Ilford DD-X Development Question

[charmicarmicat]

Hello all.

So i've been doing my thing with Tri-X and Rodinal/Adonal and I am ready to start using DD-X with Tri-X. There are plenty other developers but I decided to try DD-X.

Can any of you folks give me some tips on how to go about it as far as inversions per minutes/seconds etc etc?

I may not have looked good enough but I couldn't find much online. All I've found was the time, 8 minutes, temp, 20C, and something like 4 inversions every minute. Nothing about gentle agitation or anything in that genre.

If any of you have any tips, I am all ears. And eyes 🙂

Thanks for taking the time,

Guy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hello all.

So i've been doing my thing with Tri-X and Rodinal/Adonal and I am ready to start using DD-X with Tri-X. There are plenty other developers but I decided to try DD-X.

Can any of you folks give me some tips on how to go about it as far as inversions per minutes/seconds etc etc?

I may not have looked good enough but I couldn't find much online. All I've found was the time, 8 minutes, temp, 20C, and something like 4 inversions every minute. Nothing about gentle agitation or anything in that genre.

If any of you have any tips, I am all ears. And eyes 🙂

Thanks for taking the time,

Guy.

Dear Guy,

That's because agitation doesn't matter anything like as much as the obsessives would have you believe. Ilford doesn't bother to pander to them. Four to six inversions in 10 seconds every minute will be fine. In fact I'd be astonished if you could see the difference between four and six in a blind test

Cheers,

R.

 

[grandallj]

Not clear to me if you have seen the Ilford data sheet, but it's worth reviewing. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427124733149.pdf

I don't recall my own developing protocols with DD-X, which is to say that I haven't rigorously tested it with different agitation schemes and so forth, but my sense is that it yields a nicely contrasty negative with subtler grain than D76 or Rodinal. You mentioned using TriX -- which will look great in DD-X -- but I think the combination of Ilford Delta or Kodak TMax films with DD-X is hard to beat.

 

[john_s]

I think the only part of development during which agitation is important is the first minute or two. It is important to ensure even wetting of the film and to avoid air bells.

Apart from that, over the last 40 years I've been gradually agitating less (less vigorously and less often) and I think that it gives me results that are slightly better for my style (in that I don't like blown out highlights). But I'd have to admit that I've not done a side by side test of two agitation schemes on a pair of identical films.

 

[charmicarmicat]

@ grandallj: I did read it and I was just checking if anyone had tips or tricks or insight as I couldn't find anything online. I think there's always a difference between the data sheet and the experience of "real" users 🙂 Thanks for the tips on the other film and funny that you should mention as I have a few Tmax-3200 rolls that were shot at box speed and need to be developed soon.

@john_s: Intersting. I was always told that agitation was important but then again, I did the stand development with Rodinal/Adonal and there's not much agitation going on there 🙂 I will actually give your advice a try and see what gives.

@Roger Hicks: Another anti agitator! What is this world coming to if we no longer need agitators 🙂 Point taken and I will actually do some try outs and see if there is any difference.

Thank you all!

Guy.

 

[charmicarmicat]

Here ya go, T-Max 3200 shot at box speed in DDX 1+4. Thank you all for your help. I'm stoked about this!

 

[Photo_Smith]

Agitation, a little goes a long way. Here is a kodak research test with the spread of no agitation to continuous.

Just for those who might be interested.

 

[Steve M.]

That shot came out well. Like the grain. It looks a little flat, but I am sure you had very little light to work with. I just developed some Tr-X in Rodinal yesterday and it's OK. Much prefer Acufine for it's sharpness and tighter grain, and D 76 full strength is as good as it gets, for my work anyway. Fantastic tones. The trouble w/ that developer is consistency over time. After just 2 or 3 weeks my stock solution gets weird. So the solution is to store up your rolls and do a lot in a short period of time, something I find not that convenient, or to use the "improved" D76 (TD-16) from Photographers Formulary. I haven't used it yet, but the packets are here in front of me, and I'll get to it soon and give a report. It's supposed to be stable for up to 6 months if kept at decent room temperatures. After a little over 3 weeks I had to throw out what I had left of my D76 because of grain issues on the last few rolls. Lost a lot of tonality too.

The first shot here (obligatory flower shot) is with Rodinal, the second w/ D76. Same camera, lens, etc, and w/ Tri-X at 200. I am going to try that Ilford developer of yours. Looks promising.

 

[Steve M.]

Well, that didn't work! They look practically the same. Result of small file size perhaps. Anyway, the negs look and print differently. Thanks for the DDX post.

 

[charmicarmicat]

Photo_Smith: Thanks for that graph. Certainly interesting and I am going to take that in consideration next time I develop on Rodinal. I think Rodinal really thought me something about patience. Wether it is "normal" development or stand develpoment it took time. DDX after that seems a breeze. Shorter development times and not so many inversions/agitations what have you. Anyways, thanks!

Steve M: Yeah it was low light situation. Also the jpeg wasn't really of good quality now that I look at it and compare to the tiff file. O well, the idea is there. Really nice grain indeed.

