Microdol-x replacement

[dancqu]

Sorry. I got it from "150 do-it-yourself Black and white
popular photographic formulas" p.27 Same book as yours
except for the edition. This is a 1977. The frormula is the
same. My apologies.

No problem. Needed repeating. Mr. R. W. Anderson states
same times, dilutions, results. That minus the NaCl. Dan

 

[weststarflyers]

No need to apologize, your post was informative. You probably know more than me.

I am here to always learn new things, and no, I don't know more than you or many people. (*laugh*) I have learnt to read all the posts. Good lesson. That was so stupid and offensive of me, really...
Lets go on friends.

 

[weststarflyers]

No problem. Needed repeating. Mr. R. W. Anderson states
same times, dilutions, results. That minus the NaCl. Dan

Thank you kindly for your understanding. Should not happen again.

 

[Ray Rogers]

Loose Ends...

Several days ago, Bill Troop gave us a quizz...
Since that time, emotions have calmed down and things now seem to be going fairly well... everyone is in "friendly" mode.

That is a good thing.

However, I took Bill at his word about that quizz... after all, he is sort of a celebrity and when he says "There will be a prize" one may well imagine something desirable is on the table... an autographed book for example.
That is certainly the reason I took the trouble to respond before fixing my regular cup of morning expresso.

It is entirely possible that Bill was simply using the lure of a desirable prize as a linguistic device,
and never had any intention of providing any sort of prize at all.

I don't know.
All I do know is that my answer has been ignored, as well as my question.

As I will be shooting some new emulsions in Cambodia in a few days, I need to address this issue now.

Bill,
If my answer was incorrect, what is the answer you had in mind?
If my answer was correct, but your prize was a 'linguistic device", please acknowledge that fact;

If you want to renege on your promised prize, so be it -
just, please don't leave me hanging.

Tenacious in Tokyo,

Ray
-----------------

REVIEW:

(Originally Posted by Bill Troop)
I came across this remarkable paragraph in FDC3, p. 46 - - can anyone spot what is wrong? There will be a prize.

'When exposed silver halides are reduced to metallic silver via the development process, there is always a degree of extraneous, unexposed silver halide that remains attached. Fine grain and superfine grain developers make use of solvents to dissolve as much of the extraneous silver as possible.

Well, I just woke up so I might be a bit fuzzy, but
I am not sure the silver halide remains so much "attached" as simply "remains"...

and the "solvents" are generally thought of as silver halide solvents, not silver metal solvents...

Good morning?

Bill,

Did I lose? :confused:

I was kinda looking forward to a signed copy of your book...
since I dont have one yet...

but I could settle for a copy of those notes!

(naturally- for my eyes only)

???

I won't pursue the issue any longer;
I will leave it up to Bill's good nature to step up to the plate and score his run!

 

[panastasia]

Paul, we'll all be following your experiments with great interest. If, if, if, conventional wisdom is correct, then you probably will only see problems with Tri-X and perhaps Plus-X. (One of the few times I can remember producing dichroic fog was with FX-2 used for several hours as a stand developer. I don't remember what the film was but it would have been a medium to slow film. It may have been Agfa Superpan, a low-cost so-called 'kiosk' film that I liked very much and worked with a lot.)

If I were going to experiment with super-fine-grain developers, I would choose to work with the ppd derivatives, because I think there is a better chance of getting interesting edge and gradation effects to happen. But I don't want to discourage you from working with ammonium chloride, because anything we learn about the way it works with modern films will be of great interest.

Ron could comment better on precautions to take. I would imagine it was important to have a good, fresh, well-maintained source of the chloride, and that one probably shouldn't keep the solutions at all long.

What if the results are promising but not sharp enough? I would consider using a water rinse instead of a stop bath, hoping to gain some edge effects. But to start with, I would use a stop bath, because that would be keeping at least one variable out of the way.

Good luck!

Thanks bill,
My interest, or curiosity, is in exploring some unknowns (solvent developers w/modern film) with no previous experience with fine grain film developers other than the consumer type (Microdol-x). I've worked with paper developers mostly.

Just to let you know where I'm at, exactly. I'm not a chemist and understand little about much of what is discussed in these threads other than what I learned in High School chemistry (ancient history), but I do have extensive lab experience and understand how to maintain strict controls and know the importance of repeatability in a process, or the results would be random and rather meaningless.

I have a good supply of ammonium chloride, enough to melt the snow on my front walk - 2 unopened 500g containers found in an old lab, from EM Science - so I'll be using some of that, initially, ammonium bromide later, since Ron has alluded to using that instead. Keeping a reference w/o chloride additives would be standard practice.

