Which films develop best for you with Ilfotec DD-X?

[GarageBoy]

Necrothread, I know - why exactly is HP5 and DDX not a pretty combo? I've heard mixed opinions on this

 

[Colin Corneau]

I always use 1:4. I've had good results with pretty much every film I've tried with it -- it's great for pushing.

I process TMax 400 (usually at EI-800) in it, and have done Tri-X, HP5+ and PanF. Good results with all of them. I notice the good shadow detail, in particular.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Necrothread, I know - why exactly is HP5 and DDX not a pretty combo? I've heard mixed opinions on this

I'd be intrigued to read the answer to this too, as it works fine for me.

Of course film developing is only one link in the chain. Others include subject matter, metering technique, EI, enlarger type, enlarger lens, paper, enlargement size, paper developer...

Cheers,

R.

 

[mfogiel]

While DD-X has been formulated more specifically for the T grain films, it is a great universal developer, particularly good for extracting film speed. As in every case there are things to remember: 1+4 will give less grain and less compensating development,, and slightly less sharpness while 1+9 will do the opposite. I find DD-X to be similar to Xtol in terms of effects, but it is easier to handle because it's a liquid.

 

[Roger Hicks]

While DD-X has been formulated more specifically for the T grain films, it is a great universal developer, particularly good for extracting film speed. As in every case there are things to remember: 1+4 will give less grain and less compensating development,, and slightly less sharpness while 1+9 will do the opposite. I find DD-X to be similar to Xtol in terms of effects, but it is easier to handle because it's a liquid.

Not really. It was originally formulated for use in processing machines (which meant that it had to work well with as many films as possible), and as a liquid equivalent to Microphen. At least, that's Ilford's version of the story.

Going a little deeper, Ilford's epitaxial-grain emulsions are not quite the same as Kodak's tabular grains, so it would be odd if DD-X had been optimized for another company's technology. Epitaxial grain technology involves growing another crystal layer on top of an existing grain, which is indeed usually tabular, i.e. T-grains are a slightly more primitive version of the kind of monosize tabular crystals used in Ilford Delta films.

Cheers,

R.

 

[giulio stucchi]

m2, summilux 35 pre asph v2 infinity lock, acros 100, dd-x

m2, summilux 35 pre asph v2 infinity lock, acros 100, dd-x

I like the result from acros 100 in DD-X 1+4

21.14 by Giulio Stucchi, on Flickr

21.14 by Giulio Stucchi, on Flickr

 

[Rob-F]

I used D-DX for Tri-X shot at 500 for some shots of Gettysburg. The tones were lush and brilliant! I want to check my notes before I give the developing time.

 

[giganova]

I've had great results using DD-X at 1+4 with FP4, HP5 (at 400 and 800 ISO) and Tri-X. It's the only developer that I use for all my B&W films.