I have further tested and printed HP5+ and TMX negs processed in D-76Ad (formula found in my previous thread). I thought TMX didn't benefit from it, but after adjusting development time, I had very hard time seeing the grain in my grain focuser when I was printing 11x14 from 35mm. Similarly, when I printed 11x14 from 35mm rolls of HP5+, I also found amazingly tiny grain, almost like TMY. The grain shape is typical of HP5+ but much less bothering compared to other formulae I have used, including ID-11 and D-76H.(posted 8217 days ago)Unfortunatelly, I cannot confidently comment on sharpness because I handheld Konica Auto S2 and Hexar, and I used various aperture settings. But good prints look at least as sharp as what I got from XTOL 1+1 and 1+2.
I wonder if someone else have tried it and felt it in a similar way (or a contradictory way). I shot all TMX at EI 100 and HP5+ at EI 400. If I had to underrate them, I would immediately dump the formula (if not fixable). I processed both in 1+1 dilution for 11min (HP5+) and 12min (TMX) at 20C. The next roll will probably be an HP5+ from a P&S to see how things come out when exposure is less than perfect, sometimes demanding grade 4 paper.
Next time, for TMX, I might add extra grams of borax and dilute it 1+2 or 1+3.
Acknowledgement: the idea of D-76Ad came to my mind after reading John Hicks's modified D-23 and personal communication with Patrick Gainer. I should also mention XTOL patent, which I read a number of times. This D-76Ad can possibly be in the scope of that patent, although the molar ratio of ascorbate and metol is not within the range specified in the patent. (Too large ascorbate to metol ratio tends to produce undesirable effect or no benefit at best, also as reported by John Hicks.)