Tmax & D-76
David Nebenzahl
Laboratories, GmbH, and I can tell you that I'm very happy with them.
I developed it in D-76, 1:1 dilution, using rather old (~5 years) stock,
and the negatives came out looking gorgeous. The prints, too. (This was
35mm film. I'd really like to shoot something larger in this film stock
someday.)
There may be better developers for Tmax; the consensus seems to be that
Xtol is the best stuff to use. But while this combination may not be the
ultimate, D-76 certainly does a quite credible and creditable job with
this film.
I only wish I had a better scanner so I could post pictures that would
do the prints justice.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
Richard Knoppow
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c3febea$0$2406$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> Well, the results of my first use of Tmax 100 are in here
> at Nebenzahl Laboratories, GmbH, and I can tell you that
> I'm very happy with them.
>
> I developed it in D-76, 1:1 dilution, using rather old (~5
> years) stock, and the negatives came out looking gorgeous.
> The prints, too. (This was 35mm film. I'd really like to
> shoot something larger in this film stock someday.)
>
> There may be better developers for Tmax; the consensus
> seems to be that Xtol is the best stuff to use. But while
> this combination may not be the ultimate, D-76 certainly
> does a quite credible and creditable job with this film.
>
> I only wish I had a better scanner so I could post
> pictures that would do the prints justice.
>
use full strength Microdol-X or Perceptol on 35mm T-Max 100
negatives. That combination has grain nearly as fine as the
late, lamented, Technical Pan but with much greater speed
(about EI 50) and much more easily controlled contrast.
There are certainly better developers than D-76, but
not very much better, and D-76 has been extremely reliable.
--
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
David Nebenzahl
> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4c3febea$0$2406$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
>> Well, the results of my first use of Tmax 100 are in here
>> at Nebenzahl Laboratories, GmbH, and I can tell you that
>> I'm very happy with them.
>>
>> I developed it in D-76, 1:1 dilution, using rather old (~5
>> years) stock, and the negatives came out looking gorgeous.
>> The prints, too. (This was 35mm film. I'd really like to
>> shoot something larger in this film stock someday.)
>
> This has been my standard combination for years. I also
> use full strength Microdol-X or Perceptol on 35mm T-Max 100
> negatives. That combination has grain nearly as fine as the
> late, lamented, Technical Pan but with much greater speed
> (about EI 50) and much more easily controlled contrast.
So do you use D-76 full strength or diluted 1:1?
I have some Microdol-X, so I'll use it on my next roll of T-Max. A
one-stop loss of speed is no big deal.
Lawrence Akutagawa
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> On 7/18/2010 8:02 AM Richard Knoppow spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
>> news:4c3febea$0$2406$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> >
>>> Well, the results of my first use of Tmax 100 are in here at Nebenzahl
>>> Laboratories, GmbH, and I can tell you that I'm very happy with them.
>>>
>>> I developed it in D-76, 1:1 dilution, using rather old (~5 years) stock,
>>> and the negatives came out looking gorgeous. The prints, too. (This was
>>> 35mm film. I'd really like to shoot something larger in this film stock
>>> someday.)
>>
>> This has been my standard combination for years. I also use full
>> strength Microdol-X or Perceptol on 35mm T-Max 100 negatives. That
>> combination has grain nearly as fine as the late, lamented, Technical Pan
>> but with much greater speed (about EI 50) and much more easily controlled
>> contrast.
>
> So do you use D-76 full strength or diluted 1:1?
>
> I have some Microdol-X, so I'll use it on my next roll of T-Max. A
> one-stop loss of speed is no big deal.
>
fahenheit. Full agitation first 30 seconds, then for 5 seconds out of each
30 seconds thereafter. Beautiful negatives.
Richard Knoppow
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> On 7/18/2010 8:02 AM Richard Knoppow spake thus:
>
>> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in
>> message
>> news:4c3febea$0$2406$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> >
>>> Well, the results of my first use of Tmax 100 are in
>>> here at Nebenzahl Laboratories, GmbH, and I can tell you
>>> that I'm very happy with them.
