Microdol-X gone - recommended alternatives?

mfohl · Oct 3, 2010

Hello Folks, it appears that my favorite film developer, Microdol-X, is going by the wayside, if it hasn't already gone. Does anyone know of any similar developers? Does Photographers' Formulary offer one? I checked on their website, and there is no mention of any.

I suppose I can switch, but I would prefer not to. Any help, commiseration, or just plain sympathy would be welcome.

Cheers,

-- Mark

Sirius Glass · Oct 3, 2010

XTOL full strength.

Here is why:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...wFilmProcessing/selecting.jhtml?pq-path=14053

Steve

Shawn Dougherty · Oct 3, 2010

Legacy Pro Mic-X from Freestyle. HERE.

Ian Grant · Oct 3, 2010

Perceptol is the ideal replacement. Used 1+2 gives the best all round results and better acutance than at full strength.

Kodak's chart is misleading because it compares shadow detail at box speed, and Microdol-X & Perceptol require additional exposure, so teh shadow detail column is misleading.

Ian

RobertV · Oct 3, 2010

Microdol-X is an ultra fine grain developer. You have to over expose your films for about 1F stop.

Try:

Perceptol (1ltr.), powder.
CG-512/RLS (250ml/1ltr.), liquid concentrate.

or for the finest grain based on Phenylene Diamine:
W665 (Windisch): Based on Ortho Phenylene Diamine. Formulation Windisch 1941. (powder)
777 Panthermic: Based on Para Phenylene Diamine. Original 1938 formulation. (powder)

All above developers are commercial available.

clayne · Oct 4, 2010

And yet you can achieve superior results while not losing shadow speed? XTOL. Try it.

dynachrome · Oct 5, 2010

You can also try A49.

A49 · Oct 5, 2010

dynachrome said:
You can also try A49.

Yes, I also highly recommend at least to try it. Some time ago I tested many different developers mainly to check out, which one produces the finest grain. In the testing included was Ilford Perceptol (99% the same as Microdol-X). The big surprise for me back then was, that the best results in fine grain I´ve always had with A49 equal which film I tested. Maybe Ultrafin SF and Perceptol could match the A49´s results, I don´t remember this well, but Agfa Atomal F, another developer regarded as ultra fine grain, definitely was worse. And here comes the best and the next surprise. In terms of speed exploitation A49 was also one of the best. It offers box speed or even a little (1/3 stop) more with the films I tested (Tmax 100, Tmax 400 (old and shortly the new version), Tmax 3200, APX 25, Neopan 400, PanF+, FP4+, HP5+, all EFKE films, all FOMA films, Delta 3200).

I later found out that A49 uses a very special developing agent, CD-2, original a color developing agent, to make its features possible. Hydroquinone is the other agent. The formula seems to be be very similar to the Crawley FX 10 as described in the film developing cookbook on pages 68, 69 (1998 edition). At least the FX 10´s developing agents are included in A49. Crawley claims for FX 10 a 30% speed gain and believes that FX 9 and FX 10 provide the optimum exploitation in the grain / speed relationship. Downside is that sharpness is not the very best, but it isn´t with Microdol-X either. And with Microdol-X one shoots the film close to the half box speed.

If that sounds interesting to you, do a short comparison test between A49 and Microdol-X with your favourite film(s). I think it´s worth the little time spent. A49 comes from Germany and is, as far as I know, not well marketed worldwide. Therefore it is relatively unknown in regions outside of or not near to Germany. Its quality would justify that it is more common. My nickname is a little attempt to make it more popular, but I swear that I do not earn any buck if the sellings should rise.

Best,
Andreas

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

As far as I am informed CD-2 (Merck) is no longer produced. One of the reasons Amaloco had to cease their K54 (C41 mononegacolor kit) already in 2007. CD is containing Phenylene Diamine like mentioned in above W665 and 777 Panthermic developers.

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

It is important not to confuse Atomal with Atomal FF wich are totally different developers. Atomal is the fine one. The exact formula for Agfa Atomal should be the following:

Package A:
Oxyethyl-ortho-aminophenol 6g
Pyrocatechin 10g
Hydroquinone 4g

Package B:
Sodiumsulfite sicc. 100g
Sodiumcarbonate sicc. 25g
Potassiumbromide 1g
Sodiummetaphosphate 1g

Dissolve in 750 ml of water of 50° Celsius. Cold Water to make 1
litre.

This formula was published after world war II by an investigation comission of the allied forces that also published other Agfa formulas
like Rodinal. Later published in No. 3019 Amateur Photographer 1946.

The problem is the main developing agent oxyethyl-ortho-aminophenol. Agfa reported me, that in the past they ordered this derivate at Merck, a German pharmaceutic company. In fact, I dont know where to get this agent. Maybe it can be replaced by some Color Developer like Kodak CD2.

