Ilford Ilfotec DD-X Black and White Film Developer 1 Litre

Product Information

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? You 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?

Because of its performance, DD-X is one of the most common developers found at professional film labs around the world for a simple reason: this is the developer that will give photographers the best negatives even in challenging lighting scenarios. In my own uses, I’ve found DD-X to be the absolute best developer for pushing and pulling, especially with t-grain films like Ilford Delta 3200 and Kodak P3200. 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... 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. 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.

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). The solvent action in DD-X is fairly low compared to developers like HC-110, D-76, and ID-11, which can cause a noticeable reduction in image sharpness. In Semi-Stand Development (SSD), the approach is the same with one minor variation. Going with the Ilfosol 3 example above, I would do 2 x 30 minutes and stir 10 seconds initially and 10 seconds before the second 30-minute time slot. Nothing else changes. Why break it down into two slots instead of just letting it stand for 30 minutes? Depending on the chemistry I am using, I may want to enhance the effect of that chemistry slightly. So, the second stir at the midpoint works harder to produce the desired effect. The last downside is that DD-X is not an environmentally-friendly chemical. Like most developers, DD-X made from the phenols dimezone and hydroquinone, which come from the petrochemical industry. It’s not safe to place in a septic tank and is known to be toxic to aquatic life downstream. 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.

There seems to be some consensus on Delta 400 and Delta 3200 especially when pushed, but almost nothing regarding Delta 100 at box speed...Ilfosol 3 – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C I spent the latter part of 2018 and all of 2019 with Rodinal, and I made the descision to spend 2020 with HC-110, but to be honest, after my first few rolls, I found it delivered far superior results to Rodinal for the films I shot and the look I liked. HP5 in Rodinal looks terrible to my eye so it's not included here. 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 It is more expensive on a roll-for-roll costing, but I've also found that it's cheaper to buy a bottle than the more economical developers. It's a false economy, but sometimes it works for the wallet that way.