>>>
>>> I developed it in D-76, 1:1 dilution, using rather old
>>> (~5 years) stock, and the negatives came out looking
>>> gorgeous. The prints, too. (This was 35mm film. I'd
>>> really like to shoot something larger in this film stock
>>> someday.)
>>
>> This has been my standard combination for years. I
>> also use full strength Microdol-X or Perceptol on 35mm
>> T-Max 100 negatives. That combination has grain nearly as
>> fine as the late, lamented, Technical Pan but with much
>> greater speed (about EI 50) and much more easily
>> controlled contrast.
>
> So do you use D-76 full strength or diluted 1:1?
>
> I have some Microdol-X, so I'll use it on my next roll of
> T-Max. A one-stop loss of speed is no big deal.
I usually use D-76 diluted 1:1 as a one-shot. For a time
I was using it full strength and replenishing but I found I
was not developing enough film to justify that and I also
prefer the somewhat longer developing times the diluted
developer gives.
Microdol-X and Perceptol, which are essentially
identical, lose their extra-fine-grain property when diluted
so must be used full strength is minimum grain is the
objective. At 1:3 they produce full film speed and begin to
show some acutance effect but the grain is then about the
same as D-76.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan
> Well, the results of my first use of Tmax 100 are in here at Nebenzahl
> Laboratories, GmbH, and I can tell you that I'm very happy with them.
> I developed it in D-76, 1:1 dilution, using rather old (~5 years) stock,
> and the negatives came out looking gorgeous. The prints, too. (This was
> 35mm film.
Try 35mm TMax 100 in Microdol-X - the grain is as fine as the late lamented
TechPan though it does not have the same 'large-format look'.
--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com
Richard Knoppow
"Keith Tapscott." <Keith.Tapscott..69b4748@photobanter.com>
wrote in message
news:Keith.Tapscott..69b4748@photobanter.com...
>
> Nicholas O. Lindan;885494 Wrote:
>>
>> Try 35mm TMax 100 in Microdol-X - the grain is as fine as
>> the late
>> lamented
>> TechPan though it does not have the same 'large-format
>> look'.
>>
>> --
>> Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
>> Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
>> http://www.darkroomautomation.com/da-main.htm
>> is, what to use when the Mic-X supply runs out?
>
> There's Ilford Perceptol which is a good substitute and
> also Rollei
> Low-Speed developer which is a similar type of developer
> to Mic-X and
> Perceptol, but sold as a liquid concentrate.
>
> http://www.imx.nl/photo/Film/page123/page123.html
>
>
>
>
> --
> Keith Tapscott.
As far as I can tell Perceptol and Microdol-X are
identical. The differences in developing times given for
them for some films is probably because of a difference in
the contrast index being used for the testing. In both
developers the fine grain agent is sodium chloride.
Both developers have an extra-fine-grain property when
used full strength but loose it when diluted. There is a
speed loss of about 3/4 stop when used full strength but
when diluted 1:3 the speed is about the same as in D-76,
however, the grain is also comparable then. Both are
acutance developers when diluted.
The line about T-Max being as fine grained in
Microdol-X as Technical Pan in Technidol is from me. I've
used T-Max 100 in Perceptol and Microdol-X full strength.
Speed about EI-50. The results were very fine grain and had
the smoothness I would normally associate with a larger
negative. The combination is much easier to handle than
Technical Pan was since the contrast does not become
excessive so easily. I found that Technical Pan in Technidol
had to be shot at about EI-12 to avoid excessive contrast
and difficult to print negatives.
A caution: the combination had virtually no acutance
effect so images may appear to be somewhat blurry unless
your lenses are outstanding. I am, of course, talking about
35mm. For 2-1/4 x 2-1/4 the difference is not so great
although it will help if you make very large prints.
As far as overall performance it depends on what you
want. For general use D-76 either full strength or 1:1 works
fine for T-Max films and is probably what was used during
the research period. Xtol is the optimum developer yielding
slightly higher speed and slightly finer grain than D-76 and
not producing a shoulder until very high densities are
reached. T-Max RS also yields somewhat higher speed but I've
found it to be slightly grainier than D-76. Both T-Max RS
and Xtol are excellent for pushing.
