Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/03

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] tri-x and microdol-x
From: dlridings at gmail.com (Daniel Ridings)
Date: Tue Jan 3 10:40:53 2006
References: <000401c61080$67ed96c0$656c0e44@newukolbqveo9i> <EC5D3613-7B16-4D58-BDFB-5FBA204D33A3@pandora.be>

Philippe,

Have you ever seen the magazine "Black and White Photography" from the UK?

http://www.gmcpubs.com

In the current, December 2005, issue there is an article about fine
grain developers. They run through the merits and disadvantages of
Microdol-X, Adox ADX, Calbe A49/Adox ATM49 (both are Agfa Atomal),
Tetenal Ultrafin Plus and Mac LP-Cube XS.

Most of what has been said about Microdol-X has already been said here.

I don't know where the idea comes from that Tri-X is grainy. The 400TX
is one of Kodak's most fine-grained films (TMX probably beats it out,
but I doubt if much else does). Don't give up on the obvious before
you dive into esoteric concoctions. Diluted D76 or Xtol will get you a
long way. My print for round 4 of the print exchange was Tri-X and D76
1:1. I don't think it is grainy.

Best,
Daniel


On 1/3/06, Philippe Orlent <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> wrote:
> Thank you all for the input.
>
> But concluding after my initial question:
> 1) Better don't combine Tri-X with Microdol X because the developer
> counteracts on the speed and grain of the emulsion, thus on the
> character of the film.
> 2) But if you do, expose the Tri-X at ISO 200, dilute the Microdol 1
> to 3, and search the web (f.i. on http://www.digitaltruth.com/
> devchart.html) for correct development times since Kodak's times stink.
>
>
>
>
>
> Op 3-jan-06, om 17:11 heeft Jeffery Smith het volgende geschreven:
>
> > I've seen a few respectable pictures taken with Tri-X and Rodinal.
> > I've
> > never ventured into that combo, but I may try it using a bit of
> > overdevelopment like you suggest. It is next to impossible to get
> > Rodinal
> > down here for a decent price. I think I'll try Photographer's
> > Formulary
> > generic Rodinal.
> >
> > Jeffery Smith
> > New Orleans, LA
> > http://www.400tx.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org
> > [mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> > Dan
> > States
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 8:16 AM
> > To: lug@leica-users.org
> > Subject: RE: [Leica] tri-x and microdol-x
> >
> >
> > Microdol x used at recommended times does reduce film speed, but
> > when shot
> > at 250 and developement is extended it produces proper negative
> > density.  I
> > have found that much of what I used to call poor resolution was
> > actually
> > underdevelopement.  Tri-x needs to be fully developed or the sharpness
> > impression is reduced.  The problem with high accutance developers
> > like
> > FX-39 and Ilfosol s is the granularity increase is very
> > unattractive at
> > greater than 5x enlargement.  (FX-39 is really not even recomended
> > for high
> > speed film.)
> >
> > Considering that maximum resolution on hand held photography is
> > rarely more
> > than 60lp Tri-x is capable of all the sharpness you could need.  The
> > reduction of grain appearance is, in my opinion, more important to
> > final
> > image quality with that film.
> >
> > So far I have found Kodak's rec development times to be total
> > crap.  Nearly
> > all thier films require 15-30% more developement time than their
> > website
> > states.
> >
> > In the end, you should try microdol, d76, xtol, DDX, rodinal and other
> > developers.  They are not expensive, and you will be able to find
> > what works
> >
> > best for you...plus, it's fun!
> >
> > best wishes
> > Dan
> >
> >> From: "Jeffery Smith" <jsmith342@cox.net>
> >> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org>
> >> To: "'Leica Users Group'" <lug@leica-users.org>
> >> Subject: RE: [Leica] tri-x and microdol-x
> >> Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 07:09:45 -0600
> >>
> >> I found that the grain-dissolving action of Microdol-X left very
> >> little
> >> snap
> >> in the images. It even made Panatomic-X look bad. My advice would
> >> be....don't use.
> >>
> >> Jeffery Smith
> >> New Orleans, LA
> >> http://www.400tx.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org
> >> [mailto:lug-bounces+jsmith342=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
> >> Philippe
> >> Orlent
> >> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:40 PM
> >> To: LUG Group
> >> Subject: [Leica] tri-x and microdol-x
> >>
> >>
> >> Just bought both to see how they combine.
> >> But having never worked with either: are there things that I should
> >> know? Do's and don'ts?
> >> Push or pull?
> >> Dilute or not?
> >> ...
> >> I would be very grateful if the combined knowledge base of the LUG
> >> would help me on this one.
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>


Replies: Reply from phong at doan-ltd.com (Phong) ([Leica] tri-x and microdol-x)
Reply from robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier) ([Leica] tri-x and microdol-x)
In reply to: Message from jsmith342 at cox.net (Jeffery Smith) ([Leica] tri-x and microdol-x)
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] tri-x and microdol-x)