Microdol-X powder

[pnance]

There are many other compounds that can be used to prevent silver compounds from producing a sludge in used developers. Polyalcohols are often used to keep such compounds in solution. Of course, these compounds are not required if the developer is used as a one-shot.

Isn't the purpose of an anti-silvering agent to prevent redispositing silver on the negative to prevent fog? Or is that related to the sludge problem you mentioned?

Paul

 

[Papa Tango]

Kodak D-76 and Kodak D-23 produce results that are very similar to those produced by Microdol-X. The formulas for Kodak D-23 and Kodak D-76 are posted in the APUG Chemical Recipes section

In addition, Ilford markets a very similar developer - Ilford Perceptol.

Depending on how they are used. Microdol was my developer of choice back in the Pan-X days. Its behavior with newer films is not quite the same. Microdol is a solvent developer, meaning that it usually produces a fine grain. At no dilution is it an acutance (non-solvent) developer. D76 and its Ilford counterpart ID11 can be solvent or non-solvent developers depending on their dilution. The same can be said for D23.

The characteristics of D76/ID11/D23 keep the same film speed irregardless of dilution. For Microdol, this is not true. At full strength, it will reduce the effective speed of the film by one stop. At 1:1 and greater, it will maintain the film speed. Some will say that 1:3 is required, but this is greatly dependent on the film type.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Patrick, you said: Microdol is a solvent developer, meaning that it usually produces a fine grain. At no dilution is it an acutance (non-solvent) developer.
Is that what you intended to say? Or, did your typing fingers get ahead of your brain? I know mine do from time to time.

At no dilution, Microdol-X is a solvent developer with some physical development attributes - these are apparently due to the sodium chloride that Microdol-X contains.

With dilution Microdol-X's solvent properties are reduced somewhat and its acutance improves while it retains its physical development attributes .

 

[Papa Tango]

Depending on how they are used. Microdol was my developer of choice back in the Pan-X days. Its behavior with newer films is not quite the same. Microdol is a solvent developer, meaning that it usually produces a fine grain. At no dilution is it an acutance (non-solvent) developer. D76 and its Ilford counterpart ID11 can be solvent or non-solvent developers depending on their dilution. The same can be said for D23.

The characteristics of D76/ID11/D23 keep the same film speed irregardless of dilution. For Microdol, this is not true. At full strength, it will reduce the effective speed of the film by one stop. At 1:1 and greater, it will maintain the film speed. Some will say that 1:3 is required, but this is greatly dependent on the film type.

Brane fart. Seems that the edit feature has disappeared. Now for paying subscribers only? Another jibe to get me to renew???:confused: Anyway, it is supposed to read "at no dilution does it become an acutance (non-solvent) developer in the manner of D76/ID11." I had started one thought and got cobbled up in the middle...

Although it is slightly softer at dilutions of 1:3 or beyond, these are stretching the practical parameters of this developer to gain an effect of acutance due to the extremely weak action of the solvent on the silver grain. I have never heard or read of actually using dilutions of Microdol to mimic an acutance formulation. If one wants to shove it all the way over to gain a smoother grain, then they need to use an acutance developer. The working of Microdol is targeted at the small grain paradigm... IMHO

Now the edit feature is back on this post, but still missing from the original. it's all a conspiracy to drive me quite insane. Or as golfers might say, a short putt...

 

[nworth]

...
G.F. Van Veelen and W. Peelaers Low pH Metol/Sulfite Developer (1967)

Metol...................................2 grams
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous...............2 grams
Sodium Chloride ........................2 grams or 100 grams
Sodium Diphosphate ....................10 grams
Water to make..........................1 liter

pH 7.0 or 8.5
...

Looking at the other comments, I wonder if the "Sodium Diphosphate" is a sequestering agent or is sodium dihydrogen phosphate, for pH control. That sounds a bit acidic, but I haven't investigated.