Well the circle is round. What also is possible Amaloco needed the Merck CD for their K54 specifications. Small details can be sometimes made huge differences.

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

For people who want to experiment with W665 (Windisch):

700ml destilled water (30C)
65g Sodiumsulfite sicc.
8g Ortho-Phenylene Diamine
8g Metol
7g Potassiummetabisulfite

Data: Windisch - die neue Foto Schule - 1941.

Here an example of Fomapan Creative 200 (T200) on E.I. 100 in W665, 9:45 minutes 20C. Zone V exactly on 0,72 log D.

Leica M7 + Summicron 2,0/50mm.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 6, 2010

RobertV said:
or for the finest grain based on Phenylene Diamine:
W665 (Windisch): Based on Ortho Phenylene Diamine. Formulation Windisch 1941. (powder)
777 Panthermic: Based on Para Phenylene Diamine. Original 1938 formulation. (powder)

I would not recommend the use of phenylenediamine based developers as contact with the dry powder or the mixed developer can cause severe dermatitis. These compounds can also cause cross sensitization to other developing agents such as Metol.

While the phenylenediamines do produce fine grain they also produce poor image quality. This why their use fell out of favor.

I would suggest mixing your own D-23 which contains only two ingredients; Metol and sodium sulfite. Very economical and you don't even need a balance to make it. By adding one other ingredient you can make D-25 the granddaddy of Microdol.

Kodak D-23

2 teaspoons Metol
4 tablespoons sodium sulfite
Water to make 1 quart

Dissolve the Metol first and then the sodium sulfite.

Ian Grant · Oct 6, 2010

You can also add 30g Sodium chloride to D23 and you'll have a good substitute for Microdol/Microdol-X. I tested it last Spring and had excellent results with Ilford Delta & Foma films

Some people experience Dichroic fog with Kodak films and homemade Microdol/Perceptol (D23 + chloride), this issue goes back to Kodatol/DK-20 which will work OK with some modern films but not others, and was the reason Kodatol was replaced by Microdol, later replaced by Microdol-X because Kodak's newer (early 60's) emulsions were even more prone to dichoic fog.

Ian

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

I would not consider this as poor quality:
Rollei PAN 25 in W665:

But maybe not all modern emulsions will react in the same way. This 35mm negative gives neglectible grain.
The Ortho- version is less toxid then the Para- version. But when you're working with staining developers containing Pyrocatechine or Pyrogallol it's much worser for your health. Especially when using powders.

Ian Grant · Oct 6, 2010

We get paranoid about PPD but many millions of women (and a few vain men ) around the world come into contact with if very frequently as it's used in hair dyes.

Meritol which is a fusion product of Pyrocatechin and PPD was the basis of some superb commercial developers sold by Johnsons from the mid 1930's until their management withdrew from the chemistry market in the early 1970's.

Hans Windisch's W665 looks a very interesting developer, I might have to get some from you Robert It would be interesting to compare it to the Meritol-Metol formuloa

Did you know that "The New Photo School" was also published in English, I bought a 1938 copy last year.

Ian

BetterSense · Oct 6, 2010

I would suggest you try D23. I have found that it gives substantially finer grain than HC100 and also substantially lower film speed with TMAX 400. I DON'T feel that it is less sharp than the grainier developers. You can see a half-assed film test here:

chazmiller.com/projects/devtest.html

make sure you click the picture for mega-size.

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

We get paranoid about PPD but many millions of women (and a few vain men ) around the world come into contact with if very frequently as it's used in hair dyes.

You're quicker then my reaction about hair dyes.

As long as you know what you're doing with particulair chemicals the risk is not very high.

Did you know that "The New Photo School" was also published in English, I bought a 1938 copy last year.

No, I did not know that but your lay-out is exactly the same as my book in German from 1941.
I think Windisch was very innovating in that time.

If you're around you can pick up a package W665 for free.
In case you do not like it, you can always use it to dye the grey hairs

Ian Grant · Oct 6, 2010

The English version is a page or two shorter than the German, I have a 1944 German copy as well, mainly because German words tend to be longer

What's interesting Robert is that he doesn't claim the Pyrocatechin surface developer that people call Windisch as his own formula in the book, however he does claim W665 as his.

