Perceptol/Microdol-X replenished????

[John Wiegerink]

I'm just curious as to whether or not Perctol or Micrdol-X can be run as a replenishment system? It would seem to me that is should be possible, but I have never tried it. I would be using the "homebrew" version of these developers.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Given the composition of Perceptol/Microdol, a dedicated replenisher would have to be formulated.

Mike,
These are both basically D-23 with a dash of salt added. I just figured it D-76 can be setup replenished then so should D-23 + salt. Maybe use d-76R minus Hydrquinone and borax might work?

 

[Ian Grant]

The replenisher for D23 is D25R you could adapt that.

Ian

 

[Anon Ymous]

There used to be a Microdol-X replenisher, but has been discontinued many years ago. Kodak's tech pub J4027 was the datasheet for Microdol-X and on page 3 they suggest a substitute for the replenisher using Microdol-X developer and some sodium carbonate. I haven't tried it, but perhaps you could give it a try.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The replenisher for D23 is D25R you could adapt that.

Ian

That is what I thought might work, but I am looking at a D-23 1+2 equivalent and would need a replenisher for that dilution. Might be something for me to play with in the future.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Mike,
These are both basically D-23 with a dash of salt added. I just figured it D-76 can be setup replenished then so should D-23 + salt. Maybe use d-76R minus Hydrquinone and borax might work?

It's not completely true to say that Microdol is just D-23. It also contains a very important ingredient to prevent sludging with continued use. IIRC that is what the X in the name stands for.

Both companies discontinued a replenisher due to low sales. Replenished systems are only useful if you have sufficient throughput. This is hardly the case with most amateur users. This means that the developer cannot be allowed to remain idle. These idle periods make the developer unpredictable.

As Ian points out you could use D-23 with D-25R. You would have to mix your own and add the correct amount of sodium chloride to each.

 

[Nokton48]

There used to be a Microdol-X replenisher, but has been discontinued many years ago. Kodak's tech pub J4027 was the datasheet for Microdol-X and on page 3 they suggest a substitute for the replenisher using Microdol-X developer and some sodium carbonate. I haven't tried it, but perhaps you could give it a try.

I buy Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle.
My stock solution is three years old and still going strong!


2 qts water 90-100F
Add one gallon Legacy Mic-X powder
add 24g Sodium Carbonate
add water to make 3 qts



30 ml per 135-36 exposure

 

[Ian Grant]

It's not completely true to say that Microdol is just D-23. It also contains a very important ingredient to prevent sludging with continued use. IIRC that is what the X in the name stands for.

It contains an agent to prevent Dichroic fog which was a problem particularly with Kodak films with first DK-20 then its replacement Microdol, hence the Microdol X That sounds the wrong way around because it was newer emulsions that had the issues needing the developer changes.

That is what I thought might work, but I am looking at a D-23 1+2 equivalent and would need a replenisher for that dilution. Might be something for me to play with in the future.

You don't need to replenish dilute devs like D&6, MIcrodol-X etc, replenished FS developers start to give results quite similar - well actually better - to a 1+2 dilution.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

I buy Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle.
My stock solution is three years old and still going strong!


2 qts water 90-100F
Add one gallon Legacy Mic-X powder
add 24g Sodium Carbonate
add water to make 3 qts



30 ml per 135-36 exposure

Thanks Nokton that's the kind of answer I was after. We always seem to get "can't work", "won't work", "not worth the trouble", "I like this better" and a whole mess more answers that don't answer the question we ask. CAN IT BE DONE & DES IT WORK? I use Xtol replenished and love it. I'm not super high volume and it works just fine for me. Perceptol diluted 1+2 and 1+3 is also one of my very best/favorite developers and the reason I ask.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I'm just curious as to whether or not Perctol or Micrdol-X can be run as a replenishment system? It would seem to me that is should be possible, but I have never tried it. I would be using the "homebrew" version of these developers.

I would also like to know if there is a formula for a suitable replenisher for Perceptol/Microdol substitute developer.

Having just read an old technical data sheet for Ilford Perceptol when a replenisher was available and based on 2.5 litres of stock, the instructions said that after six roll films have been processed to drain off 70ml of developer and add 116 ml of replenisher.

After another six films have been developed to repeat the same replenishment.

Does anyone have a formula for a suitable replenisher. This is purely out of personal curiosity.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

A Microdol/Perceptol substitute formula is often given as;

Metol 5 grams
Sodium sulphite 100 grams
Sodium chloride 30 grams
Water to make 1 litre.

Looking at Kodak's suggestion to make a suitable replenisher, I was thinking that this might make a suitable replenisher, but I could be very wrong.

Metol 6.3 grams
Sodium sulphite 100 grams
Sodium chloride 30 grams
Sodium carbonate, monohydrate 8 grams
Water to make 1 litre.

Any thoughts anyone?

 

[koraks]

Any thoughts anyone?

I suspect the addition of carbonate will make a much more active developer. So the replenished formula would end up being more active than the initial tank solution.

I'd be inclined to replenish with the regular formula and perhaps use a liberal replenishment rate.
Or just don't sweat it and use the developer only a few times or even one shot (especially rotary) and discard. The constituents aren't very expensive and the formula is so high in chloride that I doubt the leaching out of bromide from the film will make much of a difference anyway.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I'd be inclined to replenish with the regular formula and perhaps use a liberal replenishment rate.

That would be an expensive way to replenish the developer and it doesn't help the OP who wanted to know a replenishing formula.