Tone rendition is similar for all although there are
some differences in the shape of the published curves. For
the most part the curve shape of a film is determined by the
emulsion and is varied only a little by development.
However, it may be enough to make a noticable difference and
after that its a matter of taste.
Peter Irwin
...
> effect so images may appear to be somewhat blurry unless
> your lenses are outstanding.
This matches my experience with TMX in Microdol-X. Grain
is amazingly fine, actual resolution is very good, but it just
didn't look /sharp/.
Xtol (1:1) gave me much sharper looking results than Microdol-X
at full strength. I somewhat puzzled at how obvious the effect
seemed; everything I think I know tells me to expect more subtle
differences. And yet "appear to be somewhat blurry" only seems
a slight exaggeration of my disappointment with TMX in Microdol-X.
Peter.
--
pir...@ktb.net
Nicholas O. Lindan
> The line about T-Max being as fine grained in Microdol-X as Technical Pan
> in Technidol is from me.
HA! If I could get Google to search rec.photo.darkroom -
I am sure I was pointing this out as early as ...
* * * *
Perceptol - from the MSDS information - doesn't really
look a whole lot like Microdol-X
Part A:
Metol
Part B
S. Sulfite
S. Bromide
S. Tripolyphosphate (STPP)
The STPP is a water softening agent in this application
(among it's other uses it adds weight to seafood by making
it retain water). I don't know if there is a dichroic
fog inhibitor or if the bromide takes care of it.
I guess P. Bromide could be a fine-grain agent, but I would
wonder about its effect on shadow detail. The only film
developer w/ bromide TIKO (WTEO Perceptol) is D-96, used
by the motion picture industry.
One rather whacked-out developer in the Microdol-X vein
is Rollei RLS (LP Cube XS) that is made from
Metol
Ammonium Chloride
without the s. sulfite (if the MSDS can be believed).
Nicholas O. Lindan
> This matches my experience with TMX in Microdol-X. Grain
> is amazingly fine, actual resolution is very good, but it just
> didn't look /sharp/.
I used TMX/M-X for shooting resolution targets a few years ago
when I ran out of Tech Pan.
I found the combination has the same resolution with a high
contrast target as Tech Pan. Microdol-X does not reduce
resolution. That it is a 'solvent developer' is an urban
legend - it has no more S. Sulfite in it than D-76.
Often systems that have lower resolution look sharper.
I am not interested in the appearance of detail, but only in
real detail. 'Acutance' and touted 'edge effects' are,
in my book, vile concepts.
Richard Knoppow
"Nicholas O. Lindan" <s...@sig.com> wrote in message
news:W42dnYEoz7vuKsXR...@earthlink.com...
one and in error. I wrote them about the sodium bromide, its
suppsed to be sodium chloride. Its possible that Microdol-X
has ammonium chloride in it, I think the cation may not be
important. But there are often several versions of MSDS
around. Also, they don't show all the ingredients, only
those deemed to be hazardous and sometimes not even those if
present in very small quantity. For instance both T-Max and
T-Max RS are Phenidone developers but no mention of it was
made in their MSDS for years.
Many packaged developers have some sort of sequestering
agent or agents in them to control impurities in the water,
mostly magnesium and calcium carbonates, the most common
"hardness" in water and sometimes also trace metals like
iron.
I don't have an actual formula for Microdol/Perceptol
but it appears to contain about 15 or 20 grams of sodium
chloride per liter of working solution, otherwise similar to
D-20. I am pretty sure the X in Microdol-X is a silver
sequestering agent, perhaps a mercaptan, to prevent dichroic
fog. I never had any problem with this from Perceptol so
perhaps it too has some anti-silvering agent in it.
Kodak has a ton of patents for anti-silvering agents,
who knows which were actually used and where since they can
also be added to emulsions.
Nicholas O. Lindan
> The MSDS you have for Perceptol is an old one and in error. I wrote them
> about the sodium bromide, its suppsed to be sodium chloride.
Ah, now that makes a lot more sense.
When Kodak announced the discontinuation of Microdol-X
I looked into Perceptol, came upon the erroneous MSDS
and promptly bought 10 bags of M-X.