My experience has been that Microdol-X, D-76, and D-23 are all quite different developers. As far as I know, there is no home brew substitute for Micordol-X. Microdol-X replaced Microdol in the early sixties because of incompatibilities between the old Microdol and some of the newer films. It has changed at least once since its introduction (with special product markings from Kodak). For a rather short time, Kodak marketed Microdol-X Liquid, which was a quite different developer than Microdol-X powder. It is the liquid developer that is mentioned in Anschall and Troop. My limited experience with Microdol-X has been good and has duplicated that of the other commenters. With some films, it does seem to give a brownish silver image, This does not appear to be stain but rather something to do with the silver image structure. The grain structure seems very fine and very nice. One possible gripe is a real loss in film speed.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

...
G.F. Van Veelen and W. Peelaers Low pH Metol/Sulfite Developer (1967)

Metol...................................2 grams
Sodium Sulfite, anhydrous...............2 grams
Sodium Chloride ........................2 grams or 100 grams
Sodium Diphosphate ....................10 grams
Water to make..........................1 liter

pH 7.0 or 8.5
...

Looking at the other comments, I wonder if the "Sodium Diphosphate" is a sequestering agent or is sodium dihydrogen phosphate, for pH control. That sounds a bit acidic, but I haven't investigated.


My experience has been that Microdol-X, D-76, and D-23 are all quite different developers. As far as I know, there is no home brew substitute for Micordol-X. Microdol-X replaced Microdol in the early sixties because of incompatibilities between the old Microdol and some of the newer films. It has changed at least once since its introduction (with special product makings from Kodak). For a rather short time, Kodak marketed Microdol-X Liquid, which was a quite different developer than Microdol-X powder. It is the liquid developer that is mentioned in Anschall and Troop. My limited experience with Microdol-X has been good and has duplicated that of the other commenters. With some films, it does seem to give a brownish silver image, This does not appear to be stain but rather something to do with the silver image structure. The grain structure seems very fine and very nice. One possible gripe is a real loss in film speed.

You wrote: I wonder if the "Sodium Diphosphate" is a sequestering agent or is sodium dihydrogen phosphate, for pH control.

Sodium diphospate, like sodium hexametaphosphate, is a calcium sequestering agent.

See: Disodium Phosphate (aka Sodium pyrophosphate) http://www.chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/inorganic/SODIUM PYROPHOSPHATE.htm

 

[pnance]

Didn't Anchell & Troop suggest that the change from Microdol to Microdol-X was the addition of the anti-silvering agent?

 

[jim appleyard]

Didn't Anchell & Troop suggest that the change from Microdol to Microdol-X was the addition of the anti-silvering agent?

Yes, page 70. "In the 1960's, film emulsions became thinner, and more subject to dichroic fog. There was also an increaded desire for better sharpness. Microdol was changed to Microdol-X by the addition of a weak anti-silvering agent."

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Didn't Anchell & Troop suggest that the change from Microdol to Microdol-X was the addition of the anti-silvering agent?

Thats as may be: Anchell and Troop's Microdol-X subsistitue recipe includes Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. The current Microdol-X MSDS also lists Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. Perhaps we should ask Anchell & Troop which of these ingredients is the "anti-silvering agent."

From Haist (see my previous posts in this thread) sodium sulfite can act as a silver solvent. Also, the presence of sodium chloride in a Metol based developer can affect the both morphology and color of the developed silver grains.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Brane fart. Seems that the edit feature has disappeared. Now for paying subscribers only? Another jibe to get me to renew???:confused: Anyway, it is supposed to read "at no dilution does it become an acutance (non-solvent) developer in the manner of D76/ID11." I had started one thought and got cobbled up in the middle...

Although it is slightly softer at dilutions of 1:3 or beyond, these are stretching the practical parameters of this developer to gain an effect of acutance due to the extremely weak action of the solvent on the silver grain. I have never heard or read of actually using dilutions of Microdol to mimic an acutance formulation. If one wants to shove it all the way over to gain a smoother grain, then they need to use an acutance developer. The working of Microdol is targeted at the small grain paradigm... IMHO

Now the edit feature is back on this post, but still missing from the original. it's all a conspiracy to drive me quite insane. Or as golfers might say, a short putt...

