Microdol-x replacement

[Philip Jackson]

I’ve experimented a little with Edgar Hyman’s Microdol substitute, generally at a 1+3 dilution, and had no problems with dichroic fog. In fact, I’ve only rarely seen the characteristic brown image tone due to the colloidal silver produced from physical development. I can’t remember if this was due to a particular combination of exposure and development or the re-use of a stock solution. Perhaps the absence of dichroic fog is due to the reduced amount of sodium sulfite in the more dilute developer or the use of a fresh mix (I’ve always mixed the dilute solution from scratch just before use).

I didn’t make an exact comparison with Microdol-X I once mixed from an old can, but except for the slight pinkish tinge of the commercial product (probably due to whatever Kodak adds as an anti-silvering agent), the significantly cheaper homebrew solution seemed to be practically photographically identical.

I once tried mixing the Microdol substitute with iodised table salt, and found this is not a good idea. I didn’t think the presence of the anti-caking agent or the amount of iodide involved would be significant, or perhaps the iodide might have a beneficial effect in the “homeopathic” amount Crawley advocates, but this was not the case, and the developer was significantly less active. Development times are long enough without going down this path; in fact I’ve generally used this developer at 24 degrees.

One of the main advantages for homebrew Microdol is being able to use Kodak’s published times. Ilford’s Perceptol also seems to be pretty much the same thing. I’ve generally been more interested in taming contrast rather achieving superfine grain. The FDCB p.99 suggests trying Microdol 1+10 for low contrast; 1+3 seems fine to me. Other compensating developers seem to use exotic ingredients (pyro or colour developer chemicals), or miniscule amounts of phenidone or metol with correspondingly very long development times.

The FDCB p.70 claims no speed loss for the 1+3 dilution. I suspect this is an exaggeration, based on the fact it isn’t as great as for the undiluted stock. Kodak’s 1970s J-1 booklet, Processing Chemicals and Formulas for Black and White Photography, p. 27 seems to go the other way but may have been oversimplified in the editing process when it states “The stock solution can be diluted 1:3, in which case greater sharpness can be attained, with a slight sacrifice of quality in grain characteristics and a loss in film speed.” Kodak’s current Microdol PDF J-4027 (November 2003) doesn’t mention any speed loss at all; it says: “For greater sharpness, but with a slight increase in graininess, you can use a 1:3 dilution of this developer.” However if you cross reference their new current information sheet for the new T-Max 400, Kodak advocates ASA/ISO 200 for Microdol-X and 320 (down a third of a stop from the nominal EI of 400) for the 1+3 dilution so, there must still be some speed loss with their very precise testing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Philip, I've now tested the Microdol-X replacement, since the start of this thread, with the addition of Metabisulphite, which is of course an anti-oxidant, and like you found no trace at all of dichroic fog with modern films, (Ilford & Foma) I was using the developer full strength.

As Ron Mowrey (PE) pointed out in this (or a similar thread) modern films are less susceptible to dichroic fog. From a practical point of view I have to conclude these developers are usable without anti-stain or anti-silvering agents.

Ian

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

A recommended substitute for Perceptol / Microdol-X is:

D25 - with added NaCl

Metol 7.5g
Sodium Sulphite, anhydrous 100g
Sodium Metabisulphite (Bisulphite) 5g
Sodium Chloride 30g
Water to 1 litre

I should add I haven't tried this developer, but I'm told it does work well.

This is the correct formula Jim, I've had it from way before the Film Developing Cookbook came out.
Ian

Ian, where did you find that formula? I don`t recall seeing that formula before.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The MSDS that I have for Microdol-X shows the weight of the dry contents of a package to make 1 litre as being 132 grams in total. The list of ingredients given in the MSDS are Elon, Sodium Sulphite, Sodium Chloride and Diboron Trioxide.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Edwal 12

Re: Mike's original request was about Microdol-X and negatives fine grained enough to enlarge to 16x20.

I'm not a chemist. I don't understand half of what goes on in the film developing process. But I do know what I like and I like what I saw when I was tipped off on trying Edwal 12, a PPD/glycin formula from the 1940s, I believe.

I usually don't print large, but I crop a lot, and printing to 9x9" size I actually thought it was difficult to find grain to focus on from a medium format Tri-X negative. It is stunning how this developer works. It's not silver bullet, but it does combine the following virtues.
1. Close to box-speed
2. Amazing highlights, the modulation at the very limit is very beautiful
3. Extremely fine grain
4. And it's sharp!

Don't ask me to explain all of this, because I can't. I can only tell you what I have observed. If you use Tmax 100-400 / Delta 100-400 / Plus-X / FP4+ / Acros / Efke 25-50-100 etc, you could easily enlarge to 16x20 with amazing quality from medium format. 11x14 looks great from 35mm.