I have tried the home-brew Microdol - D-23 with a 30 (?)
gm/l dollop of pure NaCl and it silvers badly when used
with TMax films.
If Perceptol works with TMax/Delta then it more than likely
has an anti-silvering agent in it.
Hmm, anti-silvering -> anti-Ag'ing -> Anti-Aging. I wonder
if one could sell the stuff on the back pages of the National
Enquirer. Proven Anti-Aging formula ... Might help all those
people poisoning themselves with colloidal silver.
IanG
Perceptol contains Sodium Chloride and no Bromide, that's an error in an
old MSDS and has already been pointed out in this thread.
Ian
Nicholas O. Lindan;885966 Wrote:
> "Richard Knoppow" dick...@ix.netcom.com wrote
> -
> The line about T-Max being as fine grained in Microdol-X as Technical
> Pan
> in Technidol is from me.-
--
IanG
Richard Knoppow
"Keith Tapscott." <Keith.Tapscott..69f9028@photobanter.com>
wrote in message
news:Keith.Tapscott..69f9028@photobanter.com...
>
> The only difference I can see from the MSDS for Microdol-X
> and
> Perceptol, is that Kodak list boric oxide (B2O3) as a
> component. Both
> developers list sodium chloride as constituents.
>
> A former Kodak pundit has mentioned on a popular
> photo-forum, that Kodak
> encapsulate the developing agents with a special coating
> to prevent them
> from reacting with the other constituents in the
> single-powder
> compounds.
>
> I am wondering if that special component is the boric
> oxide (boric
> anhydride) that Kodak mention in their MSDS's.
>
> Ilford do similar to their P.Q. powder developers by
> adding a pinch of
> sodium metabisuphite in Part 'A' of Microphen and
> Bromophen, but not in
> ID-11 or Perceptol, as Metol is already slightly acidic.
>
> Ilford information sheet P 10.5 FINE GRAIN DEVELOPMENT:
> Shows that ID-11
> and ID-2 can be modified to produce finer grain by adding
> ammonium-chloride. Use 40 grams for each litre of stock
> ID-11 and 10
> grams for each litre of working strength ID-2 (1+2).
>
>
>
>
> --
> Keith Tapscott.
Kodak uses some odd chemical names for more familiar
stuff in their MSDS. Kodak also has a bunch of patents on
methods of combining chemicals for use in powder formulas, I
have no idea of which ones were actually used commercially.
AFAIK, boric anhydride is becomes boric acid in solution and
suggests that there is a buffer combination there similar to
the one in D-76d which uses borax and boric acid.
Those familiar with the art (patent speak) know that
its usual in published formulas to list the chemicals in the
order in which they are to be dissolved. When a developer
contains Metol it is dissolved first, or at least before the
sulfite. The reason is that Metol does not dissolve in a
fairly strong sulfite solution. In the past it was common
for packaged developers to come in two parts, the first
contained the Metol and was dissolved first, the second
contained the remainder of the ingredients. Kodak has a
method of treating the chemicals in packaged developers so
that all can be combined at once. Note that packaged D-76
and Dektol consist of a single container. I don't know
exactly what they do. One reads occasional complaints about
the difficulty of dissolving these packaged developers
without having a residue of undissolved crystals. I have
wondered if this problem is the result of this treatment.
BTW, I've found that the problem is at least minimised by
keeping the solution hot until solution is complete.
Kodak is reportedly discontinuing D-76, Microdol-X, and
Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent. Ilford makes similar if not
identical products but Kodak originated all of these and I
can't help but wonder if the Ilford versions are really
identical. For one thing the MSDS for ID-11 indicates its
not buffered. D-76 has a problem with increasing activity as
it ages which is cured by the buffering found in the Kodak
version. Perceptol seems to work very well and I routinely
use it for T-Max 100 and have used it for several other
films. I am not sure what is in Ilford wash aid but its
seems to be the same as KHCA, a buffered solution of sodium
sulfite. Kodak adds two sequestering agents to control
deposition of aluminum compounds from the hardener and
metallic carbonates in the water. I wonder if Ilford adds
these since they do not use hardener in their fixing baths.