Again, thank you for chiming in.

Guy.

 

[JPSuisse]

I have used DD-X for the past 5 years as my only developer. I loved it with Plus-X and Neopan 1600, and Pan F Plus worked pretty well. However, I didn't care for it in Tri-X in DD-X.

The fact that my 2 favorite films are gone I am having a tizzy to find a replacement using only one developer. I found that Pan F Plus and ACUROL-N work pretty nicely though.

 

[Ansel]

Agitation is a ver significant control in film development.

 

[Ronald M]

#! figure out the "good to" secret code. This stuff goes bad and there is no color change or other indication.

#2 Decant to smaller glass bottles with good caps that seal well. And buy from a dealer with good turnover.

#3 That and Xtol are far and away the best developers for Delta 400.

#4 Follow directions. They are spot on for Ilford films.

#5 4 inversion in 10 sec each minute.

#6 Agitation needs to be random and vigorous with any developer so as to replenish evenly over the whole surface. It is impossible to "over replenish". Gentle leaves marks.

#7 Wet/dry edge needs to start and proceed across the whole film as quickly as possible with no back tracking or flow marks over film . Unless you like streaks.

#8 The best way to get 7 is drop a loaded reel into a tank prefilled with developer.

#9 The best agitation for one roll is a two reel tank, two reels, film on the bottom only, use only enough developer to cover the film.. Invert to agitate. This emulates how sheet film is developed on hangars.

#10 Patterson or the Spanish plastic tanks solve all the above issues automatically by the way they are designed. INVERT to agitate. The twisty stick is for first agitation only.

#11 The internet is full of self proclaimed experts with non standard ideas that may sometime work, but not always. Listen to them at your peril.

 

[Ronald M]

Agitation does in fact have some impact. About 10/15% decrease for continuous is needed to get the same contrast from Ilford 4 per 10 sec every minute or Kodak 5 per 30 sec respectively. I get slightly more contrast from Kodak system as compared to Ilford. using the same time. I increase 10% going from Kodak to Ilford.

I worked it out years ago.

You will most happy as a photographer if you use one slow and one fast film and not jump around. There is no magic developer that does everything.

Two bath developers worked better with old thick emulsion films. They are unsatisfactory for new films.

If you develop to scan, use times for a condenser enlarger which are 10% less than for a diffusion.

There is no significant difference between condenser and diffusion enlargers IF THE FILM IS DEVELOPED PROPERLY FOR EACH, IE 10% LESS FOR CONDENSER. This is for #2 paper on both. The is a small variation in that the condenser has a bit more snap to the image but it is harder to burn in highlights. The difference is small enough that the prints must be side by side to see it. Most viewers will never see it.

If you try the SAME neg with #2 condenser and #3 diffusion, the prints are different

What will be of interest is there is no difference in grain clumping because the shorter continuous times compensate for more agitation.

The more time in developer, the more grain. Diluted developers give more grain because the time is longer. There are some exceptions, perhaps Rodinal or diafine.

If you want fine grain, expose at half box speed and cut time by 20 %.

You get more grain by pushing or diluting. D76 is pretty good stock, 1:1 is a nice balance between speed and grain and sharpness. D76 1:3 is much like Rodinal. Very sharp, considerable grain, same speed at 1:1.

The worst thing to do to cut contrast is reduce agitation . Cut the time instead

 

[leicapixie]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139810

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139810

""Thanks for the tips on the other film and funny,
that you should mention,
as I have a few Tmax-3200 rolls,
that were shot at box speed,
and need to be developed soon.""Quote.

I was given some freebie rolls by Ilford.
I shot at box speed. Why? Why?
From my shooting, exposure and development.
The speed is way less. Faster than 400 but not 1000ISO.
Suggest cut a piece off one film, do development test.
Sod's Law,13. You will cut thru your best negative.😀

Good luck with the rest of films.
Look forward to results.

 

[Steve M.]

I developed some Tri-x in that TD-16. Looks almost exactly like D76, and with an advertised stable 6 month shelf life after you've mixed it, what's not to like?

I myself have had problems from over vigorous agitation schemes. On some films and developers (Rodinal) it can make quite a difference, on others (Tri-X) not so much. I use a gentle, swirly type of agitation, and the agitation regime is quite different from D76 to Rodinal. Rodinal, on the films I've tried it on, does not like a lot of agitation. If I had used my usual D76 agitation regime w/ those flower shots that were developed in Rodinal they would NOT have looked like that. They would have had a lot of large grain. Don't ask me how I know :[

After looking and looking at my Tri-X negs from Rodinal, and the negs from D76/TD-16, I now prefer the D76 negs, but it's not that apparant. If anyone shoots Tri-X, how could you do better than D76? The tonality is incredible, but if you're after grain, and you'll have some w/ Tri-X no matter what, then Rodinal is great. Will you see a difference in the prints? Yes, at large sizes. Not so much at smaller than 8x10.