Microdol-X replenisher

[eSPhotos]

Does anyone know the formular of Microdol-X replenisher? - or its substitude ??
I like MicX but 4 rolls per litre capacity will drain my stock quickly. It is not easy to get MicX here in Downunder.
I could dilute it to increase the number of rolls but I like to use it undiluted.
Thanks

 

[Morry Katz]

Kodak has discontinued Microdol X. For a dilutable developer try Kodak HC110. There are many usable dilutions, and the Kodak website has lots of usable information. DigitalTruth gives times, temperature & dilutions for virtually all films.
Ilford's Perceptol is their version of Microdol X, but it is quite expensive.
Morry Katz - Lethbridge, Canada

 

[Sirius Glass]

Better switch to XTOL which is replenishible and is cheap. XTOL IMNOHO is a much better developer.

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

Steve

 

[Chuck_P]

Better switch to XTOL which is replenishible and is cheap. XTOL IMNOHO is a much better developer.

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

Steve

I would be curious as to what attribute(s) of Xtol brings you to this conclusion, what did you use before?

 

[Ian Grant]

I would be curious as to what attribute(s) of Xtol brings you to this conclusion, what did you use before?

If you look at Kodak's comparison chart Xtol has the best all round characteristics of their current film developers. So is the best choice from Kodak, plus as Steve says it's replenishable and very economic.

Ian

 

[Chuck_P]

Yes, I saw the comparison chart, but wanted somewhat of a personal accounting. I just recently tested Xtol (1:1) and found the shadow density increments from I -IV to be virtually the same as d-76 (1:1). Just curious.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I would be curious as to what attribute(s) of Xtol brings you to this conclusion, what did you use before?

When I was a teenager the mantra was Microdol-X. Many years passed without developing film.

I looked at Kodak, Ilford, what was available at FreeStyle and did due diligence. This table summed it up. I started with Stock solution and liked it. After I read about replenishment here, I tried it and like it better. So I use replenishment.

When I stated processing 4x5 I needed a darkroom. The darkroom supplied D76 for tray development. No problem with D76, I just like XTOL replenished much better. Again the table does a nice job of summing it up.

Steve

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

TMax-100 in Microdol-X produces almost Tech Pan levels of (non) grain. I find the 1:3 dilution used single-shot produces no more grain than full-strength. Ilford makes a works-like version, the name escapes me and I have never tried it. HC-110 is about as unlike Microdol as it is possible to be.

Kodak has instructions for making a DIY replenisher from Microdol-X in the M-X spec sheet:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/j4027/j4027.pdf

Their formula is made from slightly concentrated M-X and a pinch of S. Carbonate - which agrees with the MSDS for the replenisher.

The classic MSDS for M-X developer states:

S. Sulfite 70-75%
S. Chloride 20-25 %
Metol 1-5 %

However, a 1989 vintage MSDS goes on to include:
Boric Anyhdride <1%
S. Hexametaphosphate (calgon) <1%

The B. Anhydride is likely added as a pH buffer, the Calgon is a sequestering agent added to keep calcium from precipitating from hard water.

There is yet another mystery ingredient in M-X to control dichroic fog. Speculation in r.p.d. and the Pure Silver list is that it is a mercaptan, possibly an aminopolycarboxylic acid such as DPTA.

(B. Anyhdride forms B. Acid when mixed with water, should be able to substitute 2x B. Acid crystals.)

The standard formula for Microdol sans 'X' (this formula will cause dichroic fog with TMX):
Metol 7.5g
S. Sulfite 100g
S. Chloride 40g
B. Acid 2g
Calgon 1g

Water to make 1liter

More info at (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[fschifano]

Yes, many years ago the mantra was Microdol-X, Microdol-X,... I was taught the same mantra, and I followed that mantra for quite a while. That mantra no longer holds true because grain is not the problem it once was. Thirty or forty years ago, even a 10X enlargement from Plus-X would show obvious grain. Now, that same size enlargement from the two stop faster Tri-X shows less grain than the old version of Plus-X. If you make the comparison to T-grain films, the difference is even more dramatic. So, advances in film technology have pretty much obsoleted the need for ultra fine grain developers.