But then again, Edwal 12 is probably not for everybody. It produces a negative of pretty strong contrast, the highlights are a bit pronounced (brilliant). Technically, the tonal reproduction would not suit 'accurate' photography, but for making art the developer is absolutely stunning.

PPD is a nasty substance that needs to be treated with a lot of respect. Any time I use it in powder form I wear protective eye wear, nitrile gloves, rubber apron, and a bio filter face mask. I do NOT want to breathe the dust. I'm afraid of it, and try to work with it outdoors if the conditions allow (I live in Minnesota and winters make it impractical. When I have my dream dark room I'll install a vent hood too.

The trouble is worth it for me. I'm making the best prints I've ever made. The honeymoon period is over also, I've used it for six months now and have processed about 50 or 60 rolls in that time and many sheets. I've settled on this single developer with Tmax 400 film.

Economy wise it's not the best. A 2 liter kit from the Formulary is $22 or so plus s&h, and as a replenished developer that yields 20 rolls or sheet film equivalent. If you mix it yourself the numbers would likely look much better. The Formulary is convenient. But at a buck a roll I'm satisfied. I'm prepared to pay that for the best negatives I've ever made.

- Thomas

 

[RobertV]

PPD is a nasty substance that needs to be treated with a lot of respect. Any time I use it in powder form I wear protective eye wear, nitrile gloves, rubber apron, and a bio filter face mask. I do NOT want to breathe the dust. I'm afraid of it, and try to work with it outdoors if the conditions allow

In that way OPD (Ortho) is a better choice, less toxid and not so harmfull on cloth material like PPD (Para).
Because W665 (OPD) gives a better detail in the shadow then Sease III (PPD) it both has advantages in both ways. Practically and technically.

Interesting to search out with some popular films W665 and Microdol-X. Well my start has been made with Rollei Pan 25 and Fomapan Creative 200. Next will be Maco UP25/Efke 25. I have still some films around. Fomapan 100 will be the next. And then try a modern emulsion type e.g. Acros 100.

Not so difficult to search out but very time consuming.

 

[Ian Grant]

Keith, I've had that particular formula since the mid 70's, I'm not sure where it came from originally, I employed a consultant at that time who lent me various books including Glafkides, he had a wealth of information, his mother was French & from the Lumiere family (the company was by then part of Ciba Geigy).

There's probably been more than one formula for Microdol-X over the years, since it's introduction. One MSDS shows the liquid version containing Sodium Citrate, and I've seen another MSDS with (meta)Bisulpite in it. As I said I've tried that formula now, it works well with no trace of Dichroic fog, but as the Metabisulphite breaks down with age that might change.

However like Don Cardwell, Thomas etc I personally think that PPD/Colour developing agents have been neglected in recent years and that there's greater potential going down that avenue, the combinations of PPD/Glycin and Meritol (PPD/Pyrocatechin) have eproduced some outstanding commercial developers, then there's the PPD/Metol/Glycin devs and instead of Metol you can use Phenidone or Dimezone.

As Robert says there are less toxic alternatives to PPD free base. But women use PPD all the time in hair dyes They smell like colour developer too

Ian

 

[billtroop]

Keith, re ID-11+, I can't imagine it had cinnamic acid per se - - wouldn't a perfumey smell would have been apparent? When it came out, Bob Schwalberg did a fairly rigorous image quality test in Popular Photography - - that might be worth looking up. Crawley too examined the weight of Microdol packages, but came to the incorrect conclusion that more sulfite was being used. However, his two Microdol substitutes are ingenious nonetheless

Philip, I am baffled by the various changes and counterclaims in Kodak's own literature you cite. The original principle was that you'd use it undiluted for ultra fine grain, with one stop speed loss, or diluted 1:3, at 75F (to avoid over-lengthy developing times) with no speed loss. The principle that speed can increase upon dilution of the developer is well known (highlights exhaust developer quickly, allowing solution in the shadow areas more time). Dichroic fog would not occur when the developer is used diluted, because there isn't enough solvent action to cause it. Anyway, the very latest information that you present (stop loss undiluted, 1/3 stop loss diluted) is the closest to the original practice.

In FDC2, I'll confirm the original antistain agent in MX, but this has since been changed and I could at least hint at what some replacements have been. And if there's no FDC2, I'll publish it here, but surely I can be allowed to hold a few cards up my sleeve until we know what we're doing?

It's interesting that many of these older solvent developers can be used successfully today, and Robert's work confirms precisely what Crawley noted as being claimed for the pre-war physical development processes: 'exceptional preservation of subject tones' (I am quoting from memory here). That's exactly what it's all about, though the issue has hardly been decisively proved scientifically. Rationally, it doesn't seem possible, but Robert is demonstrating it here and now.

