Kodak D-76 vs Expired Microdol-X with Tri-X - Film Developers Compared | The Darkroom Knight

[@jdebultra]

I was really surprised by the results of the Microdol X. Interesting comparison.

[@AzrielKnight]

I was amazed how similar they were.

[@deeptimepilot5225]

I have a large supply of Microdol-X in packets and D-76 in cans so your video provides a great starting point for using them to develop my ILFORD 120 and 135 films. Glad you took the time for the detailed testing.

[@karlmatthias2698]

Thanks for doing these. One comment about the results: When you dilute the Microdol-X that much you are losing most of the solvent capability, which is the main thing that distinguishes it. It reportedly contains table salt and the chloride ion is a silver solvent that works to reduce the grain. Diluting so much you will see much less effect.

[@MidwestBriar]

Thank you for this video. My professor just gave me the keys to the back storage room of chemicals and told me I can use whatever I want. There are several old cans of Microdol that I am VERY intrigued by. Now I know there's hope.

[@AzrielKnight]

Man, that's awesome, I'm jealous!

[@randallstewart175]

I started using Microdol-X around 1968. It was marketed as Kodak's "fine grain" developer. I tended to use Panatomic-X and Plus-x with it. It was said to give sharper edged grain when used 1:3. Used stock, Mic-X was somewhat fine grain, compared to D-76, but it achieved its hype by using a very large amount of sodium sulfite, which literally dissolves grain edges, thus making them finer. When diluted to 25% of stock, that action is much reduced, making the 1:3 working solution much preferred if used with modern films. Used stock, Mic-X gives a mushy grain structure under enlargement, which the 1:3 solution does not have so much. After a few years, I dropped it because, for me, it tended to block up highlights more than other developers, which was a problem for me, as I tended to shoot landscapes with clouds, which easily lost their fine tonal variations. At 1:3, it also lost about a half stop of film speed. Back in the day, Microdol-X was not terribly popular, and with popular interest turning to higher film speeds, pushing, etc., it fell out of fashion quickly.

[@l10industries]

Out of curiosity, do you have any knowledge about how Ilford's fine grain developer Perceptol compares? They seem to be composed differently.

[@randallstewart175]

@@l10industries Sorry David, I've never used Perceptol and know nothing about it. As to composition, Kodak never published the formula for Microdol-X, although there are several resources which claim a formula for a developer which performs practically the same. One of the debates from the old days was over whether the "X" extension of the prior Microdol (no X) was the addition of a slug of sodium cloride, i.e., lab grade salt. There was a published report some years ago which tested whether adding salt to a developer could make it finer grain. The test results were affirmative (a little bit), but he had no explanation for why that would be. If you try Perceptol, I'd recommend using it in a diluted working solution, one shot then toss. Once diluted, it has practically no shelf life, per Ilford.

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the comment! I'm tossing out some Discord invites today, hope to see you there :) discord.gg/rbvcmgxJ

[@xwingfighter999]

I found a can of Microdol-X, good to know diluting it is the way to go!

[@victorkeller]

Thank you so much for doing these technical evidence-based test videos very informative and helps to dispel a lot of myths out there for the practical photographer that’s looking for common sense information

[@AzrielKnight]

Glad I could help :)

[@Ivandotjpeg]

Going back in time to 1989-90, in high school photo class, microdol-x was used if you shot plus-x, HC110 for panatomic X, and D76 was used for Tri-X.when we switched to Tmax films, 100 and 400, everything was dumped for D76. I guess it makes sense why they did this.

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the comment Ivan! I'm tossing out some Discord invites today, hope to see you there :) discord.gg/rbvcmgxJ

[@rpdee7344]

12/21/21 I like the way you use the scanned negatives by evaluating using a computer for comparison, remember reading in the photo magazine where they did film tests like you with a lot of tech stuff in the write-up, but by then my eyes had glazed from all the tech stuff, like how you keep it simple and quick on your reviews.

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks so much for the comment! I'm tossing out some Discord invites today, hope to see you there :) discord.gg/rbvcmgxJ

[@cdl0]

This video is excellent. It is impossible to guess the result before it is revealed. On the scanning problem, it is worth including some unexposed and fully exposed film, then examine the histogram to set the levels for the scanner hardware so it encompasses this range, and then rescan using these settings. The same method works for colour film, except there are three pairs of levels to set. Nevertheless, the paired method used in this video is a great idea.

[@MadsBakken]

I got a big box of these old chemicals. Some expired in the 80s. Too bad I have no idea how to develop B&W (only color). B&W just seems very difficult - idk why...

[@jw48335]

Really interesting stuff, and these videos are why I continue to be a patron. I'm really interested in your take on stand development, specifically something like HC-110 1:160 vs DDX 1:9 for 45 minutes each, 20C, pre-wash distilled for a couple minutes. The reason? I tested the DDX option with Delta 3200 and it is by far the best way I have found to develop that film. It's actually kind of crazy, I can expose anywhere from 1250 up to 3200 on the same roll and got fantastic results. The 3200 looked great, unlike in the past with regular development where I shot it at 1600 and developed for 3,200, and they were still a bit thin. I want to try it with more film but I'm quite literally afraid to. I got a Jobo a year ago, and if DDX stand turns out to work as well on slower films it would render the jobo without a job, LOL. Happy Holidays Azriel to you and yours!

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks Jeremy. I'm nto expert on stand but it's a good solution when you get a mystery roll.

[@ЕвгенийТуманов-т4ч]

Great as always. But I would rather compare microdol x and perceptol, because they both have the same application.

[@AzrielKnight]

I'll keep that in mind, but I wanted to pick something that lots of people use and at the end of the day, D76 is the overall benchmark for film developers.

[@richball3260]

I am curious where your process to mix the developer in really hot water comes from. I have a new package of D76 and the instructions just specify 80 degree F water. Going way back in my memory I used whatever came out of the faucet. Going way back in time the great debate over D76 Vs Microdol was which was better. Supposedly Microdol resolved the grain and resulted in less grain in the prints. D76 was believed to be sharper. I think my memory is accurate in this - I may be wrong however.

[@SinaFarhat]

I prefer stock solution for d76, the reason is that if I use 1+1 I end up forgetting that I have the dilution and it ends up going bad! Also d76 is cheap(when available to buy that is) and i would rather buy several 3.8 liter bags and have a good stash at home! Also faster development times is really nice compared to 1+1! Happy holidays!

[@AzrielKnight]

Thanks for the comment! I'm tossing out some Discord invites today, hope to see you there :) discord.gg/rbvcmgxJ

[@berkeleygang1834]

Was there any difference in the graininess of the negatives?

[@AzrielKnight]

Hard to tell from a digital scan but nothing jumped out at me.

[@Uwe_Ludolf]

If I would find a can of Microdol-X or D23 or any other old developer, I wouldn't use it actually. Yes keep them as a piece of history.

[@AzrielKnight]

I use it, so you don't have to :)