Well, I've used Rodinal and HC110 and ID-11 - as you know Rodinal and HC110 act differently to developers like ID-11, D-76, Microphen etc. - and now I want to compare those results to DDX at various dilutions without wasting too much film... If I have a reasonable starting point that others have successfully used, maybe I'll waste less film than if I just guess... if that's OK with you? But film developers all perform a little bit different. Some of them can make dramatic changes in the look of your images. DD-X is one of the most common, and most expensive developers on the market. It seems the rule of thumb for increasing development time is generally agreed-on at being x1.41 for a doubling of the dilution (or halving the amount of developer for a given volume), so the recommended 10.30mins at 1+4 @ 20C would be theoretically be 14.50mins at 1+9 (ish). In which case, the Massive Dev Chart seems way off with 1+9 timed at 18.30 at 20C (converted from their posted timings for 1+9 which are at 24C - sigh)... Ilford Ilfotec DDX 1+6, 9 minutes for Ilford FP4+ and SFX 120 (I process 5 rolls at a time and process FP4+ in the same tank with SFX). I was the Ilford Technical Manager responsible for chemical products at the time that DDX was specified and developed. In my opinion it is the best film developer, both in terms of performance and reliability, that Ilford make. The top line of the specification was that it give performance similar to ID11 powder developer but in a convenient liquid concentrate rather than powder. It was optimised for the Ilford Plus films as well as the newer Delta range and is based on a modern, more stable, version of Phenidone and hydroquinone. If you are unsure of what developer to use try Ilfotec DDX (in 1 litre bottles) or Ilfotec DD (identical developer to DDX but in 5 litre bottles). I’ve developed hundreds of rolls of film over the last couple of years, and DD-X has been by far my favorite developer for most of that time. The results that this solution gets are second to none with faster films, which is one of the major reasons why I almost always keep a bottle of it on my shelf to this day.

This isn't a scientific experiment because I was dumb. I put rolls of HP5 into my Olympus 35RCs and set the ISO to 800. I have 2 of these, so figured that would be a good idea. Stupidly though, I didn't think that the meters would be slightly diffferent, and the RF patch is harder to spot on one. So both focussing and metering weren't exact. If you’ve looked at developing times on the Massive Dev Chart, you’ll have certainly noticed there is a developer called Ilfotec DD. DD is actually the same developer as DD-X, though it is formulated for use in labs where it’s possible to replenish the developer after each use. Ilford Multigrade Fibre Based variable contrast papers. They provide a powerful creative tool. Having different levels of contrast in parts of the same print seems to create images with an extra dimension compared to single grade papers. Stop Bath Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20CI really like DD-X and plan on continuing to use it, but I can't offer much in the way of reasoning as to why it's better than anything else given that it's all I've ever used since I began home-developing in the spring. I have used Rodinal (in the form of Adox Adonal) on one roll of Fomapan 100, and I wasn't unhappy with the results, but I still prefer the way DD-X works on the same film. For everything else DD-X has produced results I'm very happy with - just as nice as the lab results I've had in XTol - and it's handled everything I've thrown at it with aplomb, including pushing HP5+ on and two stops (I also plan on shooting a roll at 3200asa at some point to see how that fares).