Mic-X achieved it's ultra fine grain properties by being a high solvent type developer. It contains a high percentage of sodium sulfite which ate away at the edges of the grain. The result of this action was a marginally less sharp print, and a loss of native film speed, up to a full stop off box speed, if used full strength. XTOL achieves fine grain through a different mechanism, and it does so without a loss of sharpness or film speed. Of course, one could have used Mic-X diluted to 1+3 as a one shot developer and not lost speed or sharpness, but then one would have lost its ultra fine grain characteristic.

So what did Mic-X offer that cannot be replicated by XTOL or even D-76 today? Not much. The only developing agent in Mic-X was metol, and that made it a very soft working developer. Can this action be replicated with another developer? Surely, it can simply by overexposing your film by a stop and reducing development by an appropriate amount.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Yeah, But. I've said it before and I'll say it again, TMX at 50 in Microdol-X 1:0 gives the closest look to old timey Panatomic-X, shoot that with a period lens (say, single coated Zeiss /Rollei or Maymiya C-3 era) and you got yourself a time machine.
The Microdol-X Replenisher is some of the most longest lasting chemistry. Its not Rodinal or HC-110 level, but the divided small bottle from years ago is still going strong, concentrated stuff. If you can find an old can or even a bag its still good.

 

[Ian Grant]

It wasn't the Sulphite that was the key, it was the chloride alongside.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists) recommended for 35mm was a simple Metol, Sulphite, Borax formula, it had significantly more Sulphite in proportion to the Metol than Microdol-X but a higher pH.

However at Full Strength D76, D23/D25, D76 and Microdol X all have exactly the same amount of Sulphite 100g/liter.

You can add Sodium or Ammonium Chloride to many developers and get significantly finer grain.

Ian

Yes, many years ago the mantra was Microdol-X, Microdol-X,... I was taught the same mantra, and I followed that mantra for quite a while. That mantra no longer holds true because grain is not the problem it once was. Thirty or forty years ago, even a 10X enlargement from Plus-X would show obvious grain. Now, that same size enlargement from the two stop faster Tri-X shows less grain than the old version of Plus-X. If you make the comparison to T-grain films, the difference is even more dramatic. So, advances in film technology have pretty much obsoleted the need for ultra fine grain developers.

Mic-X achieved it's ultra fine grain properties by being a high solvent type developer. It contains a high percentage of sodium sulfite which ate away at the edges of the grain. The result of this action was a marginally less sharp print, and a loss of native film speed, up to a full stop off box speed, if used full strength. XTOL achieves fine grain through a different mechanism, and it does so without a loss of sharpness or film speed. Of course, one could have used Mic-X diluted to 1+3 as a one shot developer and not lost speed or sharpness, but then one would have lost its ultra fine grain characteristic.

So what did Mic-X offer that cannot be replicated by XTOL or even D-76 today? Not much. The only developing agent in Mic-X was metol, and that made it a very soft working developer. Can this action be replicated with another developer? Surely, it can simply by overexposing your film by a stop and reducing development by an appropriate amount.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

There are an awful lot of myths surrounding M-X. One is that it is a 'high solvent developer' when it has the same amount of S. Sulfite in it as D-76. The formula for M-X is D-23 - which is not derided as 'dissolving the grains' - with the addition of S. Chloride (table salt) as the fine grain ingredient.

Microdol-X, by virtue of small grain size, make make a 'less sharp looking print' - but only because prominent grain can make an unsharp photograph look sharp. Take a picture of a resolution target with a good lens, like a Sumicron, at f5.6, with bracket focusing (no RF is perfect), with TMY and see if there is any difference in resolving power between developing in M-X and Xtol, because I certainly don't see any. Some people place great store in the appearance of sharpness as opposed to real image detail - I am not in that crowd, I eschew 'actuance'.

Whether one considers grain to still be a problem depends on what one considers excessive grain. I don't like grain: I consider 4x5 TMY in Xtol to be excessively grainy when enlarged to 8x10.

No matter the film, developer, subject matter, time-of-day or flavour of chewing gum some will love it and some will hate it.

It's funny though how as soon as someone asks for information about Brand-Y there is an instant clamour of Brand-X and Brand-Z users deriding the OP's choice of materials.