Concerning developers to work with and the idea of keeping things simple for now, ID-11 looks simple enough to mix, and for ppd developer I'm looking at the Sease No. 3 Superfine-Grain Developer since I have some Glycin.

Don't hold your breath waiting for my results, it'll be one of my summer projects. I sometimes have trouble keeping my temperatures down and was thinking of adding sodium sulfate to the mixes but that may complicate things (results). Any thoughts about that? Otherwise, I can run my electric bill up with the AC.

Regards,
Paul

 

[Photo Engineer]

Paul;

I meant Ammonium Chloride in my post. That was an error on my part. Sorry. I was thinking of Ammonium Bromide at the time for another purpose (emulsion making) and had a senior moment. All that I said applies to Ammonium Chloride though including the drop in temperature.

So sorry all for that error.

PE

 

[panastasia]

I understand PE. My mind is occupied with too many things on a regular basis and not always related. Things tend to merge. The senior moments make me feel that time is running out - it's going by too fast.

Paul

 

[billtroop]

The judging panel is still in consultation.

 

[Barry Dale Currence]

Ilford DD-X

There is a lot of experience here. Maybe someone can help me.

I have only used a liquid (DD-X) developer and Delta 100 and 400 35mm films, and not for a while. First, is DD-X a good choice? How does it perform with PanF+ and FP4+? I like the liquid for ease of use. I have thought of trying ID-11 or D76 because of cost, is it difficult to mix?

While trying to learn how D76 works I found a formula for mixing it:
metol 2g
hydroquinone 5g
sodium sulfite (anhydrous) 100g
borax (decahydrate) 2g
Water @ (125°F/52°C) 750 ml (to mix)
Cold water to make 1000 ml

Is that worth trying or more trouble than it is worth? Would I mix the ingredients together then add them to water or add them one at a time to water? In what order?

All insights and / or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Barry

 

[gainer]

Dissolve the Metol in about 100 ml of warm (about 125F) water. In a separate container, dissolve about 1/4 of the sulfite in about 200 ml hot water (about 160 F), add the hydroquinone while stirring until it dissolves, then add this mixture to the Metol solution. Now dissolve the remaining sulfite and the borax in about 300 ml hot water and add this to the other solution. Bring the volume up to 1 liter with cold water. These instructions are paraphrased from Hardy and Perrin, "Principles of Optics", 1932.

 

[Ray Rogers]

While trying to learn how D76 works I found a formula for mixing it...
Would I mix the ingredients together then add them to water or add them one at a time to water? In what order?

All insights and / or suggestions are greatly appreciated.

Barry

Barry,

Gainer's method may be the best;
Traditionally, you mix in the order given, one item at a time, stirring until the chemical is compleately dissloved before adding the next chemcal.
Without, however, over agitation. (=> just enough to get the job done)

Years ago, we used to boil the water to drive off the oxygen before mixing up a developer.

I don't know if anyone still does that anymore....

 

[Ian Grant]

Years ago, we used to boil the water to drive off the oxygen before mixing up a developer.

I don't know if anyone still does that....

Boiling followed by filtering as the boiling causes some of the dissolved calcium etc to form a scum.

I only boil for critical developers like Pyrocat but I always de-ionise.

Ian

 

[panastasia]

Boiling followed by filtering as the boiling causes some of the dissolved calcium etc to form a scum.

I only boil for critical developers like Pyrocat but I always de-ionise.

Ian

How do you de-ionize? Is that with an in-line filter? I'm just curious.

Paul

 

[Photo Engineer]

You can buy DI filters and RO filters at many home hardware shops and some tropical fish stores. They are rather common items and come in a variety of sizes.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Paul, I have an industrial de-ioniser which was used in-line when I had a commercial darkroom. Now I just use a drinking water jug type, made by companies like Brittax that's enough for the few litres I need these days.

Ian

 

[panastasia]

Paul, I have an industrial de-ioniser which was used in-line when I had a commercial darkroom. Now I just use a drinking water jug type, made by companies like Brittax that's enough for the few litres I need these days.

Ian

The reason I asked the question was because I remember how expensive the large ones were compared to simple particulate filters, when I had to order a few for the engineering test lab I worked in.

Thanks Ian and PE, for the reply.

