zeitoun
Established
I have been developping my Tri-X, exposed usually at 800 ASA but sometimes at 1600 or 3200 ASA, in Ilford DDX diluted 1:4 for quite a while. I have been happy with this combination. I have however recently become aware that DDX is sometimes used at a 1:9 dilution. What are the advantages/inconveniences of either of these two dilutions?
Thanks,
Paul
Thanks,
Paul
bobby_novatron
Photon Collector
Using DD-X at 1:9 allows for a greater margin of error, due to the longer development time. It's a "gentler" way to develop your film, I would say.
Another upside is that you can use less DD-X per film, which means you're saving a bit of money. DD-X tends to be one of the more expensive developers on the market. This may or may not be a consideration.
Downsides? Well, naturally it takes longer to develop your film. Another potential issue is grain ... longer development times combined with weaker solution can result in larger visible grain on the negatives. This wouldn't be an issue at lower ISO's, but might be a consideration at 1600 or above.
I'm by no means an expert in film / developer chemistry, but from the knowledge I've gleaned over the past few years, this is what I've learned.
Basically, if you wanted to minimize the grain of your high ISO film, I wouldn't develop in DD-X at 1:9.
In general, I liked the consistency of DD-X. It's a very good quality "general purpose" developer, and easy to use as well. FWIW, I've moved to XTOL in the past year, only because I like the look of XTOL better. It has more of a unique signature than DD-X, and it's much cheaper.
Another upside is that you can use less DD-X per film, which means you're saving a bit of money. DD-X tends to be one of the more expensive developers on the market. This may or may not be a consideration.
Downsides? Well, naturally it takes longer to develop your film. Another potential issue is grain ... longer development times combined with weaker solution can result in larger visible grain on the negatives. This wouldn't be an issue at lower ISO's, but might be a consideration at 1600 or above.
I'm by no means an expert in film / developer chemistry, but from the knowledge I've gleaned over the past few years, this is what I've learned.
Basically, if you wanted to minimize the grain of your high ISO film, I wouldn't develop in DD-X at 1:9.
In general, I liked the consistency of DD-X. It's a very good quality "general purpose" developer, and easy to use as well. FWIW, I've moved to XTOL in the past year, only because I like the look of XTOL better. It has more of a unique signature than DD-X, and it's much cheaper.