Unfortunately we live in a age of super-giant
corporations, that way because it is "more efficient" but,
in fact they are not very efficient and are incapable of
catering to medium or small markets profitably, something
that smaller and more specialized businesses _are_ able to
do. Being big is not always an advantage. Years ago I came
across a very interesting paper called "On Being the Right
Size". I can't remember the author, it was in an anthology
of papers on either mathematics or physics published by
_Scientific American_ magazine. Maybe a web search would
find it.
--
Jean-David Beyer
> Being big is not always an advantage. Years ago I came across a very
> interesting paper called "On Being the Right Size". I can't remember
> the author, it was in an anthology of papers on either mathematics or
> physics published by _Scientific American_ magazine. Maybe a web
> search would find it.
>
It can be found in The World of Mathematics, Volume 2, pages 952 ff.
"On Being the Right Size" by J.B.S. Haldane. Haldane, J. B. S. (March
1926). "On Being the Right Size". Harper's Magazine.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 15:10:01 up 11 days, 18:02, 3 users, load average: 5.12, 4.86, 4.80
Richard Knoppow
"Jean-David Beyer" <jeand...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:i3f34...@news3.newsguy.com...
That's it! Thanks, I thought it was in that series.
Digitaltruth
very useful information about specific formulas, my understanding is
that there is no requirement to list any chemical that constitutes
less than 5% of the total volume (unless, I presume, it would be
hazardous in such a concentration).
While the current MSD sheets for Perceptol and Microdol-X do list the
same composition, there is no way to know what other chemicals under
5% are included. Older MSD sheets for Microdol-X list Boric Anhydride
and Sodium Hexametaphosphate in concentrations of less than 1%, and as
Richard points out, there may be multiple different historic MSDS out
there listing other ingredients.
In the Film Developing Cookbook (1st edition, 1998) Bill Troop states
that the exact formula for Microdol-X is proprietary and unpublished.
While the general formula for the original Microdol is now common
knowledge, Troop points out that its successor, Microdol-X, differs
from this earlier formula as it contains an anti-silvering agent,
which he suggests is probably a benzophenone anti-staining agent.
In speaking to Bill about this difference a few years ago, the
understanding I came away with was that the anti-staining agent
contained in Microdol-X is not incorporated in Perceptol, and this is
the key difference between the products. Troop says in his book that
the formulas are "chemically close." Perhaps they are close enough for
development times to be the same, but I would want to have more
information from experienced users who have done side-by-side testing.
Richard Knoppow
"Digitaltruth" <in...@digitaltruth.com> wrote in message
news:29dc66a7-23f8-4e08...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
The problem is how does Bill Troop know what is in
Perceptol? I have used it exetensively with T-Max and have
never seen a hint of dichroic fog.
Kodak has a bunch of patents on anti-silvering agents,
which it also calls anti-fog agents in some places. Such
agents are used in many places including emulsions. Who
knows which, if any, were used in Microdol-X.
Note that the former Kodak extra-fine-grain developer
DK-20 employed a silver solvent namely thiocyanate. It
became useless for modern films because of the serious
dichroic fog it produced.
BTW, I think I may have referred to D-20 in an earlier
part of this thead, I meant D-23. Bad memory.
Richard Knoppow
"Keith Tapscott." <Keith.Tapscott..6a23329@photobanter.com>
wrote in message
news:Keith.Tapscott..6a23329@photobanter.com...
>
> Richard Knoppow;886179 Wrote:
>>
>> Kodak is reportedly discontinuing D-76, Microdol-X, and
>> Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent.
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> discontinued Microdol-X, D-76R replenisher
> and the larger packaged sizes of D-76, but I have not read
> about the
> regular hobby sizes of D-76 being discontinued.
> Where did you read about Kodak D-76 being discontinued
> altogether?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Keith Tapscott.
Someone posted it to a news group or it may have been
the Pure-Silver mailing list. I wondered at the time if it
was accurate. I found nothing on the Kodak web site. I hope
its not true. I also don't understand why they would
discontinue KHCA which should have a continuing sale. OTOH,
Kodak is a giant mega corporation and their management often
seems not to make sense to me.