Learn more about how to handle film chemical waste here. This image was taken on HP5 pushed to ISO 1600, but you’d hardly be able to tell when using an incredible developer like Ilfotec DD-X. What is the difference between Infotec DD and DD-X? Nikon FE – AI-S Nikkor 35mm 1:2.8 – Kodak TMax 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:00 @ 20C Nikon FE – AI-S Nikkor 35mm 1:2.8 – Kodak TMax 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:00 @ 20C Nikon FE – AI-S Nikkor 35mm 1:2.8 – Kodak TMax 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:00 @ 20C Nikon FE – AI-S Nikkor 35mm 1:2.8 – Kodak TMax 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:00 @ 20C After an exhausting afternoon scrolling through years' worth of posts on various forums, I'm just about to slash my wrists. Ilford DDX for single roll – 15 ml + 485 ml water – 22+22 with 20-second stir at start and midpoint.Perhaps the best part about using DD-X, is that it gives users the maximum amount of tonality on their negatives. That means that the negatives will look relatively flat when compared to other developers like Rodinal or pyro-based developers. But in return, you’ll get negatives that can be edited to create the desired level of contrast. Rodinal – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 (minutes) with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint So interestingly, whilst I was developing the 2 test rolls I also had a roll of HP5 shot at 1600 to do. I decided to dev it in DD-X. HC110 – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint Ilfotec DD-X is the best developer for developing B&W film that is ISO 400 and above. This liquid-concentrate developer enhances shadow details, and creates images with rich tonality, making it one of the top options for pushing film without creating overly-grainy images.

Ilfosol 3 – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint I'm getting timings which vary between 13 minutes and 20.30 minutes, which is obviously a fairly vast gulf and not really much help... If you’re the type of photographer who often pushes your film and likes having a liquid developer, DD-X is going to be one of the best developer choices. DD-X will not let you down, no matter what kind of lighting you throw at your negatives. Mamiya m645 – Mamiya-Sekor C 1:2.8 f=80mm – Kodak TMax 400 @ ASA-400 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 8:00 @ 20C Mamiya m645 – Mamiya-Sekor C 1:2.8 f=80mm – Kodak TMax 400 @ ASA-400 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 8:00 @ 20C Mamiya m645 – Mamiya-Sekor C 1:2.8 f=80mm – Kodak TMax 400 @ ASA-400 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 8:00 @ 20C Mamiya m645 – Mamiya-Sekor C 1:2.8 f=80mm – Kodak TMax 400 @ ASA-400 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 8:00 @ 20C

Menu

I know the definitive answer is 'test it yourself' but Delta 100 is bloody expensive compared to Fomapan and DDX isn't cheap either compared to HC110...

Though the compensating effect of dilute developers is welcome. A simple developer like D76 or ID11 (same) used diluted is about as good as one can get in terms of quality and as an excellent compromise between the various factors. The other issue is that I didn't actually want to use 1+9 as my ratio, but 1+6.5, due to the minimum solution requirement per film, and the probability/possibility that the characteristics of the developer change at weaker dilutions, which further complicates matters... However I have successfully scanned Images that I took in the 50's using Adox R17 and processed in one shot Neofin blue, a very highly dilute Beutler type developer that gives great compensation, sharpness and high actuance. Adox R17 was a single coated high silver content thin emulsion, with massive resolution and extraordinary tonal rendition, When correctly processed. I was able to produce fine quality 3meter square bromide enlargements for store window displays, from Rollie negatives. These were able to stand up sufficiently well with others from 5x7 negatives. It's also not helped by all the American forum users insisting on using Farenheit instead of Celcius and intermingling their terms for time conversions between 'x1.4' and 'add 175%' ... I'm a maths-biff at the best of times, so keeping this all straight in my head is a challenge anyway... Certainly, the developer is not hampering my capability as a photographer as I perhaps suspected. It must be something elseYou can always add more contrast, but removing it is much harder. DD-X helped create a detailed image with rich tonality. Photo taken on Ilford HP5 with a Hasselblad 503cx and 150mm f/4 lens What are the downsides of DD-X? I personally don’t ask for any apology. As far as I am concerned he , like anyone else , is welcome to interact with us here if he’s happy to do so in a pleasant manner….. that’s all that is asked of him. Dilution tends to allow the highlight development to exhaust in between agitations, an effect which will be enhanced by increasing the time in between agitations (what is known as "stand" and "semi-stand" development). Such increases in time can also lead to muddling of consistent tones in an image due to the buildup of byproducts from the development process (such as "bromides", etc.), and this problem is worse with some developers yet essentially non-existent with others. However, the dilution alone along with consistent 5 second agitations at one minute intervals will generally still tend to improve shadow detail and highlight separation because of the dilution of the developers.