Hi Folks,

Ilfords Ilfotec DD-X seems to be the new kid on the block. Unfortunately Ilfords data sheet didn't bring much extra info, so is this developer worth a try ? At this moment I am quite happy with the incredible XTOL, the unmatched Rodinal and the subtle Perceptol. Other candidates are divided D-23 and a phenidone-catechol developer. Thanks for all thoughts and comments.

-- Marc Leest (classicphoto@leest.net), March 11, 2002

Answers

DD-X is essentially liquid-concentrate Microphen in all characteristics.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), March 11, 2002.

Marc,

Like you, I'm a pretty devoted XTOL and Rodinal user. I got some DD-X the other day and developed some Delta 400p so that I could see how it worked. I started at the bottle recommended times and the film came out waaay too thin. I'm pretty sure I got all other parameters (tem, agitation, etc) right. You might test it on test film first, as you find your times.

dgh

-- David G Hall (me@davidghall.com), March 13, 2002.

I've tended to get very "soft" negatives with the Delta 400 DDX combination. If I give more dev, they tend to get overly contrasty. Any advice? At the moment, I've simply moved onto other films and developers, but if I could get the Delat 400 - DDX combination to work well, I'd like to use it, as the combination of sharpness and grain seem excellent to me.

-- Ed Hurst (BullMoo@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

I used DD-X when I was having problems with Xtol for 35mm and 120, mostly TMX. I found it has much the same characteristics of Xtol in terms of sharpness, shadow detail and grain, but I still give the (narrow) edge to Xtol in overall quality, especially with faster films. I could never get 35mm negs I liked using DD-X and Delta 400. I much prefer the look of Delta 400 developed in ID-11. But I've gone back to TMX and TMY in Xtol as my standard films/developer combo.

-- Jonathan Scott Porter (kodiakalaska@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

Ilford DDX is the one developer where I am consistently disappointed when the film comes out of the tank. I was excited when it first came on the market, as it was the preferred bath for Delta 3200. my initial results were poor, the bottle tends to crust at the top, and Xtol yielded far better results. perhaps my initial entry into its use was doomed by Ilford's published developing times that didn't appear to be based on reality at all.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), March 16, 2002.

Ed: try using DD-X at 1:8 or so dilution rather than the specified 1:4 and working up a suitable development time for that dilution. That may allow Delta 400 to retain its shoulder better. Around 1.5X the 1:4 dilution development time is a reasonable starting point.

Daniel: I too found many of Ilford's recommendations for Delta 3200 and/or DD-X to have no apparent connection to reality.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), March 17, 2002.

I second John Hicks suggestion to use a higher dilution. I had pretty good luck with DDX 1:9 (its probably not any different than the 1:8 John mentioned, its just easier math. I think DDX gives slightly crisper, crunchier grain than Xtol. Its easy to use since it comes as a liquid but it costs more than Xtol, if that matters to you.

-- Henry Ambrose (henry@henryambrose.com), March 19, 2002.