Here is how Kodak describes the current version of D-76:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j78/j78.jhtml

"KODAK PROFESSIONAL D-76 Developer provides full emulsion speed and excellent shadow detail with normal contrast, and produces fine grain with a variety of continuous-tone black-and-white films. For greater sharpness, but with a slight increase in graininess, you can use a 1:1 dilution of this developer. It yields a long density range, and its development latitude allows push processing with relatively low fog."


Here is how Kodak describes the current version of Microdol-X:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof.../j4027.jhtml?id=0.2.20.14.18.14.7.24.14&lc=en

KODAK MICRODOL-X Developer is designed to produce lower graininess than other black-and-white film developers, with very little loss in film speed. For greater sharpness, but with a slight increase in graininess, you can use a 1:3 dilution of this developer.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Anchell and Troop's Microdol-X subsistitue recipe includes Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. The current Microdol-X MSDS also lists Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. Perhaps we should ask Anchell & Troop which of these ingredients is the "anti-silvering agent."

Neither of these components are `Anti-Stain` agents, they`re not listed in the MSDS. MSDS are not there to disclose formulae, (Patents &C for that).
Read my previous post and search for the Patent number I quoted.
Sorry, but I can`t remember the link.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Sodium diphosphate is correctly named tetrasodium pyrophosphate. It is a chelating agent which is poor for calcium ion and very good for magnesium ion. A 1% solution has a pH of 10.2, not exactly what I would call low pH. Did they mean sodium biphosphate, this is an acidic salt? This formula points up the problem with older formulas, what was actually meant.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Neither of these components are `Anti-Stain` agents, they`re not listed in the MSDS. MSDS are not there to disclose formulae, (Patents &C for that).
Read my previous post and search for the Patent number I quoted.
Sorry, but I can`t remember the link.

"Neither of these components are `Anti-Stain` agents." Quite true, Keith.

However, sodium sulfite is a silver solvent and sodium chloride can effect silver grain development (and solution physical development/redeposition of silver).

Keith, See the previous posts in this thread. Also see Grant Haist's
Modern Photographic Processing, page 379. The brown color of the developed silver is not stain. "Solution physical development was thought to be the cause of the compact silver particles and the brownish tone of the developed silver." (Van Veelen and Peters).

A simple Pat Gainer type test can be performed. Bleach the silver from a developed film. If the image is a stain image, the stain will remain.

 

[Paul Howell]

I saw somewhere that Kodak is having another company deal with the chemistry part of the business...I also heard that Microdol-X might be on the way out. Has anyone heard this? Should I go buy up every bag of it I can find? I'm hoping it's just another mistake, I cannot imagine it would cost Kodak too much to keep powdered chemicals in the market.

I stopped using Microdol X when Kodak stopped selling Microdol X in quart sizes, I did find some 1 gallon size packets but I process so little film that even the a gallon is a wast. I would change to Perceptol rather than keep hunting for Microdol, I found that Percptol has the same look at Microdol and it is available in quart sizes.

 

[pnance]

Thats as may be: Anchell and Troop's Microdol-X subsistitue recipe includes Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. The current Microdol-X MSDS also lists Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. Perhaps we should ask Anchell & Troop which of these ingredients is the "anti-silvering agent."

From Haist (see my previous posts in this thread) sodium sulfite can act as a silver solvent. Also, the presence of sodium chloride in a Metol based developer can affect the both morphology and color of the developed silver grains.

MSDS inclusion is not required for trace ingredients unfortunately. That's why I mentioned that Anchell & Troop suggested it may be a benzotrizole or mercapto. A very small amount.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Anchell and Troop's Microdol-X subsistitue recipe includes Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. The current Microdol-X MSDS also lists Metol, sodium sulfite and sodium chloride. Perhaps we should ask Anchell & Troop which of these ingredients is the "anti-silvering agent."

None of these three ingredients is a chelating agent. An MSDS need not list every ingredient in a particular developer. Only those things in the specified concentration that are harmful.

Polyvinyl alcohol can be used as an anti-silvering ingredient and need not be listed since it is considered non-toxic in the amounts used.

BTW, an anti-silvering agent need not be a chelating agent. PVA merely prevents microscopic silver particles from agglutinating and therefore prevents a silver sludge from forming. It does not act as a chelating agent.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

None of these three ingredients is a chelating agent. An MSDS need not list every ingredient in a particular developer. Only those things in the specified concentration that are harmful.

