remrf
AZRF
Years ago and in an alternate universe I used Microdol-X almost exclusively for my 120 and 35 mm b&w film(mostly plus-x). A friend working with me in Viet Nam told me about using in 1:3 dilution. I was amazed at the fine detail on my resultant negs most of which were shot in bright daylight . I recall seeing very fine detail even in darker shadow and no loss of sharpness. Rather the opposite actually. I was shooting with a Yashica 124 and keeping the f-stop at f-11 or smaller and locking the focus at infinity. So everything from about 1 meter to infinity was in sharp focus.
I was just reading a thread from another photo forum about Microdol-X and there was more than one post which complained about the loss of sharpness and the loss of 1/2 to one full stop of speed when using this developer.
I don't recall ever seeing this in any of the rolls I developed . I shot using sunny 16 as the basis for my exposure for the most part and don't recall seeing any underexposed negs. Granted, the lab I worked in had a "thing" about "bricks" or negatives that were very dense. They were into negs that had enough density to render a print without washout but did not take a long time to print (within the chemistry/temp/paper choices they had already made). I recall my negs being that type of neg. Enough contrast to render a good print and lots of detail but not particualrly dense.
Anybody else use Microdol-X. What were your results?
I was just reading a thread from another photo forum about Microdol-X and there was more than one post which complained about the loss of sharpness and the loss of 1/2 to one full stop of speed when using this developer.
I don't recall ever seeing this in any of the rolls I developed . I shot using sunny 16 as the basis for my exposure for the most part and don't recall seeing any underexposed negs. Granted, the lab I worked in had a "thing" about "bricks" or negatives that were very dense. They were into negs that had enough density to render a print without washout but did not take a long time to print (within the chemistry/temp/paper choices they had already made). I recall my negs being that type of neg. Enough contrast to render a good print and lots of detail but not particualrly dense.
Anybody else use Microdol-X. What were your results?
Jeff_S
Member
I have made Microdol-X my developer of choice for the last several years. I have used various dilutions (1:1, 1:2, and 1:3) each with slightly different results.
I don't dispute the fact that there is a loss of film speed but I usually rate my 400 speed films at 250 or 320 anyway unless I am pushing it on purpose.
I have attached a picture of two of my daughters shot on tri-x and developed with microdol-x. It is a scan of a print and not the best quality when downsized for the web but I think it does show the smoothness of tones.
Good luck,
Jeff
I don't dispute the fact that there is a loss of film speed but I usually rate my 400 speed films at 250 or 320 anyway unless I am pushing it on purpose.
I have attached a picture of two of my daughters shot on tri-x and developed with microdol-x. It is a scan of a print and not the best quality when downsized for the web but I think it does show the smoothness of tones.
Good luck,
Jeff
remrf
AZRF
Nice shot and I see what you mean about the tonal qualities. I'll have to try shooting a roll corrected for one stop as compared to the one I just shot.
I just developed a 120 roll of tri-x 400 in Microdol 1:1. They were exposed according to readings with a Gossen Luna Star F meter with no correction. It was an overcast day (not something we get much of in Arizona) so the light is very even and somewhat non directional. I have to say they look like "normal" negatives to me. Good density without being bricks.
They should be dry soon. I'll see if my scanner can get something useful out of them.
I just developed a 120 roll of tri-x 400 in Microdol 1:1. They were exposed according to readings with a Gossen Luna Star F meter with no correction. It was an overcast day (not something we get much of in Arizona) so the light is very even and somewhat non directional. I have to say they look like "normal" negatives to me. Good density without being bricks.
They should be dry soon. I'll see if my scanner can get something useful out of them.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
remrf said:
I used Microdol-X a lot when we had it here.
The comment you read about loss of sharpness and exposure speed was valid. Microdol-X is a fine-grain developer. Loss of sharpness and speed are trademarks of any fine-grain developer.
Fine grain developers work by shaving the edges of the silver grains to make the transitions and spaces between them (this what is seen as grain in the print) appear smoother. This results in a finer, evenly spaced grain pattern which smoothens out the grit of the grain pattern. At the same time, the image contours are also softened, giving an impression of less sharpness.
An FG developer 'shaves' grain by literally eating it. The solvent effect leaves less silver (and therefore less density as well) which in turn gives the impression of underexposure.
The comments were probably based on what was seen in a negative which had been developed in Microdol full-strength.
However, when a FG developer is diluted, the solvent effects (as well as fine-grain effects) are reduced. Using Microdol-X 1+3 (as what you've done in the past) will diminish the solvent, cannibalistic actions of the developer.
An FG developer diluted significantly will give rise to accutance effects- local exhaustion and weakened developer activity will increase local contrast (just like what the unsharp masking in Photoshop does)- and this will in turn give an impression of greater image sharpness.
When an FG developer is diluted, the solvent components also become less active. Less activity means less or little silver eating by the developer. This means that the negative density isn't reduced - no apparent underexposure or loss of emulsion speed occurs.
I always used Microdol at 1+3. The most significant trait I associate with this developer is its 'sharpening' effects on the contours. In areas where there is abrupt transition between black and white, (or dark grey/light grey), the transition seems to 'jump'. I forget what this effect is called, it's something like 'adjacency effects'(?) or 'Mckie lines' (sounds like it)
Jay
remrf
AZRF
Thanks. That certainly covers the question. I had looked at the grain structure many times back in the day but never as part of an A-B comparison with negs developed in another type of developer. My eye apparaently cannot see a one stop loss of speed when looking at a negative. The ones I did last night look "right" . I will save them and compare with the next roll which I will shoot with correction.
Again, thank you for a clear explanantion in terms that are easy to understand. If you are not a teacher then many students have missed out on an excellent instructor.
Again, thank you for a clear explanantion in terms that are easy to understand. If you are not a teacher then many students have missed out on an excellent instructor.
ZorkiKat
ЗоркийК&
remrf said:
I do teach photography in school. Many of the students are there not by choice- they need the credits And many don't seem to appreciate the technical stuff, especially anything which deals with chemistries, optics, etc.Jay
remrf
AZRF
Now I know why I liked the effect so much. Especially with medium and large format negs.
There was one shot that has stuck in my mind when thinking about Microdol-X 1:3. The assignment was a record shot of troops getting an orientation. A group of about thirty soldiers were sitting in bleachers which were under an awning. I was standing at the front of the awning shooting into the bleachers the back row of which was in complete shadow. I was standing in full daylight and I shot using my Yashica 124 TLR (Plus-X125 asa). When light permitted I always used the lowest f-stop possible at a 125th sec or faster locking the focus at infinity. The shot was of the speaker addressing the troops but when I printed the neg and got a good look I could see the the canvas pattern of the jungle boots of the soldier in the back row in full shadow. The soldier was a good thirty feet from the camera position. That's what I call fine grain and excellent acutance.
There was one shot that has stuck in my mind when thinking about Microdol-X 1:3. The assignment was a record shot of troops getting an orientation. A group of about thirty soldiers were sitting in bleachers which were under an awning. I was standing at the front of the awning shooting into the bleachers the back row of which was in complete shadow. I was standing in full daylight and I shot using my Yashica 124 TLR (Plus-X125 asa). When light permitted I always used the lowest f-stop possible at a 125th sec or faster locking the focus at infinity. The shot was of the speaker addressing the troops but when I printed the neg and got a good look I could see the the canvas pattern of the jungle boots of the soldier in the back row in full shadow. The soldier was a good thirty feet from the camera position. That's what I call fine grain and excellent acutance.
raytoei@gmail.com
Veteran
Hektor 135/f4.5 on the IIIf
Shot this a long while ago..