Fellow Minox soupers:

So last night I'm standing in my dad's darkroom with a roll of APX100.
It's the first time I've had a chance to develop since this list
began, and I know alot more now than I did beforehand. For my last dozen
rolls, I've been using Microdol-X 1:3 at Minox Processing Labs'
recommendation: I haven't been completely happy with the negative quality all along
(although I must admit the grain has been quite good!), and I now know
that other developers can provide better sharpness and contrast with
some slight fine-grain tradeoff.

I haven't had a chance to get HC-110, which was what I intended to try
next. I have an unopened package of Microdol (I've been splitting them
and mixing half-batches; that way, I've been getting about three rolls
through each half-quart before it expires at 60-70 days), but I really
DON'T want to use it... My dad always has D-76 freshly mixed: he does
a fair amount of 35mm developing and printing for local politicians,
hospitals, and other organizations that do their own informal shooting
but don't have access to a lab. I start thinking: "Using Don K's rule
of thumb that a Minox neg is 1/3 the size of a 35mm neg... If I were to
shoot APX100 (or Plus-X, which I'm more familiar with) in 35mm and
develop it in D-76 1:1, could I make an 11x14 or 12x15 print without
much grain? (Since I usually print Minox at 4x5, that's a reasonable
comparison.) The answer, obviously, is yes! And D-76 is often referred
to as a fine-grain developer...

(I can imagine hearing the gasps of horror from the Rodinal, HC-110,
Zone VI, and assorted other developer partisans out there, but there's no
me stopping now!)

So I developed the APX100 in D-76 1:1. After consulting Godfrey's
Agfapan development chart (which said 12 minutes at 68) and an old Kodak data
sheet for Plus-X (which said 7 minutes at 68), I was shocked at the
time discrepancy for essentially very similar "old technology" films. I was
sure that 12 minutes would be too much - I didn't want overdeveloped
negs. So, after discussing it with the old pro, I decided on 9 minutes
at 68.

The resulting negs and prints are not merely acceptable: they're
BEAUTIFUL! Good old D-76 comes through again! Yes, there's a LITTLE
more grain, but not enough to be a distraction at 4x5. On the other hand,
the sharpness and contrast are a whole other story: I printed about 6
negs, all with a #2 filter instead of the #4 I always had to use to inject
some contrast into the Microdol negs! (There also seemed to be less dust
and scratches than usual on this roll, but this is probably just a
coincidence.)

For me, this is a great discovery. I don't have to worry about how
many rolls I can get through in 60 days anymore, since my dad always has
fresh D-76 available. With this kind of ease of printability and dynamite
contrast and accutance, I definitely wouldn't consider going back to
Microdol! (I still might try HC-110 sometime, but that 1:31 dilution
sounds like a bit more work and worry than I need, given how nice the
D-76 1:1 worked.)

And yes, with a finer-grain film, like APX25 or Ilford Delta 100,
larger prints would certainly be possible! So... there you have it, I'm back
to what I've always used for 35mm (also Minox Tri-X almost 30 years ago -
but it didn't work nearly as well for that speed film manufactured at
that time: it was TRES grainy!), good old D-76. (BTW, I recently read
someplace that D-76 was first formulated as a movie-film developer in
the 1920s. But I believe Rodinal's still the oldest formula in general
use, at somewhere around 100 years!) I'm not suggesting that anybody using
anything other than Microdol-X should consider changing to D-76 - I
can see what good results you've been getting with HC-110, Rodinal, etc.
But for ME, this is an important breakthrough.

My thanks to all the soup experts out there for providing me with the
knowledge and incentive to try something other than Microdol-X! Now if
we can just convince MPL that THEY should really be using something else...

MSG

P.S., Unfortunately, none of the shots on this roll are good subjects
for display at The Sub Club Gallery - they're just shots of my kids and
friends, nothing along my more "arty" lines. But as soon as I get a
good subject developed in D-76, I'll send it along to Joe for consideration.

=========================================================================

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:03:06 -0500
Reply-To: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
Sender: The Subminiature Photography Mailing List
<SUBMINI-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
From: Peter Zimmerman <pzimmerm@I...>
Subject: Re: Minox APX100 Developing Experiment
In-Reply-To: Joel Moskowitz <mathison@I...>
"Minox APX100 Developing Experiment" (Jan 16, 12:13pm)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

It may not be a coincidence. I always thought 35mm as well as Minox negs
were 'dirtier' when I used Microdol. It may hve to do with incomplete solution
or precipitation of tiny amounts of chemical onto the film -- something you
might not notice so much with 35mm. It may even be that Microdol leaves the
emulsion more vulnerable. I don't know, but that was always part of my dislike
for Microdol. I don't claim to be the cleanest lab tech in the world, but I
always take 'pretty good' care. .....pz

=========================================================================