alexz
Well-known
I noticed DD-X developers tends to be quite a bit on the expensive side relatively to the other general use developers available on the market, which leads to the question:
What so great about it ? What justifies the expense onie is going to pay for DD-X while teher are lots of other, well regarded and widely known developers that are hafl and third the price (or even cheaper) then DD-X ?
I'm just going to stock up on B&H chemicals (my HC-110 stock is drying up), will be placing an order soon, so wonder whether there is the point to give a try that mysterous DD-X (aside of XTOL which is also new to me)...
I mainly shoot Tri-X.
Besides, I keep hearing people recommend Microphen for pushing (I'm interested in working out my approach with Tri-X pushing to 800/1600). So far I seem to work out my way pushing Tri-X in HC-110, should I expect Microphen producing better results in this regard ?
What so great about it ? What justifies the expense onie is going to pay for DD-X while teher are lots of other, well regarded and widely known developers that are hafl and third the price (or even cheaper) then DD-X ?
I'm just going to stock up on B&H chemicals (my HC-110 stock is drying up), will be placing an order soon, so wonder whether there is the point to give a try that mysterous DD-X (aside of XTOL which is also new to me)...
I mainly shoot Tri-X.
Besides, I keep hearing people recommend Microphen for pushing (I'm interested in working out my approach with Tri-X pushing to 800/1600). So far I seem to work out my way pushing Tri-X in HC-110, should I expect Microphen producing better results in this regard ?
V
varjag
Guest
Both are known to be fairly similar in effect, maybe with Microphen increasing speed slightly more. DD-X is liquid concentrate but more expensive, Microphen is powder but cheaper, you decide 
alexz
Well-known
Thanks, I see...
Just trying to get enlighten how much DD-X can be better then HC-110 I used to for Tri-X ate regular speeds (400 and 200) bearing their price difference (DD-X vs, HC-110).
Or perhaps bearing in mind I nailed my approach with HC-110 for TriX at normal speeds, DD-X or Microphen are worth to get considered for pushing only ? Go figure...
Just trying to get enlighten how much DD-X can be better then HC-110 I used to for Tri-X ate regular speeds (400 and 200) bearing their price difference (DD-X vs, HC-110).
Or perhaps bearing in mind I nailed my approach with HC-110 for TriX at normal speeds, DD-X or Microphen are worth to get considered for pushing only ? Go figure...
V
varjag
Guest
They are good general purpose developers. Not any worse that pre-phenidone era developers like D76, which still rule the market mostly for historical reasons.
alexz
Well-known
So, for your opinion, if, say, you used to obtain, satisfactory results with, say, HC-110, would yuo still consider DD-X for normal film speeds expecting it to be considerably better then HC-110 (or other general use non-expensive solution) ?
Or, in such case, yuo wuodl nly consider DD-X for pushing ? (Or in such case would probably prefer Microphen ?)
Or, in such case, yuo wuodl nly consider DD-X for pushing ? (Or in such case would probably prefer Microphen ?)
V
varjag
Guest
Alex, to a great extent this is a matter of preference and economy of effort. If I had my process tuned for HC110 and were receiving reliably good results, I'd have little incentive using other developer for pushing once in a blue moon. However if I pushed film regularly I'd use a speed increasing developer (which in fact I do and use).
I don't think DD-X or Microphen would give you look very different from well done HC110 processing in normal circumstances. They however do have that slight edge in speed for when you really need it.
I don't think DD-X or Microphen would give you look very different from well done HC110 processing in normal circumstances. They however do have that slight edge in speed for when you really need it.
kully
Happy Snapper
Hallo Alex, I wouldn't use DD-X for 'normal' speeds as you say it is rather (well, very) expensive.
I do however love DD-X and HP5+ pushed to 1600. (And Neopan 1600 @ 3200 in DDX). I havn't done any scientific research but it beats pushing in D-76, Microphen or HC-110 when looking at enlarger prints.
Having said that, I see you are a Tri-X man and I am looking now at some prints made from Tri-X @1600 in HC-110. Very nice, sharp pleasing grain.
I do however love DD-X and HP5+ pushed to 1600. (And Neopan 1600 @ 3200 in DDX). I havn't done any scientific research but it beats pushing in D-76, Microphen or HC-110 when looking at enlarger prints.
Having said that, I see you are a Tri-X man and I am looking now at some prints made from Tri-X @1600 in HC-110. Very nice, sharp pleasing grain.
jolefler
Established
Speaking of DD-X as a general purpose...
Speaking of DD-X as a general purpose...
Has anyone done Arista II 400 in it? I have a couple of rolls to do but am down to DD-X only until my next order. I can't seem to find any times listed anywhere. Based on times for TMax developer I tried one roll at 7min/68deg. but it seems big-time flat...thick enough, but no contrast.
Speaking of DD-X as a general purpose...
Has anyone done Arista II 400 in it? I have a couple of rolls to do but am down to DD-X only until my next order. I can't seem to find any times listed anywhere. Based on times for TMax developer I tried one roll at 7min/68deg. but it seems big-time flat...thick enough, but no contrast.
alexz
Well-known
Thanks guys, understood.
I figure any bottled chemicals are quite painful in overseas shipment charges, so I'm likely to drop DD-X in favor of Microphen (which comes in powder).
Yes, I'm also working my way into Tri-X pushing to 1600 in HC-110, so far more or less nailed down my approach around 32 minutes in dill H as suggested in Massive Dev. Chart. Produces quite acceptable and often very satisfactory results with Tri-X at 1600 shot under contrasty lighting, but appears to be quite gritty and "dirty" appearance for the frames shot under flat, low-contrast illumination.
I'm going to give a try for a long, semi-stand, highly dilluted approach to see how it comes out...
Having said that, I'd love to compare these with Microphen aproach for push up, I'd expect somewhat better results with Microphen...
I figure any bottled chemicals are quite painful in overseas shipment charges, so I'm likely to drop DD-X in favor of Microphen (which comes in powder).
Yes, I'm also working my way into Tri-X pushing to 1600 in HC-110, so far more or less nailed down my approach around 32 minutes in dill H as suggested in Massive Dev. Chart. Produces quite acceptable and often very satisfactory results with Tri-X at 1600 shot under contrasty lighting, but appears to be quite gritty and "dirty" appearance for the frames shot under flat, low-contrast illumination.
I'm going to give a try for a long, semi-stand, highly dilluted approach to see how it comes out...
Having said that, I'd love to compare these with Microphen aproach for push up, I'd expect somewhat better results with Microphen...