[Leica] Re: tri-x and microdol-x

[drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)]

Phil,

I never was a fan of grain etching solvent developers like Microdol.
When people mention Microdol, I cringe. But different people master
different film/developer combinations, with great results. 

I've always leaned toward high acutance developers, like Rodinal, or the
king of compromise, D76 (which is more solvent type at full strength and
more of an acutance developer diluted). 

Every film developer combination is different, and most require a
different workflow. IME a properly developed TMY neg will look thin,
compared to a properly developed TX neg. I think the reputation for
blown highlights in TMY is because people tried to develop TMY to the
same densities as TX. They wanted TMY negs to look like TX negs on the
light board. IMO, a good TMY neg looks underdeveloped compared to Tri-X.


For me using TMY was like using an M. I didn't like it at first. I had
problems. There was a learning curve. But I eventually learned to love
it. In fact, it's a great film rated at 800. 

I used to know TMY well. Unfortunately, I haven't been shooting film and
I've lost my edge. Tri-X is easier to use than TMY. But then so is
shooting digital and doing bw conversions. 

The old advice that a person should use one film/developer and get to
know it well still rings true today. I've concluded that there aren't
enough hours in the day to master several films...and developers....in
addition to digital. Heck, learning how to scan one type of film well
takes more time that I seem to have these days! 

BTW, you have some nice images on your web site. 

DaveR   



-----Original Message-----
From: pswango@att.net [mailto:pswango@att.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: [Leica] Re: tri-x and microdol-x

Philippe, you probably have more info than you need by now but here's my
two cents worth.  I used that combo for years and it was my favorite for
image tonalty, grain and sharpness.  I shot TX at ISO 250 and souped in
Microdol X at 1:3 for around 11-13 minutes (I forget which one now).  I
was using a cold light enlarger and printed everything on grade 2 paper.
It made for a very consistent technique and the prints still look great.
If I were going back to chemical BW I'd give it another shot even now.
But it's not THAT different from D76 1:1, which may give a little more
speed.  But I was always going for shadow detail and controlled
highlights.  One thing that made it consistent is the kind of longish
development time, compared to say 6-7 minutes for some of the
hydroquinone soup.  So little variations in agitation or timing didn't
make much of a difference.  I could never warm up to the Hydroquinone
look (HC-110) although others love it.

Phil Swango
http://pswango.smugmug.com/