Microdol-X gone - recommended alternatives?

[RobertV]

I´m interested in knowing where this comes from.

I will give you two reasons:
It's cheap and it's Kodak, so widely available almost everywhere.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I´m interested in knowing where this comes from.

Camera stores. I use one of our sponsors: FreeStyle.

I hope that helps.

Steve

 

[michaelbsc]

I´m interested in knowing where this comes from.

Camera stores. I use one of our sponsors: FreeStyle.

I hope that helps.

Steve

I think he means the thought process to decide on Xtol.

 

[Ian Grant]

The reference developer issue is interesting.

ID-11/D76 is not the best optimised MQ Borax developer and any one who's used the Adox borax MQ developer would tell you it gives full film speed, better sharpness, finer grain and to cap it all better tonality. Hardly surprising as it's almost identical to the ISO standard developer once used to test film speeds.

Ian

 

[Sirius Glass]

I think he means the thought process to decide on Xtol.

One look at this:

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

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

The more I look at that chart the more flawed I realise it is.

First column is Shadow detail at rated Speed - Microdol-X gives excellent Shadow detail at the rated speed Kodak recommend for any given film. That shows the chart is rater more a marketing gimmick than a realistic appraisal.

Ian

 

[Anon Ymous]

Ian, do you mean that M-X stock would give excellent shadow detail at box speed?

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ian, I do not follow what you mean. Please explain.

Steve

 

[Ian Grant]

I mean that Microdol-X would give good shadow detail at the "rated speed". Kodak keep that rather vague in the chart, the rated speed is the one recommended by Kodak for a given film/developer combination. That's not necessarily the box speed which is why the chart is deliberately misleading

Ian

 

[A49]

I think he means the thought process to decide on Xtol.

Yes, that was what I meant. Sorry, if I said it unclearly. I´m not an native English speaker and sometimes this becomes obvious. I´m happy that nevertheless the most understand me.

The Kodak chart seems to be realistic in my opinion, but the column "shadow detail" is, as Ian said, somehow fuzzy. What is the "rated speed"? If they mean box speed then the column goes in the right direction.

Andreas

 

[Sirius Glass]

I believe that Kodak uses "rated speed" and "box speed" as the same thing. Thus Tri-X 400 would be ISO 400. I do not ever remember seeing Kodak "push" varying from the box speed unless specifically pushing or pulling film. I get great shadow detail on Tri-X [and other films] at box speed developed in XTOL. I suspect that many who shoot black & white at lower than box speed are compensating for inaccurate shutters, inaccurate light meters, and/or sloppy light metering techniques. A few understand about expanding the range of SBR in the linear region of the film.

Steve

 

[michaelbsc]

Yes, that was what I meant. Sorry, if I said it unclearly.

It's really a matter of dialect, not that it is incorrect. The US is large, and regional language variations can drive a non-native speaker mad.

With the proliferation of television that has become less apparent, since so many people now share a broader common experience via TV show dialog. But sixty years ago you could go from coast to coast and swear they were speaking different languages.

For example in the region where I was a child the "boot" was the cargo compartment at the rear of an automobile, while in most of the US it is called the "trunk" instead. But in the UK the term "boot" is perfectly clear.

There are thousands of other examples one could give, but you get the point.

 

[Sirius Glass]

We are separated by a common language.

 

[michaelbsc]

Touche.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Was the formula for CG-512 ever published ?

Ian

AFAIK Ian, that developer and the Rollei RLS (Rollei Low Speed) developer are one and the same product. There is a review of this developer by Erwin Putts using Kodak T-Max 100 and Ilford Delta 100. The exposure index ratings are based on incident readings with a Gossen Mastersix from correspondence with the author.
http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page123/page123.html

I haven't seen a formula for it, but from the MSDS and on the packaging, it is an M.Q developer which also contains ammonium-chloride, so it's probably similar to the Ilford fine-grain publication which suggest adding that constituent to ID-11, but is formulated to a much more concentrated solution.

I have given up looking for the holy-grail of developers and just use D-76 1+1 now.

 

[A49]

I recently tested Perceptol, the developer that is said most similar to Microdol-X, vs A49 with Tmax 400 (TMY-2). I enlarged a section of a 35mm negative 15 times, so the whole print would be 36x45 cm big.

