Development Ideas for Tri-X in Microdol-X

[scott_esposito]

I have searched the archives for Tri-X in Microdol-X and have found a

wealth of information as to the combo's characteristics (i.e. speed

loss at 1:0, extremely fine grain, actuance gain at 1:3). However,

what I could not find was a good plan for development of Tri-X in

Microdol-X.

 

So, I am interested in hearing people's approaches and experiences.

Here is what I have found. I souped a roll of Tri-X in Microdol-X a

couple nights ago and printed some shots last night. I shot the Tri-X

at 400 and 200. My development was 1:3, 68 F, 17 minutes, 5 sec

agitation (inversion) every minute. I did every minute instead of

every 30 seconds because 17 mintes seemed a little long to me, but I

didn't want to lose any speed, as I have heard can happen with

Microdol-X.

 

I don't have scans of the prints, but to my eye the grain was fine

(it certainly looked finer than usual under the grain magnifier). I

think there could have been slightly better shadow detail, but the

highlights appeared to be fairly well controlled.

 

One last thing. I was using this combo for portraiture because I

think for portraits you want good detail and smooth tones, but

without a harsh edge or high grain.

 

Can you folk out there tell me how you develop Tri-X in Microdol-X

and if your results were good enough to justify continued use of the

combo?

[andrew_hull]

Scott:

 

I use Microdol 1:3 with Tri-x exclusively. Although what you need may be different, I find this combo sharp, and easy to print. It was suggested to me in a class by someone who prints for Magnum. The reasonsing is that for 35mm, and probably for 120 film also, it is easier to work with a thin negative than one that is too contrasty. You can always raise the contrast via filtration, but it is a pain to have to dodge the heck out of something. In essence, and as explained in some great books (Film Developing Cookbook?), you want the thinnest negative that still has detail in teh shadows where you want. I find that 15.5" at 70 degrees for Microdol and 400TX works very well. I have made enlargements to 20x24 and they are sharp and grain is still not an issue. Because you dilute it 1:3, it can compensate.

[scott_esposito]

Thanks for the response, Andrew. You're shooting the Tri-X at 400?

[andrew_hull]

yes, at 400. I have also shot at 200 in a really contrasty situation and pulled back even more on the development. I only invert once a minute by turning it upside down and back, twice. I find I am printing at about a 3.5 grade filter most of the time.

[terry_m1]

I, too, develop Tri-X (shot at ISO 400) in Microdol-X diluted 1:3 at 75 degrees for 17 minutes. A pro I know has been using that concoction for years and recommended it to me a long time ago, stating it allows the highlights to catch up with the other tones. And I continuously get a gorgeous range of complete tonality on every print I make from the negatives without having to use other than 2 and 2 1/2 filters in my enlarger. The temperature of 75 degrees is convenient for me too, for that is the temperature of my faucet water in the summer and fall. Highly recommended!

[__jon__]

Hi Scott,

 

So, why are you using Tri-X if your goal is small grain? Wouldn't Fuji Acros or

something similar be better? Just curious... I just started using Tri-X in Rodinal,

another great combo!

 

Gonna have to play with that Microdol-X soon...

[frank_a._bridges]

I'd like to try this , but 17 min at 75 degress seems an awfly long time. Is that a misprint? The chart I have says 13 min.

 

Maybe at 1:3 it doesnt really make that big a difference.

[terry_m1]

17 minutes at 75 degrees with a 1:3 dilution of Microdol-X, as I said before, allows the highlight areas to catch up with the shadow areas and other areas. Thus, there is less or no need to burn in the highlights with one's enlarger. I've proved this to myself numerous times.

[david_grasby]

I hope you don't mind me tagging this question onto yours.

 

I'm curious about why people use 'fine-grain' solvent developers like Microdol-X to reduce granularity, but then dilute it to retain acutance, which then increases grain. Why don't they (we) just use a non-solvent or less-solvent developer such as D76 anyway?

 

Any thoughts?

 

Having asked that, I should point out that I have used Microdol-X at a 1:3 dilution with Tri-X and achieved good results. But would I have achieved the same results if I had used D76 (1:1)?

[scott_esposito]

Jon,

 

You are correct. There are certainly other finer-grain combos out there. I'm trying this combo for portraits, where grain is only one priority among others.

 

I love Tri-X in Rodinal and use it all the time, but for portraits I felt that something slightly softer was called for. I did not want to go all the way to something like TMAX because I did not want to go as slow as 100, and I feel that Tri-X will give me better acutance and tonality. Thus I'm experimenting with this combo, and loving it thus far.