I would personally dilute the developer and use it one-shot, but I would also like to know a proper Replenishing formula out of curiosity.

 

[John Wiegerink]

That would be an expensive way to replenish the developer and it doesn't help the OP who wanted to know a replenishing formula.

I would personally dilute the developer and use it one-shot, but I would also like to know a proper Replenishing formula out of curiosity.

I'm with you Keith and it's more curiosity than necessity for me also. It would be great if a replenisher itself were the parent developer similar to the way Xtol-R works.

 

[koraks]

That would be an expensive way to replenish

Well, I'd replenish at the dilution used for development - what's that, typically 1+3 or so? That's not very costly given the composition of this developer.

That it's not a definitive answer, I agree. Let's give it another 6 years and see if one surfaces after all

 

[John Wiegerink]

I make my own Perceptol/Microdol so cost for me is not a problem, but figuring out how to replenish is. Still, for what it cost me to make a liter one shot is really the way to go. Not as cost effective as replenishing, but foolproof for a fool like me.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

The developer solution is already low energy at stock strength, so a dedicated replenisher is required for optimum results. Xtol contains a Phenidone derivative which is more robust against the build up of hydrobromic acid hence why it can be replenished with itself.

A litre of stock Perceptol is only good for up to four films without replenishment.
Replenishing it diluted is very dubious and certainly wouldn't want to risk it.
When diluted it should be used once only.

 

[koraks]

Alright @Keith Tapscott. thanks for these additions. Sounds plausible.
And agree @John Wiegerink on the economics of one shot!

 

[Nokton48]

My Mic-X Replenisher Scheme by Nokton48, on Flickr

Gallon of Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle, Gallon glass bottle from Photographer's Formulary. Mic-X Replenisher in 950ml bottles also PF. I mixed this stuff back in 2019 and it's still good! Although it needs to be filtered, I bought a box of lab filter paper in funnel. This is a SSSLLLLLOOOWWW developer I have gone as far as thirty minutes, it's hard to overdevelop to the point of ruining anything with cold olde Mic-X.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

My Mic-X Replenisher Scheme by Nokton48, on Flickr

Gallon of Legacy Mic-X from Freestyle, Gallon glass bottle from Photographer's Formulary. Mic-X Replenisher in 950ml bottles also PF. I mixed this stuff back in 2019 and it's still good! Although it needs to be filtered, I bought a box of lab filter paper in funnel. This is a SSSLLLLLOOOWWW developer I have gone as far as thirty minutes, it's hard to overdevelop to the point of ruining anything with cold olde Mic-X.

Looks good, thank you for posting this.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

From Ilford's website.

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION​

ILFORD PERCEPTOL is an extra fine grain powder developer for black & white films. Negatives developed in this powder produce stunningly sharp enlargements and offer greater definition and detail than even the most popular standard fine grain developers.
Specially formulated for maximum sharpness and detail, PERCEPTOL exploits the superb grain structure of medium and slow speed films such as DELTA 100 PROFESSIONAL, FP4 PLUS and PAN F PLUS. It also produces significantly finer grain in faster films such as, DELTA 400 PROFESSIONAL, HP5 PLUS and DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL (when compared with a standard fine grain developer).

 

[MarkS]

Having run more than one replenished b&w sink-line in my career, I'll suggest that to keep a replenished developer consistent, you have to run more film through it than most amateurs shoot. We are really best off now to use one-shot developers.

We forget how important b&w film was 40+ years ago, and how much was used commercially (answer: a lot). Replenishers, once offered for D-76 and HC-110 as well as Microdol-X, went away because high-volume professional users had stopped showing b&w, and photo labs that survived shut down their processing lines. Praus Productions still runs a b&w film line; the last time I spoke to Edgar he was using XTOL and replenishing it successfully.

 

[Lachlan Young]

As per Ilford instructions, they can't.

This is total nonsense - Ilford removed the sections on replenishment when they withdrew replenishers for ID-11/ Microphen/ Perceptol - likely to avoid having to deal with ill-informed technical service enquiries.

If you look at older instructions for those developers you'll find full replenishment information at scales of usage up to 12 gallons.

 

[koraks]

So it's basically wrong to state that in the past ID-11 can be replenished since it has to be use ID-11 REPLENISHER, which isn't on the market anymore.

But it can be easily made.

Or are we going to have the old routine of "but it isn't made by Harman, so it doesn't exist", again?

 

[koraks]

That's fair enough, but then you'd have to rephrase your previous post like so:

Here https://www.mr-alvandi.com/downloads/film-and-processing/ilford-id-11-manual.pdf
On page 7:
For repleshiment only use ID-11 replenisher do not use ID-11 developer as replenisher
So you're basically right to state that ID-11 can be replenished, but since ID-11 REPLENISHER has to be used, which isn't on the market anymore, this is not an option available to me. and while Ilford ID-11 DEVELOPER could possibly be used as replenisher, it is not something I could figure out.
Thus nowadays Ilford ID-11 CAN BE REPLENISHED, but not by me. Period.
Perceptol can be replenished too: who am I to contradict Ilford? But I can't do it.

There's a notable difference between your individual choice, and the formulation of your post, which like several other recent posts of yours, talks in absolutes.

Perhaps there's a language barrier at play here, but please understand that your crass formulation puts discussions on edge that don't need to be. This one is a nice example, where you started by stating "you're wrong" while consequently pointing to evidence that supports exactly what @Lachlan Young said!