microdol x

[zeos 386sx]

I almost never hear anyone talk about Microdol. I ran a search for it in this forum and there was no reference to it. It is a great developer to recommend to beginners who ask for help. It has a comfortable 14 minute development time (beginners don't have to worry about fast, aggressive development or exaggerated grain). It can be replenished to save money and if the photographer is willing to give up a little film speed it can produce beautiful negatives. For more experienced photographers who are interested in things like edge effects it can also do that. Am I missing something?

 

[pshinkaw]

I formerly used Microdol-X and D-76 almost exclusively. I recently ran out of Microdol and haven't restocked beacuse I have so much D-76 left. I think it is a great developer. I used it primarily at the 1:3 dilution (use once and discard)

Adorama still sells it. I get the impression that it is not widely used anymore.

-Paul

 

[kaiyen]

Though Microdol-X and Perceptol are great developers, they are still rather specialized. The results you get from those at stock, 1+1 and 1+3 dilutions are different than what you get with D76, but not so much so to make them good candidates for standard developers for many people, and especially not for beginners, in my opinion.

If you want low grain, D76 stock is pretty good. If you want higher acutance and sharpness, dilute D76 gives you that. All the while, you get good speed, too.

Having said that, I use Perceptol and intend to go on a Perceptol-only diet soon, to get myself to really test the stuff.

allan

 

[Sean Moran]

Perceptol 1+1 and HP5+ rated at ISO 200 is a combination that seems capable of doing just about anything: street, portraiture, architecture, landscape. The tonal range is so long that you can usually do without a meter and still get neither blown highlights nor detail-less shadows. I have found though, that a higher grade of paper is needed more often than with a standard developer. The only time this combination is less than ideal is in low light. I'm planning to try some HP5+ at 800 or 1600 and develop in Microphen for this purpose. By the way, Perceptol should soon be available again from Ilford, rather than having to use Moersch's clone (EFG).

Cheers,

Seán.

 

[kiev4a]

Haven't used Microdal-X in probably 35 years and tend to agree the at you can get similar results with diluted D-76. As I remember, Microdal give the impression of finer grain by sort of fuzzing up (a bad description) the edges of the individual grain particles so they are less defined. There is some question whether this produced finer detail or just a smoother overall look. D-76 1:1 at 68 F is about 9.5 min on Tri-X which should give the novice plenty of time.

 

[Solinar]

On this side of the pond, a great many of us cut our teeth using films and chemistry from "Big Yellow."

The same as Paul from Dripping Springs, I use it as a one shot developer. Microdol X is a legacy developer. It is not one that really popular or on that Kodak really promotes. I haven't used Perceptol, but Microdol X with Tri-X esposed @ E.I. 200 using 120 film gives a very fined grained look with more tonality than with D76.

Alternatively, you can use Plus-X at or little below its normal ISO with D76 and skip Microdol X altogther. Plus-X and Microdol? I haven't tried the two together.

 

[VinceC]

A recollection I have of Microdol-X from 20 years ago is that it wasn't very forgiving of temperature or time variances, making pushing problematic. I recall using visiting a makeshift Army lab in Honduras around 1987 and it was the only developer on hand -- either I didn't have a thermometer or else couldn't get the water down to 20-degree celsius, can't remember which, but the negatives were a lot thinner than I wanted. And I remember distinctly thinking that under the same circumstances, D-76 would have worked out just fine. And actually, after that experience, I always traveled with my own little bottle of HC-110.

 

[zeos 386sx]

Thank you for your responses. What I gather from your replies is that Kodak has stopped promoting it and, for those who like its qualities, Perceptol has taken its place.

I always had good experiences with Microdol - even as a beginner. Though I have to admit, when I was a beginner it was readily available and it was easy to find people who were experienced with it to help with problems. These days people like you (experts in the darkroom) are becoming harder to find.

Again, thanks for taking the time to answer.

 

[kiev4a]

I think you are correct about the temp/time intolerance. You couldn't really push film with Microdol. Extending the development didn't seem to make a lot of difference in the negs.

A recollection I have of Microdol-X from 20 years ago is that it wasn't very forgiving of temperature or time variances, making pushing problematic. I recall using visiting a makeshift Army lab in Honduras around 1987 and it was the only developer on hand -- either I didn't have a thermometer or else couldn't get the water down to 20-degree celsius, can't remember which, but the negatives were a lot thinner than I wanted. And I remember distinctly thinking that under the same circumstances, D-76 would have worked out just fine. And actually, after that experience, I always traveled with my own little bottle of HC-110.

 

[julianphotoart]

With the odd exception, I have always used, and continue to use, Microdol-X. I use it one-off and diluted 1+1. I use it for keeping down grain. I have used it with Kodak and Ilford films of various types from ISO 50 to 400. I simply have not had problems with it.

But what do I know; I'm still trying to promote Cibachrome/Ilfochrome.

Anyway, I agree that it sure hasn't been promoted by Kodak but nevertheless seems available enough.