The difference in grain is very, very small. A49 produces very slighly less apparent but also slighly fuzzier grain. The image produced with Perceptol is considerable sharper and its grain is also pretty sharp. The speed exploitment is as expected very different between both of the developers. With A49 you can use the box speed, with Perceptol you should take at least one stop below box speed. I would estimate the overall quality of Perceptol better than the A49´s. So if I only had the two developers at hand I would decide for Perceptol if loosing one stop or a little more is o.k. When sharpness is not most important, for instance in portraiture, A49 is still a good choice for unbeatable fine grain combined with shooting at film´s box speed.

After seeing the results I am now with Robert saying:

What I am missing in A49 is the sharpness.

By the way, Robert, are there any news in your testing of the five fine grain developers? Is there or will be there a new thread for your results?

Andreas

 

[RobertV]

Yes, a new thread and a new film. RPX 100 and RPX 400. Two new emulsions and copies of the APX 100 and APX 400. Made by Gevaert.
I will test the iso 100 version. Maybe I will also do a couple of runs of the Rollei Retro 100 TONAL (Orthopan) too.

 

[fschifano]

I recently tested Perceptol, the developer that is said most similar to Microdol-X, vs A49 with Tmax 400 (TMY-2)...

Did you use the Perceptol full strength or diluted? I'd expect the results to be quite different one way or the other.

 

[nworth]

Xtol pretty well replaced Microdol-X before Microdol-X was discontinued. The grain is more obvious, but Xtol is also sharper. Perceptol has been mentioned here a lot, and it is probably the most similar option. If you mix your own, you have several options. D-25 was supposed to give results very similar to the old Microdol. In another thread there has been a lot of discussion about PPD developers and the substitution of the CD color developing agents in them. Some of these like DuPont 5-D (Sease NH-3) have very good reputations for both fine grain and sharpness. So does Windisch 665. I have substituted CD-2 for the OPD in this formula with excellent results. There are also many fine MQ formulas for fine grain results.

 

[A49]

Did you use the Perceptol full strength or diluted? I'd expect the results to be quite different one way or the other.

Both full strength.

I compared A49 at full strength and dilutions 1+1, 1+2 and found no differences in sharpness and grain with Tmax 400 (TMY-2) although I expected it would become grainier and sharper the more I dilute it.

Andreas

 

[A49]

Xtol pretty well replaced Microdol-X before Microdol-X was discontinued. The grain is more obvious, but Xtol is also sharper.

I just found a new post in German forum of somebody who compared Xtol and Microdol-X both diluted 1+3. He found that Xtol developed more fine grained but Microdol-X was considerable sharper. Exact the opposite of that what you wrote. Maybe you speak for undiluted solutions, but I can´t imagine that results change this way with different dilutions.

Don´t know who is right. Did you quote or did you test yourself?

Best,
Andreas

 

[2F/2F]

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

If you want exactly what you were getting with Microdol-X, which is what it sounds like, and what you asked for, then use Ilford Perceptol.

If you want something different, which it does not sound like you do, and which is not what you asked for, then lots of other people have you covered with suggestions so far.

 

[piu58]

Maybe you speak for undiluted solutions, but I can´t imagine that results change this way with different dilutions.

Yes they change. Diluted developer contains much less sulphite. Sulphite solves back silver an reduces grain and sharpness as well. If you dilute a sulphite-rich dev you get more sharpness and more grain.

 

[A49]

Yes they change. Diluted developer contains much less sulphite. Sulphite solves back silver an reduces grain and sharpness as well. If you dilute a sulphite-rich dev you get more sharpness and more grain.

I meant the concrete Xtol vs Microdol-X comparisons in the last few posts. It sounds to me not very likely that when both are at full strength Xtol is sharper and less fine grained than Microdol-X and when both are diluted 1+3 then vice versa. But it could be possible nevertheless. Naturely both should become sharper and less fine grained as you pointed out correctly.

Andreas

 

[totalamateur]

Camera Co-op in Houston has a bunch of microdol on sale right now - old stock, expired, but not too old, I think a 2009 expiry date, if there are any microdol lovers in houston.