Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/09/02

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

Subject: RE: TriX / Microdol
From: Kari Eloranta <kve@dopey.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:44:48 +0300 (EET DST)

> From: "Garbutt, Robert" <RGarbutt@ncrpexec.telstra.com.au>
snip
> I can't answer your question as I use Rodinal with Tri-X, but can you
> (or anyone?) tell me what effect development with Microdol 1:1 has on
> negative quality in comparison to Rodinal?
> 
> BTW, my use of Tri-X (rated 100 - 200ASA [I don't meter hence the
> uncertain range]) / Rodinal is 1:75, 13 min @ 20 degrees C:  excellent
> shadow detail with highlights that don't require an oxy/acetylene mix to
> burn through.
> 
snip
>  >  Any of you old timers still using the Tri-X rated 200 with
> Microdol-X 1:1 ?
>  >  Developing times, please...
>  >
>  >  Clicio

I'm not heavily experimenting with soups (check rec.photo.darkroom,
a pretty sane forum & experts, too) but just from my memory & recent
experience.

Tri-X at 400 in M-X 1:3 developed a bit short of the recommendation which
if I recall right is 13min at 24 degrees is excellent for condensor. Nice
tones, fine grain. For Tri-X at 200 in 1:1 or 1:3 shorten some 20% of so
from the Kodak time & adjust to the enlarger. Experiment. And don't do the
important film first!

In my experience Rodinal with any fast film is an "acquired taste".
The grain is so prominent in any reasonable size print  that it has to
match the image content. I've tried Tri-X, HP5+ and APX400 with it 1+25
& 1+50 and rarely liked it. But for some rough street images etc. it might
be ok. Slower films are a different matter. IMHO Microdol is infinitely
preferable for Tri-X for regular use. Nice smooth tones, shadows with
something left etc.

Then again depends what you want. Some do TMZ in Rodinal to get into
expressionism ;-).


Kari Eloranta