*NEW* Legacy Pro "Mic-X" is it the real stuff?

[cmacd123]

Our good friends in California have a new product Called "legacy Pro Mic-X Developer" http://www.freestylephoto.biz/749710-LegacyPro-Mic-X-Film-Developer-to-Make-1-Gallon

The MSDS has the Logo of Photo Systems in MI, the folks that used to make Unicolor products.

The claim is that this is a clone of Microdol X which was recently "cut back" by the Yellow package guys in Upper New York state.

Is it the real deal? I just ordered some stuff last week from freestyle, which is always the trigger for them comming out with new products...

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Microdol-X doesn't seem like a very complicated developer, so it would be unsurprising if it couldn't be easily reproduced. Kodak may have used some additives to compensate for different water supplies, anti-caking agents and such, but the basic formula isn't so unusual.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have the ingredient list (not the formula) sitting right here on my computer desk. If it does not match that, it isn't the same thing!

PE

 

[cmacd123]

I have the ingredient list (not the formula) sitting right here on my computer desk. If it does not match that, it isn't the same thing!

PE

IS the MSDS even close?
<http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/legacypro/LegacyPro_Mic_X_Film_Developer.pdf>

<http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/msds/legacypro/LegacyPro_Mic_X_Film_Developer.pdf>

 

[Photo Engineer]

MSDS data does not need to include proprietary chemistry nor does it need to include chemistry below a certain level.

If you go here: Dead Link Removed

You will see the difference in the MSDS. This does not tell all. What interests me is, why does anyone care?

PE

 

[cmacd123]

What interests me is, why does anyone care?
PE

It would make things easier for those who are used to using Microdol-X

 

[Photo Engineer]

Then the best way to test this premise is to make a side by side comparison of the two developers. If they don't match, then you have the answer to the OP. Otherwise, we really don't know and there is no way to know unless the respective formulas are published.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

One problem with Microdol-X is that the formula has changed slightly over the years, at one point it included Sodium Citrate, now it has Boric Anhydride (Boric Acid) instead.

As Ron (PE) has pointed out before it contains an anti-oxidant, some Kodak films in the 1960's suffered from Dichroic fogging in Microdol which necessitated the addition, Ilford films where unaffected according to a UK article (early 60's).

D23 with 30 gms of Sodium Chloride (Iodide free) is a good substitute for Microdol-X and works perfectly with Ilford & Foma films giving results very similar to Microdol-X or Ilford's equivalent Perceptol. I haven't tested it with Kodak films but in answer to Ron's (PE) question "What interests me is, why does anyone care?" people want to make up their own substitute and I do know people using it successfully and the quality of their prints is outstanding.

PSInc is the vestiges of one of the US photochemical manufactures, they still make colour chemistry as well as some of Freestyles products.

Ian

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Well, unless the MSDS isn't mentioning something - no, it is not Microdol-X.

It is the original Microdol formula - which anyone can make. If you use this with modern films you will get dichroic fog. I'm rather startled Freestyle would sell something that is guaranteed to have problems.

Kodak's M-X MSDS gives (figures rounded)

75 S. Sulfite
20 S. Chloride
3 Metol
1 Boric Anhydride (boric acid)
1 S. Hexametaphosphate (calgon)

The freestyle product leaves out the last two ingredients, as do many versions of Kodak's MSDS.

It also seems that the Kodak MSDS may not be mentioning the presence of benzophenone:
see US Pat. 3161513 http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=vHFXAAAAEBAJ&dq=3161513

Though if Kodak is leaving all these things out of their disclosures, so maybe is the maker of
Freestyle's product.

 

[Anscojohn]

Then the best way to test this premise is to make a side by side comparison of the two developers. If they don't match, then you have the answer to the OP. Otherwise, we really don't know and there is no way to know unless the respective formulas are published.

PE

*************
I remember when Microdol became Microdol-X. Was this an actual change in formula, or just a change in nomenclature?

 

[Ian Grant]

Well, unless the MSDS isn't mentioning something - no, it is not Microdol-X.

It is the original Microdol formula - which anyone can make. If you use this with modern films you will get dichroic fog. I'm rather startled Freestyle would sell something that is guaranteed to have problems.

When I tested the formula last year there was no trace of Dichroic fog, and I was with a photographer last week who uses the formula as his main developer again with no fogging.

There was a tendency of Dichroic fog with some of Kodak's films in certain developers in the late 50's and early 60's which was why DK-20 went out of production, and why Microdol-X replaced Microdol. Geoffrey Crawley writing in 1960/1 indicated that the problem was unique to Kodak films and that Ilford films had no issues, in fact for this reason it was a few years before Ilford replaced their ID-48 solvent developer (equivalent to DK-20) with Perceptol.

Kodak didn't recommend Tmax developer with LF Tmax films because of possible Dichroic fogging which may indicate that Tmax films in the substitute formulae might suffer, but I suspect the issues are with oxidation in Rotary processors.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Microdol and Microdol-X are NOT the same formula.

Also, the "secret ingredient" is not Benzophenone nor is it a Benzophenone derivative according to my notes.

PE

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

Real or not I don't know. Never used Microdol-X before but tried Mic-X last week and it's just beautiful.
G.