 

Terry,

 

Thanks for your suggestions. I do have to say that given my experiences with Tri-X in Microdol-X thus far, 17 min at 75 degrees does seem a bit high to me. Of course, that doesn't mean that you don't get great results with it.

 

However, so far my problem has been with getting the shadow details to catch up to the highlights, not vice versa. Your aim seems to be the opposite. Results are what's important, so thanks for letting me know what works for you.

[scott_esposito]

David,

 

In response to your question, I'm diluting Micro-X for both better acutance and to gain the stop or so that I would lose if I only used it 1:0. You are correct that in doing this I am giving up some grain. However, the prints that I have made thus far to differ noticably from ones I made from film developed in D-76 in terms of both grain and tonality. Perhaps the difference in grain is not as great as it could be, but I prefer the added acutance.

[robert_grasing]

Why dilute Microdol-X or Perceptol to 1+3?

 

Sharper looking, because of increased edge effects. Full or near full

speed film. And still reasonably fine grain because the pH is lower

than standard developers such as D76/ID11, ie, less grain clumping.

 

Perceptol and Microdol-X both use only metol as the developing agent.

The hydroquinone in D76 regenerates the metol, and while this extends

the service life, it also reduces the edge effects. For the same

reason, there is greater highlight compression, a more delicate

rendition, with metol only developers than with MQ types.

 

At least, that's the theory. To a great extent I use Perceptol 1+3

because I often have to process at high temperatures and the very

long 20C times become conveniently short at 26-28C.

 

I have compared ID11 1+3 and Perceptol 1+3. I can see the difference

when the prints are side-by-side, albeit a very slight difference:

Perceptol seems sharper, and the highlights better detailed. But I

know I couldn't identify the developer if I had only one print to

look at.

[terry_m1]

Below is a straight print (#2 filter in my enlarger) from a Tri-X negative developed via the Microdol-X parameters I mentioned previously above. It is of a flood channel near my house. It was exposed early in the morning after 12 inches of rain had fallen the night before. It was obtained with my Leica M6 body and my 53-year-old 50mm f/3.5 Elmar lens from 1951. Due to the long, 17-minute development, there was no need to burn in the sky/clouds areas.

[scott_eaton]

I agree with the bit about diluting Microdol and Perceptol to 1:3. I simply don't get it either. Use HC110 or something....cheaper, and easier to mix.

 

Microdol used at 1:1 (it's most common dilution) doesn't lose speed at all. WAY back in my highschool darkroom days I used Microdol for pushing Tri-X to EI 800, and it was outstanding in that role providing richer tonality and better lattitude than pushing in D76. Microdol is hardly a low energy developer and you should be able to get full speed as long as you don't process it straight.

 

Just another opinion here: Ilford HP5 and Delta 400 respond better to Microdol than Tri-X does. I'm noticing the later formulations of Tri-X seem to resist Microdol type developers, while HP5 and Delta 400 work better with them.

 

Seriously, just for grins, give HP5 a try in Microdol. Personally I think it yields a richer neg.

[andrew_hull]

I think that one of the discrepancies in time mentioned above is due to the time allegedly changing when Tri-X was reformulated. I view the combination as best because it isn't an over-aactive developer. This allows me to create the thinnest negative with full detail. That is precisley what I want for 35mm. I have put 8x12 prints from Tri-X in Microdol (1:3) up right next to APX100 in Rodinal 1:50 and they are just as sharp. The grain structure is different, with APX being grnier (but tight grain), but the Tri-X appears just as sharp.

[andrew_hull]

Scott:

 

Being Metol only, Micro-X is certainly a lower-activity developer than D-76 or other developers that use Hydroquinone or Ascorbic Acid, wouldn't it? It is a low conrtast developer.

[robert_grasing]

Andrew,

 

An interesting variant of D76 is D76H. The same formula (the metol

slightly increased to 2.5g from 2g) but without any hydroquinone. Yet

it gives the same gradation, same film speed, same developing times.

The hydroquinone doesn't seem to make D76 any more active.

 

The usual explanation is that the hydroquinone is inactive at D76's

normal pH. Instead, it functions to regenerate the metol, giving the

developer a longer life, especially when used straight. But this

explanation is controversial. I know Patrick Gainer doesn't accept it

as is.

 

Anyway, my experience is regular D76 and non-hydroquinone D76 give

very similar results. I've been intending to run a controlled

experiment to check. I'm waiting for cooler weather so that I can

process at 20C.

 

It is also interesting that D23 (just metol and sodium sulfite) gives

results very similar to D76 in terms of developing times, film speed

and gradation. Metol by itself can be a powerful developing agent.

 

BTW, I have tried adding sodium ascorbate to D76 (actually ID11):

that really does increase the activity of the developer.