Polyvinyl alcohol can be used as an anti-silvering ingredient and need not be listed since it is considered non-toxic in the amounts used.

BTW, an anti-silvering agent need not be a chelating agent. PVA merely prevents microscopic silver particles from agglutinating and therefore prevents a silver sludge from forming. It does not act as a chelating agent.

Thanks, Gerald!

But the ingredients were not from an MDS, they are from Anchell and Troup's Darkroom Cookbook Recipe for a Microdol-X subtitute and the anti-silvering ingredient statement is theirs.

 

[jim appleyard]

I stopped using Microdol X when Kodak stopped selling Microdol X in quart sizes, I did find some 1 gallon size packets but I process so little film that even the a gallon is a wast. I would change to Perceptol rather than keep hunting for Microdol, I found that Percptol has the same look at Microdol and it is available in quart sizes.

It must have been fun to use Mic-X when it came in liquid form, pity I never got to use it that way. Forgive my minor thread-theft, but did anyone here get to use it that way and how fun was it and how long did the undiluted concentrate last?

 

[Paul Howell]

In the late 60s while shooting for my college newspaper I found a case of the liquid , 12 bottles as I recall, at camera store that was closing. I used it with Pan X and Plus x for 35, full and 1/2 frame and 120, then when on the to powered mix by 1970. I dont think I ever bought Microdol in cans. I reprinted some of my old negatives over the summer, but I did not keep very good notes in those days so I dont know which were from Microdox or D 76, and God only knows what other developers I used at the time.

 

[Papa Tango]

I dont recall ever using Microdol in a liquid form. As for cans, I remember HC110 and the agfa stuff. As others have posted, the gallon mix is just too much, and trying to divide out just enough to make a small batch can be a variable outcome situation. Films have changed considerably since this was a common developer of choice. I find that for how I shoot it behaves better with the adox formulations, and TXP in a dilution of 1:3. It only took one paying project using TMax 400 and Microdol in which the negatives were rather thin to move away. Thin negatives do not lend themselves well to contact printing...

Two lost films that did well with Microdol were Pan-X and Super XX.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was still using Micordol I used primarily Tri X, as noted above I found I lost 1 1/2 to 2 stops with TMAX 400, and although it seems counter intuitive TMax 3200 at 1600 worked rather well. I also liked HP5 and JC classic 400 which looks like Tri X from the 70s. I still have a couple of gallon size mixes which I may mix and use with JC classic some time next year. My local dealer has Ilford in stock as well.

 

[Gerald Koch]

I remember using Microdol in liquid form. The brown glass bottles were great to reuse for other solutions.

IIRC, the liquid and powder forms have slightly different formulas. The liquid uses sodium citrate to keep calcium ions in solution while the powdered form uses sodium hexametaphosphate.

 

[Paul Howell]

I just saw that there are 2 cans of Microdox for sale on Ebay.

 

[pnance]

I used to buy the qt Microdol-X developer and replenisher, would carefully add the replenisher to the developer. I usually got around 40 or so rolls per combo-quart. Really liked the convienence and the extra brown bottles, the metal caps Kodak used weren't so hot, of course if I had known then about saran wrap, they wouldn't have been much of a problem.

 

[Werewolfman]

Name:WATER
CAS:7732-18-5
RTECS #:ZC0110000
Fraction by Wt: 80 - 90%
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Name:SODIUM SULFITE
CAS:7757-83-7
RTECS #:WE2150000
Fraction by Wt: 5 - 10%
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Name:SODIUM CHLORIDE
CAS:7647-14-5
RTECS #:VZ4725000
Fraction by Wt: 1 - 5%
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Name-METHYLAMINOPHENOL SULFATE (METOL)
CAS:55-55-1
RTECS #:SL8650000
Fraction by Wt: <1%
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED

Name:SODIUM CITRATE, TRIBASIC
CAS:68-04-2
RTECS #:GE8300000
Fraction by Wt: <1%
Other REC Limits:NONE RECOMMENDED