 

[dynachrome]

I might use Microdol-X full strength if I developed an old film like ORWO NP27. You lose one stop of speed with full strength Microdol-X. You do not lose speed at 1:3 but then many other developers give the same result. It is not practical to replenish diluted developer and at 1:3 Perceptol is not very expensive. There was more of a reason to use full strength Microdol-X when films had more grain. A film like TMX has high enough sharpness and fine enough grain that even full strength Microdol-X will not make it look soft but it will degrade the sharpness of Tri-X or HP5+. I never liked TMX as much as I liked Panatomic-X and I don't think I ever will. They are very different films.

 

[Sirius Glass]

[Sarcasm Mode]
So you want to use Microdol-X so that you can loose one stop and have soft and fuzzy negatives. Be still my foolish heart! You could leave the lens cap on and loss even more f stops! Then you could use sand paper on the enlarge lens and get a softer print.

Hey, use a digital camera if you want crap!

What am I missing here?

There are much better developers available from a number of companies. Exactly why are you fighting to use an obsolete developer?

Jus' sayin' "Whatev'".
[/Sarcasm Mode]

Steve

 

[eSPhotos]

Thanks all,
Good info on alternative developers.
Yes there are quite a number of good developers but MicX is for me. Not only it produces results that I am happy with but also I have a few cans in the store.
Xtol is another one that I really liked but I have had bad experience with its unpredictable life span.

I might try the instruction in MicX spec sheet (Thanks Nicholas Lindan).

 

[cmacd123]

Freestyle does sell a powder in their Legacy Pro line that is SUPPOSED to be the equivalent of Microdol-x. there model 749710 ....LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer. The MSDS is from PSI but since Kodak has phased out Microdol-X they may very well have licensed the formula. The Existence of Arista Premium Film is a sign that Kodak gets along with Freestyle.

No replenisher but the Kodak Trick should work if it is really a similar formula

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Freestyle does sell a powder in their Legacy Pro line that is SUPPOSED to be the equivalent of Microdol-x. there model 749710 ....LegacyPro Mic-X Film Developer. The MSDS is from PSI but since Kodak has phased out Microdol-X they may very well have licensed the formula. The Existence of Arista Premium Film is a sign that Kodak gets along with Freestyle.

No replenisher but the Kodak Trick should work if it is really a similar formula

I've wondered about that developer, but assumed they based it on the generic formulas people have tossed around for a while. It would be nice to know for certain.

Unlike some of the other posters, I always (mistakenly) thought that Microdol-X was a horrible, mushy, unsharp, speed robbing developer. That was what I mostly heard in the 70's and 80's. When I finally got around to trying it, I was surprised that is was none of those things (I use 1:3).

Microdol-X never became my primary developer, but it is very nice and I can see why someone would go to the trouble of getting it.

I'm trying to settle on Xtol (replenished) for now, but haven't quite come to terms with it. It does have noticeably finer grain than D76, and like many people, I find a very slight increase in speed.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Unlike some of the other posters, I always (mistakenly) thought that Microdol-X was a horrible, mushy, unsharp, speed robbing developer. That was what I mostly heard in the 70's and 80's. When I finally got around to trying it, I was surprised that is was none of those things (I use 1:3).

When you dilute any solvent type developer, especially at a dilution greater than 1+1, most of the solvent action is lost. So I'm not surprised that you didn't experience any loss of resolution.

 

[Ian Grant]

When you dilute any solvent type developer, especially at a dilution greater than 1+1, most of the solvent action is lost. So I'm not surprised that you didn't experience any loss of resolution.

I'd add a probably very little gain in terms of finer grain either.

Where Microdol-X and particularly Perceptol excel are with films like Pan F. the combination gives superb results.

Ian

 

[Mark Crabtree]

I'd add a probably very little gain in terms of finer grain either.

Where Microdol-X and particularly Perceptol excel are with films like Pan F. the combination gives superb results.

Ian

And the subject really was replenished Microdol-X, so I'd drifted off topic anyway.
I am very hopeful of the replenished Xtol. I've been a closet replenisher for a long time (D76 and Acufine).

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

"I consider 4x5 TMY in Xtol to be excessively grainy when enlarged to 8x10."

What grain?