In the quest for the best possible compromise between grain, speed, and sharpness, I do think the EK colour people were ahead of the b/w teams, and I am looking forward to Ron's being able to publish, sometime in the future, some of what he learnt. I doubt that the information will be of use to smaller manufacturers and home-brewers, however, because two of the most important chemicals are too expensive to use unless you can manufacture them at EK scale. What Ron has been hinting at is well tried and tested. However, Grant Haist was working on an entirely different system, devised especially to deal with the structure of tabular grain films, which has never been explored outside his own darkroom. And no, I don't have a formula!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Grant Haist was working on an entirely different system, devised especially to deal with the structure of tabular grain films, which has never been explored outside his own darkroom. And no, I don't have a formula!

In relation to developing black & white tabular grain films?

Tom.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I’ve experimented a little with Edgar Hyman’s Microdol substitute, generally at a 1+3 dilution, and had no problems with dichroic fog.

The FDCB p.70 claims no speed loss for the 1+3 dilution. I suspect this is an exaggeration, based on the fact it isn’t as great as for the undiluted stock. Kodak’s 1970s J-1 booklet, Processing Chemicals and Formulas for Black and White Photography, p. 27 seems to go the other way but may have been oversimplified in the editing process when it states “The stock solution can be diluted 1:3, in which case greater sharpness can be attained, with a slight sacrifice of quality in grain characteristics and a loss in film speed.” Kodak’s current Microdol PDF J-4027 (November 2003) doesn’t mention any speed loss at all; it says: “For greater sharpness, but with a slight increase in graininess, you can use a 1:3 dilution of this developer.” However if you cross reference their new current information sheet for the new T-Max 400, Kodak advocates ASA/ISO 200 for Microdol-X and 320 (down a third of a stop from the nominal EI of 400) for the 1+3 dilution so, there must still be some speed loss with their very precise testing.

Kodak`s recommended developers for TMY-2 are in bold type in their fact-sheet. Both Microdol-X even when diluted 1:3 along with HC-110 Dilution B are cited as only acheiving E.I.320, so it seems that those two developers aren`t quite capable of maintaining the box speed with that particular film, although they are otherwise OK. Nice to read that you had good results with the Edgar Hyman formula.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Keith, I've had that particular formula since the mid 70's, I'm not sure where it came from originally, I employed a consultant at that time who lent me various books including Glafkides, he had a wealth of information, his mother was French & from the Lumiere family (the company was by then part of Ciba Geigy).

There's probably been more than one formula for Microdol-X over the years, since it's introduction. One MSDS shows the liquid version containing Sodium Citrate, and I've seen another MSDS with (meta)Bisulpite in it. As I said I've tried that formula now, it works well with no trace of Dichroic fog, but as the Metabisulphite breaks down with age that might change.

However like Don Cardwell, Thomas etc I personally think that PPD/Colour developing agents have been neglected in recent years and that there's greater potential going down that avenue, the combinations of PPD/Glycin and Meritol (PPD/Pyrocatechin) have eproduced some outstanding commercial developers, then there's the PPD/Metol/Glycin devs and instead of Metol you can use Phenidone or Dimezone.

As Robert says there are less toxic alternatives to PPD free base. But women use PPD all the time in hair dyes They smell like colour developer too

Ian

I was just curious where you read it. Thanks Ian.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Salient points highlighted.

1, Keith, re ID-11+, I can't imagine it had cinnamic acid per se - - wouldn't a perfumey smell would have been apparent? When it came out, Bob Schwalberg did a fairly rigorous image quality test in Popular Photography - - that might be worth looking up. Crawley too examined the weight of Microdol packages, but came to the incorrect conclusion that more sulfite was being used. However, his two Microdol substitutes are ingenious nonetheless.

2, In FDC2, I'll confirm the original antistain agent in MX, but this has since been changed and I could at least hint at what some replacements have been. And if there's no FDC2, I'll publish it here, but surely I can be allowed to hold a few cards up my sleeve until we know what we're doing?

3, It's interesting that many of these older solvent developers can be used successfully today, and Robert's work confirms precisely what Crawley noted as being claimed for the pre-war physical development processes: 'exceptional preservation of subject tones' (I am quoting from memory here). That's exactly what it's all about, though the issue has hardly been decisively proved scientifically. Rationally, it doesn't seem possible, but Robert is demonstrating it here and now.

4, In the quest for the best possible compromise between grain, speed, and sharpness, I do think the EK colour people were ahead of the b/w teams, and I am looking forward to Ron's being able to publish, sometime in the future, some of what he learnt.

AFAIK, ID-11+ was only available in the U.S, so I never tried it.

It would be interesting to read what was used originally in MX, no problem with you keeping it up your sleeve until then.

I agree that aesthetically pleasing tone reproduction is as important as sharpness and resolution.

