxus]

I'd have both, so why not? Only issue would be to know what times and speed to use.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ilford Perceptol would be another alternative.

Ian

 

[Craig]

Microdol didn't add an extra stop, you lost a stop of speed using that developer. I can't remember when it was discontinued, but it was well before the rise of digital.

I think with the introduction of Xtol and the T Max range of films there really wasn't a reason to use it anymore. You could get very fine grain with TMX and Xtol without the speed loss and with greater contrast/actuance than a FX/Microdol combination.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I can't remember when it was discontinued, but it was well before the rise of digital.

IIRC, it was around 2010 and it was the replenisher that was discontinued earlier.

 

[braxus]

I wonder why Panatomic X was recommended with Microdol X in the first place, being Pan X was already a very fine grained film?

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Mercapto! The Secret of X!

 

[Paul Howell]

In the 60s and 70s most films had much larger grain than more modern emulsions. Pan X was very fined grained, using a fine gain developer like Microdol X gain was used for even smaller grain when larger enlargements were needed. Acutance could be enhanced by diluting Microdol 1:1 1:2 or 1:3. Berry Thornton recommended using diluted Mic X or Perceptol for acutance. The developing times were on the longish side and added base fog and as noted there is a loss of film speed, maybe a stop or so. At one time I used MicX 1:3 with sheet film, TriX or GAF, I shot TirX pro 125 rather than the box speed of 320.

 

[MattKing]

I doubt the chemistry would be complementary if you mixed X-Tol and Microdol-X or a good substitute like Perceptol.
But that would be a better question for those who like to mix up their own.
Many of us can remember spending our youth searching for fine grain in small film - that is where the recommendation for Microdol X and Panatomic X came from.

 

[mshchem]

When I was a kid my Dad would buy the 1 quart tins of Microdol-X. He would mix up and keep in a brown glass bottle, there was a small gummed paper label. As we used it he would make tally marks on the label with his #3 hard lead pencil to adjust our times.

 

[Ian Grant]

The only slow film equivalent to Panatomic X is Ilford Pan F. Agfa AP/APX25 was another. Yes there are other slow films, but they need special developers and aren't as versatile.

Pan F n dilute Perceptol 1+2 give exceptionally fine grain with excellent sharpness and tonal range, but it's not very practical for hand held work due the additional speed loss.

Tmax 100 & 400 give superb results in Xtol, Kodak claimed Tmax 100 gave similar granularity to Pan X in Microdol X. Personally I preferred Agfa AP100 later APX100 in Rodinal, or Xtol the results were virtually identical as I achieved a stop better EI with them compared to Tmax 100.

Ian

 

[snusmumriken]

PanF is inclined to be very contrasty, while Perceptol tends to be ‘soft’ in the contrast sense. So they make a very good partnership. I don’t know if there’s any read-across to Panatomic-X and Microphen, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

 

[George Collier]

I remember reading that Microdol-x achieved soft smooth grain with a silver solvent, which rounded the edges of the grains, and resulted in loss of acutance. I used it in high school, but never again once I found Rodinal - as Flotsam (RIP) use to say about grain, "it's supposed to be there."

 

[Renato Tonelli]

I still use Microdol-X with TriX-320 (120 and 220); very fine grain results, not as sharp as XTOL. It has its own look that works well with (in my case) medium format film.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

As well, Kodak recommended TMX 100 in Microdol-X (with speed loss) as a near identical replacement for Panatomic-X. I happen to agree, with TMY 400 behaving in a similar manner.

 

[TomR55]

I, too, used Microdol-X, 1 + 3, mostly with Tri-X in the late 1970's, but switched to D76 1 + 1 in the early 1980s. And yes, I would expose Tri-X at 200 ASA when using Microdot-X. IIRC it rendered "soft" images. I could use this combination for some portrait work with nice results.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Ilfords Perceptol 1:3 with HP5 @ 200 gives fine grain that works for portraits.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Having known the Kodak film Panatomic X, was recommended to use Microdol X for best results. Apparently that developer brought out the best in that particular film. First off why is this developer no longer available? What was it well known for in terms of developing qualities? I have read it produces a really fine grain with 1 stop extra speed, but is that about it? I see packages of this developer on Ebay, so I could try it. Who has used this stuff before? How toxic is it? And would a developer like Xtol beat anything Microdol X can do? Also would it be beneficial to stay with Kodaks variant of this developer, or would Legacy Pro's Mic-X developer be pretty much identical?

PDF below.

I used Microdol-X almost exclusively from about 1960 to 1964 (then away at college) and intermittently from 1972 to around 1975. Early on I used it stock, but quickly changed to a 1:3 diluition. No longer available: My guess is that sales were never competitive with D-76,and it was not pushed in the photo magazines of the day. Qualities: Finer grain than most developers. Speed: It was not fast and did not increase film speed. if used 1:3 (optional recommended by Kodak), you lost about a half stop. Toxic: Not particularly; probably less toxic than many current formulas. Versus Xtol: Xtol would yield superior images in all circumstances. Use of variants: It would be beneficial not to use Microdol-X or its variants.

Microdol-X used stock has so much sulfite in it that it literally dissolves developed silver grains. That is how it yields "fine grain". However, the side effect is to render the gain edges "mushy", which appears as a relative lack of sharpness. Used 1:3 dilution, the grain erosion is much lessened, but so is the "fine grain". The more diluted working solution yields a fairly sharp gain image. Xtol and others can reach the same effects without loosing the film speed sacrificed in Microdol-X. Also, the diluted working soltion requires a long developing time. The biggest drawback of Microdol-X, and what caused me to drop it, is that between its compensating action and grain erosion, it kills the tonal separation between highlights more than most developers. If you like details in the clouds in your landscapes, Microdol-X is not for you. If you look at a graph of its exposure versus density, you'll see the top (highlight) end of the curve seriously flatten out Zone VIII.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I remember reading somewhere that Geoffrey Crawley found that Ilford films performed better in the original Microdol developer than they did in the Microdol-X developer, but my memory is vague as to why.

Perhaps someone here will be know.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

IIRC, it might have been in one of the old BJP Annuals. He designed FX5 and later FX5b as an alternative.