Paul

 

[Bainbridge]

MIC X SUB

Bill can you tell me what might be the effect reducing Metol from 7.5g to 5g, and adding 30g salt.? i also see another reducing the meta down to 5g from 15g, I've been using D25 for years and its been great, its close to Mic X but not really the same, X has that cream look, it would be great if you could shed some light here.?.....thanks ...Peter Bainbridge

Ian wrote,

'Jim, Troop adds salt to D23, but the formula I'd suggest is is D25 + salt. As D25 is D23 with added Metabisulphite it amounts to the same thing'

Troop does not add salt to D23. Henn did something close to that when he formulated Microdol, but it is important to note that it wasn't the same thing. The substitute Microdol formula I publish contains 5g/L of metol; D23 contains 7.5. "It", whatever "it" is, does not amount to the same thing. Henn did not choose to go down the metabisulfite (i.e. less alkaline) route with Microdol, for two reasons: developing time was too long, and the longer immersion in sulfite was not giving the desired fine grain effect. By the time Microdol was being formulated, Kodak had realized that fine grain without sharpness was not a worthwhile goal. In any case, the formula is printed in Haist -- but you wouldn't know it corresponded to Microdol if you didn't have Haist around to tell you so. From a practical point of view, these developers are not worth using with contemporary films unless some form of 'antistain' or antisilvering chemical is used. These will not be found in MSDS sheets! The amounts needed are small enough not to require mentioning.

I'm still waiting for Ian to qualify or quantify this statement:

'Troop makes some glaring mistakes unfortunately.'

What I have noticed in the ten years since FDC was published is that people who have genuinely found an error or an issue (and there have been a few, all of them addressed in reprints and on the graphos.org website which is temporarily down!) will email me or phone me with specifics, rather than making generalized, non-specific accusations in public forums. Ian, do you want to be counted along with the former class, or the latter one? Nobody is more interested than me in finding errors in the Film Developing Cookbook, which I am planning to put into a second edition as soon as possible with some new collaborators. Steve Anchell contributed little more than his name to the first edition, and will not be participating in the new one.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Peter;

We can guess all we want, but the "real" Microdol X is a closely guarded trade secret that can be inferred by reading patents but not exactly duplicated. It has ingredients in it that are not commonly known or used from what I understand.

PE

 

[Venchka]

I can do that

At $10.00 a bag to make a gal. is there a formula out there that would be the same. I mean the same not close but the same fine grain formula. I have found using this developer and 25 or 100 asa film allows me to blow up to 16x20 from 120 film. It also gives me great tones through out the range.

thanks
mike andersen

Funny. Pentax 6x7, Takumar 45mm lens, HP5+, Xtol 1:3, Epson 4990 scanner. I sold a 16x20 from that roll. The photo could easily have been larger.

Photo here.........

http://gallery.leica-users.org/d/148182-1/Gruene+Oct+2008+_1+of+5_.jpg

I would expect 32x40 easily from slow film and Microdol-X.

 

[cmo]

Recently a new developer became available, it's called Moersch Eco film developer. It seems to be a descendant of the Microdol-X/Perceptol family and somewhat related to a developer named CG512 (also known as Rollei RLS), but environmentally acceptable.

By now I only saw one review, and only APX 100 was tested. Did any of you try that new soup?

 

[aldevo]

It is said that Microdol X is suitably replaced by D-23 with 30 or so grams of sodium chloride added to the liter. Be sure to use non-iodized salt. Most grocery stores will have it, as it is used for canning.

That would give you Microdol - not Microdol-X.

I can also verify, firsthand, that this formula will provoke dichroic fog with a number of films

Apparently, Kodak introduced Microdol-X to counter the formation of dichroic fog with thin emulsion films. The difference between Microdol and Microdol-X is, reputedly, some sort of benzophone compound that acts as an anti-silvering agent that prevents the plating out of dissolved silver.

Perceptol is said to use a somewhat different anti-silvering agent.

 

[Photo Engineer]

As far as my researches can take me, the Benzophenone compound is not used. I'm still looking into it and I have several alternatives here beside me to try out.

PE

 

[stm]

With the advent of T-Max 100 and the T-Max liquid developers, Microdol-X has become pretty much obsolete. I used to use it exclusively undiluted (1:3 gave better sharpness but at the expense of more grain) with PX rated at ASA 64, but T-Max 100 in the T-Max developer blows it's doors off, most especially in 120. In 35mm, your 16 x 20 print is not much of a stretch either, when viewed from a normal distance.

 

[aldevo]

As far as my researches can take me, the Benzophenone compound is not used. I'm still looking into it and I have several alternatives here beside me to try out.

PE

My information came from the same edition of the "Film Developer's Cookbook" cited earlier in the thread. The authors theorized that a benzophone compound was used, but they did not have any proof. It is not a very large surprise that this has not proven to be the case.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bill Troop and I are in constant communication trying to resolve this from patents and information I have.

Please bear with us.

PE