I also look forward to reading Ron`s contribution to FDC2.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

In FDC2, I'll confirm the original antistain agent in MX, but this has since been changed and I could at least hint at what some replacements have been. And if there's no FDC2, I'll publish it here [...]

Bill - look into having printed on demand, like at lulu.com. They can print in the same format and binding as your first book.

Kirk

 

[RobertV]

look into having printed on demand, like at lulu.com

Indeed, like: Dead Link Removed (E-magazine)

David Vickers is in this business and nows exactly how this is working. Fotohuis can provide some money for the initial costs. And then you're free to publish anyhow.

Best regards,

Robert

(Who is willing to cooperate in this Pro Deo project, for testing procedures and additional photographical work)

Due to the fact we are Rollei / Foma / Fuji etc. distributor I can arrange things free of charge.

 

[Photo Engineer]

One of the things I am concerned about is the use of staining developers. It is a fact that the dyes that form the stain will fade with time. No one has done a study on this AFAIK, and I wonder what effect it has on the image quality of the prints made as a function of the fading process.

Or, does anyone care?

PE

 

[Tom Kershaw]

One of the things I am concerned about is the use of staining developers. It is a fact that the dyes that form the stain will fade with time. No one has done a study on this AFAIK, and I wonder what effect it has on the image quality of the prints made as a function of the fading process.

Or, does anyone care?

PE

Would stain loss have a negative impact beyond the initial advantages of a stained negative?

Tom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Does the stain fade appreciably with time or more likely exposure to light ? I've printed hundreds of early glass plates & negatives virtually all Pyro processed by the look of them and the stain has always seemed fine.

Ian

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Would this include a developer like Edwal 12? The PPD most definitely is a strong dye that has stained one of my plastic beakers so severely that it is now almost opaque. I've got some made of glass on order...

Thanks,

- Thomas

One of the things I am concerned about is the use of staining developers. It is a fact that the dyes that form the stain will fade with time. No one has done a study on this AFAIK, and I wonder what effect it has on the image quality of the prints made as a function of the fading process.

Or, does anyone care?

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

As I said in my post, no one has run any tests. So, it could be light, heat or humidity or all of these. They may be very stable or moderately stable and stability will depend on processing and keeping conditions as well as use. And, since the negatives were created to be subject to judgment based on prints through both the "mask" and the normal tone scale, there will likely be some impact. What kind, IDK. Tests should be run.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

PPDs generally are not considered to be classic staining developers. But if they do, the dyes they form will be subject to fade. This is inevitable. After all, the struggle in color has been to get stable PPD dyes for the last 75 years.

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

PPDs generally are not considered to be classic staining developers. But if they do, the dyes they form will be subject to fade. This is inevitable. After all, the struggle in color has been to get stable PPD dyes for the last 75 years.
PE

Are any of these actually suitable for processing regular B&W films (not chromagenic types)? I read some where that C-41 developer gave very good results with Kodak Technical Pan when it was still available, with E.I. 32 effective speed and excellent image fidelity. Normal B&W stop-bath and fixer of course. Grain might have been even finer than the Technidol developer IIRC.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Keith;

As Bill said in his post earlier, Kodak color developer design had advanced very far compared to B&W developer design due to the number of engineers assigned to the projects. OTOH, the B&W designs that were under way were never released due to a declining market. The entire scenario involved a problem of two facets that denied "you" some B&W developer advantages.

Therefore, I could design a purely B&W developer that surpassed a color developer or a color developer that, used for B&W, equalled or surpassed any current purely B&W developer.

So, the answer to your question is a qualified "yes".

PE

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Keith;

As Bill said in his post earlier, Kodak color developer design had advanced very far compared to B&W developer design due to the number of engineers assigned to the projects. OTOH, the B&W designs that were under way were never released due to a declining market. The entire scenario involved a problem of two facets that denied "you" some B&W developer advantages.

Therefore, I could design a purely B&W developer that surpassed a color developer or a color developer that, used for B&W, equalled or surpassed any current purely B&W developer.
So, the answer to your question is a qualified "yes".

PE

Thanks P.E. I look forward to trying your RONinal when it becomes available.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm working on at least 2 HA developers. I'll keep you posted. And, BTW, I whipped up a Roninal about 2 years ago. I guess with that it makes 3.

PE

 

[billtroop]

The developer was designed to target contrast problems specific to tabular films (such as excessive micro contrast) which I think Grant both understood and disliked better than most, perhaps due to his background as a successful photographer. My memory is hazy but somehow a DIR coupler or DIR-like process was involved. Conceptually it's pretty simple: add an additional contrast control mechanism to conventional b/w development. Grant's goal was to find a new chemical approach to deal with the physical characteristics of tabular grains. He was cagey about the process, and insisted I could figure it out for myself -- but I couldn't.

In relation to developing black & white tabular grain films?

Tom.