Ian

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

What's interesting Robert is that he doesn't claim the Pyrocatechin surface developer that people call Windisch as his own formula in the book

More Pyrocatechine developers were on the market in that time. Amaloco AM20 is from 1936. The father of Jaap van Beugen made this type. pH=12,2 last modification in 1968. Pyrocatechine and Sodiumhydroxide. It's not a semi-compensating developer like AM74.
A modified type was AM50. What really was modified: Only the dilution. AM20 1+24 - AM50 1+29. Same devloper, different packing/dilution. Also this was a clever form of marketing.
Both developers are discontinued since Amaloco stopped production in Ommen (July 2008).

fschifano · Oct 6, 2010

You can fool around with all the home made developers you like, but I'm with Steve on the recommendation for XTOL. The stuff is absolutely fantastic and is more economical than Microdol-X. You can even run XTOL straight in a replenished system without the need for a special replenisher formula since the developer is it's own replenisher. For more information on that, consult Kodak's tech sheet for the product. Find it here. Microdol-X will supposedly deliver finer grain (at the cost of some film speed), but the differences are very slight and not something I'd consider significant with modern films. Let's look at reality here for a moment. Today's Tri-X is considerably finer grained than it's predecessors. While looking at some old negatives I made on Plus-X back in the 70's, I couldn't fail to notice that they seem to be as grainy as today's Tri-X. Comparing the grain of Tri-X negatives from the same era to more recent ones, I couldn't help being impressed by how much finer the grain appears to be with the more modern film. Back then, Microdol-X was my standard developer, and I tended to use it full strength as an ultra fine grain developer. Today I use either D-76 or XTOL 1+1 as one shot developers. These are not supposed to give grain as fine as straight Microdol-X, but yet with modern films the grain is finer. This leads me to believe that ultra fine grain developers have pretty much outlived their usefulness with modern films.

There is a case to be made though for using dilute (1+3) Microdol-X. When used that way, you pretty much loose all the developer's fine grain qualities in exchange for more film speed and a wonderfully long tonal scale. The same thing can be accomplished by using a home made D-23 formula or with XTOL diluted 1+3 as you would with Microdol-X.

Now if you still really want to use Microdol-X, Freestyle's Mic-X or Ilford's Perceptol will make excellent substitutes. They are for all intents an purposes, clones of the original and should perform identically.

Ian Grant · Oct 6, 2010

Pan F in dilute Perceptol 1+2 gives some of the finest grain negatives possible with conventional films, along with excellent sharpness and tonality, but at a price because the speed is so low. It's great for tripod use but not so practical for hand held work.

Ian

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

I am doing pretty much on 35mm (M7) Leica photography and the 5 ltr. packing of Kodak is not really practical for a 250ml 35mm tank volume or a 270ml rotation tank ( 2x 135-36) volume. However the stuff is also in Europe pretty cheap (around Eur. 10,00) so dumping a few liter after some months well .........
But keep in mind that for small negative format grain IS an issue. And loosing one F-stop for film speed is not too bad for a Leica lens.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 6, 2010

Ian Grant said:
We get paranoid about PPD but many millions of women (and a few vain men ) around the world come into contact with if very frequently as it's used in hair dyes.

AFAIK, hair dyes are now based on safer chemicals, at least in the US.

I experienced a reaction from a paraphenylenediamine developer many years ago. Blisters the size of peas and intense itching. The condition took two weeks to clear. I realize that not all people will experience a reaction but once you have you wish that you had avoided this class of chemicals.

Anyone using a phenylenediamine developer should exercize caution and use rubber gloves.

RobertV · Oct 6, 2010

Anyone using a phenylenediamine developer should exercize caution and use rubber gloves.

Yes, sure I can only agree with you. Especially the Para-version because everything will have a color then.....

A49 · Oct 6, 2010

RobertV said:
I would not consider this as poor quality:
Rollei PAN 25 in W665:

But maybe not all modern emulsions will react in the same way. This 35mm negative gives neglectible grain.

Robert, maybe I´m wrong but I think I see grain structure in the grey of the lake. Maybe it comes from scanning. Nevertheless I have a hard task to find the grain of Tmax 400 in Calbe A49 stock on a 8x10 inch print. And seeing it on a monitor with it´s poor resolution would probably make it disappear completely.

But lets not argue about this. I have one question to you regarding CD-1 or CD-2, because I found confusing things in the "film developing cookbook" and in Raffay´s "Sammlung fotografischer Rezepte". Is CD-2 this one: N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylendiammoniumsulfat ? Or is N,N-Diethyl-1,4-phenylendiammoniumsulfat actually CD-1? In every case this substance is used in A49 which can easily found out here: http://www.calbe-chemie.de/prod/pdf/11009 A 49 Entwickler (D).pdf

I think the discussion now is going far into home cooking which is nevertheless a very interesting issue. But maybe not as useful for the thread starter as for us. I think Perceptol is the most identic product to buy as a replacement of Microdol-X. Calbe A49
and Xtol stock are also good ideas and will be barely distinguishable from Microdol-X regarding the resulting grain.

Andreas

Microdol-X gone - recommended alternatives?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency