Tri x and Pan X in Microdol X tonality clone

archer · Aug 23, 2009

I am trying to reproduce the tonality I loved with Tri X and Pan X in Microdol X and so far Efke 50 seems to come closest in Microdol X 1:3 but when I look back it seems that I had also used Plus X and got pretty close to the combo I'm used to with just a little less highlight seperation. I've never used FP4 and need some opinions. Has any one used FP4 with Microdol X and what are your conclusions? Any other recommendations will be gratefully considered. I should mention that I shoot almost exclusively, situational portraits, with a minimum of structured lighting and am shooting in 4X5 and medium format. I will also shoot formal portraits with traditional studio lighting, hence the need for options regarding different films. I have tried all the modern T grain films and just cannot abide the lifeless perfection.
Denise Libby

phfitz · Aug 23, 2009

"I have tried all the modern T grain films and just cannot abide the lifeless perfection."

That appears to be the difference in color rendition, T-Max 100 seems to be perfectly panchromatic, rendering all colors the same. Plus-X and Tri-X looked to drop the green more than a bit, perfect for portraits. I have a few different films here and wanted to try them all with DK50 1-1 so thanks for the idea, I'll post back later.

phfitz · Aug 23, 2009

the films just dried so here goes:
Tmax 100 old
Tmax 400 old
Tmax 400 new
Tri-X 320 new
are all perfectly panchromatic, the color swatches all have the same density save yellow which is 1 stop brighter
Tmax 100 new is slightly less blue sensitive, lighter on the neg, darker in print
Plus-X old is all over the place on the neg, very light with red and yellow, light with green, normal with blue and magenta, dark with cyan.
ERA 100 is the reverse of Plus-X, very light with green, light with blue and cyan, dark with red and magenta, sightly light with yellow, should be a fine portrait film.

All the films are 4x5, all are fine grained and all work well with DK50 1-1, 9min@72F. Sorry, don't have any FP4, old Tri-X or Pan X in 4x5.

BetterSense · Aug 23, 2009

Plus-X old is all over the place on the neg, very light with red and yellow, light with green, normal with blue and magenta, dark with cyan.

Is this dark on the negative or dark on the print? This is the opposite of what I would have guessed if you are talking about printing densities.

Venchka · Aug 23, 2009

Tri-X and Microdol-X are alive & well. Are they not?

phfitz · Aug 23, 2009

"Is this dark on the negative or dark on the print? "

that would be on the negative, reverse on the print, red and yellow would print dark, cyan would print very light.
the 'new' Tri-X is different than the old and I do not know about Microdol-X, I have not used it in years.

BetterSense · Aug 23, 2009

There's tons of Microdol-X at my local hole-in-the-wall film store. With the way people talk around here I would have thought it was endangered or discontinued.

archer · Aug 24, 2009

Dear phfitz;
Thanks for the insight regarding the panchromatic response of the T grain films. Your explanation makes sense because the films are virtually grainless so it just has to be their response to color that seems so digital, so linear and not just the grain structure that makes them seem so lifeless.
Venchka and Better Sense, I've been told that both Tri X in 4x5 and Microdol X along with Plus X 4x5 sheet film, are no longer available or being produced by Kodak. Tri X pro is still available in 4x5 but it is a very different film from Tri X 400 in that the shadow seperation is suppressed and I find the mid tones a bit flat in Microdol X however the highlight seperation is greater but I still prefer Tri X 400 for the shadows and in Microdol X, the highlights, although more compressed seem to glow. I hope everyone doesn't think that I'm just picking nits but this really does matter to me.
Thanks,
Denise Libby

BradS · Aug 25, 2009

Venchka said:
Tri-X and Microdol-X are alive & well. Are they not?

That is exactly what I was thinking too...if you want the look of Tri-X in Microdol-X...why not do the obvious? :confused:

I don't get it. :confused:

Nikanon · Aug 25, 2009

Even if developers go off of production cant we still make them by using the formula and just getting the chemicals? i sure hope chemicals don't go anywhere haha

archer · Aug 25, 2009

Dear BradS and Nkianon;
The problem is that there is no Tri X 400 in 4X5 and no Plus X in 4X5 and no Panatomic X in any format. As to Microdol X, it too is discontinued but that isn't a problem for the reasons you stated. Perhaps I was being obtuse in my original post. The question should have been that I am looking for options in the available LF film, that would closely approximate the tonality achievable in Tri X 400, Panatomic X and Plus X, developed in Microdol X at 1:3. So far, the only film that comes close is Efke 50 and I am looking for other options in the speed ranges and formats of the films I mentioned and that was the reason for the question regarding FP4.
Denise Libby

Rick A · Aug 25, 2009

archer said:
Dear BradS and Nkianon;
The problem is that there is no Tri X 400 in 4X5 and no Plus X in 4X5 and no Panatomic X in any format. As to Microdol X, it too is discontinued but that isn't a problem for the reasons you stated. Perhaps I was being obtuse in my original post. The question should have been that I am looking for options in the available LF film, that would closely approximate the tonality achievable in Tri X 400, Panatomic X and Plus X, developed in Microdol X at 1:3. So far, the only film that comes close is Efke 50 and I am looking for other options in the speed ranges and formats of the films I mentioned and that was the reason for the question regarding FP4.
Denise Libby

Hi Archer-- why not try ortho in LF? works great for portraits, and is fairly close(my personal opinion) to pan-X in D-76. Iwish they would bring back pan-x and verichrome pan just for us "old timers who sit around all day dredging up nostalgic images that we wished we made.
God bless
Rick

Venchka · Aug 25, 2009

I do lament the loss of Plus-X in 4x5. However, I have discovered Arista-EDU Ultra 200 from Freestyle. A.K.A. Foma 200 Creative. I expose at E.I. 100 and develop in Xtol 1:3 continuous agititation. Lovely lovely lovely film with a hint of grain even in 4x5.

I bought a lens recently that arrived with a box of New Tmax 400. I will begin using it this weekend. Also in Xtol 1:3. We shall see what we shall see.

Try all 3: Arista/Foma 200-100, Tri-X 320 and Tmax 400.

FP4 has a huge adn loyal following. It can't be all bad.

I have 2 quart bags of Microdol-X. I should mixt them and try PanF+ and my last rolls of APX 25 at 1:3. However, I think the APX 25 will go in Rodinal. It seems fitting.

Before believing anything you hear or read, find out for yourself. Microdol-X is very much alive and well.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=microdol-x&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4HPNW_enUS311US311&q=microdol-x+developer

Nikanon · Aug 26, 2009

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/28002-REG/Kodak_1969724_Microdol_X_Developer.html

Nikanon · Aug 26, 2009

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/243153-USA/Kodak_8416638_TXP_4164_4x5_50.html

Nikanon · Aug 26, 2009

not the exact same tri-x but its about as close as youll get, and it comes it pretty similar in characteristics, either way, from my last two posts, problem solved

phfitz · Sep 12, 2009

archer,

I just finished developing 5x7 negs of old Plus-X, old Tri-X, fp4-Plus and Shanghai with DK50 1-1, 70f/9 min.

Shanghai 100 has virtually the same color response as ERA 100 and the lightest base/fog I have seen since aero duplicating film.
Plus-X, Tri-X and fp4-Plus have nearly identical color response, fp4-Plus needs about 15% additional developing time.

Ilford's FP4-Plus may just be the closest match for the look of old Tri-X, with finer grain.

Hope it's a help.

Philippe-Georges · Sep 13, 2009

I find that the ADOX CHS 100 (4"x5") souped in Refinal concentrated looks close to Plus-X (4"x5"), it is not the same but I can live whit it.

Philippe

archer · Sep 13, 2009

Thank you all very much. You have given me some great ideas. Now the fun of testing begins. My procedure is always to select the paper and paper developer first, which in my case is always Ansco 130 and Galerie. Since all the films under test will be developed in Microdol X 1:3 for the first round of tests, the printing process eliminates that variable. In testing films, I always limit the tests to three rounds. Test #1 All films in Microdol X 1:3 @ 72 deg. Round #2. All films in Rodinal 1:100, 75 and 25 @ 68 deg. and Round #3. All films in Pyro-Tri 1:1 @ 68 deg. If after film testing, I arrive at a standard I'm happy with, only then might I try different papers. Honestly, I'm happy with Galerie. I just wish there were more surface choices. Like most of you, I want the viewer to appreciate the image, not the process.
Denise Libby

Keith Tapscott. · Sep 13, 2009

archer said:
Has any one used FP4 with Microdol X and what are your conclusions?
Denise Libby

Ilford FP4 Plus works very well in Kodak Microdol-X and Ilford Perceptol which is a similar developer.
In a lot of magazines in the 1970`s and 80`s was the much published photographs of a well known British freelance photographer called Raymond Lea. He used the pre-plus version of FP4 in Microdol-X diluted 1:3 and reported that it gave him the easiest to print negatives he ever came across.
His speciality was photographing subjects that he called `curiosities`.
I wonder what happened to him?

Tri x and Pan X in Microdol X tonality clone

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency