Anybody in Las Vegas wants just opened DD-X?

[Radost]

Just tried it with DELTA 3200 and TMAX400. Not my cup of tea. Who wants it?

 

[pentaxuser]

Just tried it with DELTA 3200 and TMAX400. Not my cup of tea. Who wants it?

Just out of curiosity, can I ask what it is about DDX that for D3200 and TMax 400 is not what you want. DDX generally has a good reputation especially for D3200

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[McDiesel]

@pentaxuser Not OP, but I can share my experience. Disclaimer: I've only consumed one bottle of it.

Can you relate to experiencing a moment when you're looking at a negative and thinking "should have waited for better light?" or "should have used exposure compensation here, my meter got fooled?".

For some reason I've been experiencing these moments more often while I was going through my DD-X bottle. Once I went back to ID-11, everything went back to normal. There's something unforgiving about negatives developed in DD-X. When the light is flat, people faces look super flat. When the light is harsh, you get like two tones in your images.

Occasionally, ID-11, Xtol and Ilfosol-3 give me "this turned out better than expected!" moments. DD-X never delivered those.

 

[pentaxuser]

Not my experience but yes we can all have different experiences with the same developer. I look forward to Radost's reply on this

I am always fascinated by what it was that a person expects from a developer based on the research he/she did on it but didn't get.

pentaxuser

 

[Radost]

D3200 I think just sucks compared to Kodak tmax3200.
Also d3200 is way better in xtol.
T max in xtol has so much more resolution and sharpness. The DD-X can be so flat without contrasts light.
Even the grain looks better in Xtol.
Also in DDX skies and overexposed areas look low quality. Not as uniformed as xtol.

 

[Radost]

@pentaxuser Not OP, but I can share my experience. Disclaimer: I've only consumed one bottle of it.

Can you relate to experiencing a moment when you're looking at a negative and thinking "should have waited for better light?" or "should have used exposure compensation here, my meter got fooled?".

For some reason I've been experiencing these moments more often while I was going through my DD-X bottle. Once I went back to ID-11, everything went back to normal. There's something unforgiving about negatives developed in DD-X. When the light is flat, people faces look super flat. When the light is harsh, you get like two tones in your images.

Occasionally, ID-11, Xtol and Ilfosol-3 give me "this turned out better than expected!" moments. DD-X never delivered those.

You are describing exactly how I feel.

 

[Radost]

I think the best description is DULL DETAIL AND GRAIN.

 

[pentaxuser]

D3200 I think just sucks compared to Kodak tmax3200.
Also d3200 is way better in xtol.
T max in xtol has so much more resolution and sharpness. The DD-X can be so flat without contrasts light.
Even the grain looks better in Xtol.
Also in DDX skies and overexposed areas look low quality. Not as uniformed as xtol.

Thanks. What was it that you heard or saw in words that made you try DDX to the extent that you decided that it was likely to be better than Xtol where you already knew what it was like

pentaxuser

 

[NB23]

At first I liked DD-X but after I finished pritning the 20 films, I concluded that never again. Yes, dull and flat. No gain at all in shadows. Everything that is hyped about it does not appear to be true on prints.

 

[Radost]

Thanks. What was it that you heard or saw in words that made you try DDX to the extent that you decided that it was likely to be better than Xtol where you already knew what it was like

pentaxuser

I never got results I like with Delta 3200 in different developers. So I tried the ilford recommended developer.

 

[pentaxuser]

I never got results I like with Delta 3200 in different developers. So I tried the ilford recommended developer.

Thanks for the reply. It may be that D3200 was the wrong film for you rather than the developer I wonder what you'd have found if you'd used DDX with the films you like. It may have been no better than Xtol, my developer for about the last 10 years but it may not have been much if any worse

pentaxuser

 

[McDiesel]

I never got results I like with Delta 3200 in different developers. So I tried the ilford recommended developer.

Did you expose it at EI 3200? One common advice about Delta 3200 I see spreading online is to expose it at 800 or 1600. Doing so will lead to crap results. It's quite apparent that Ilford wants you to expose at 3200 and accept somewhat crushed shadows.

Delta 3200 exposed @EI 3200 with incident metering, developed in Xtol:

 

[Radost]

Thanks for the reply. It may be that D3200 was the wrong film for you rather than the developer I wonder what you'd have found if you'd used DDX with the films you like. It may have been no better than Xtol, my developer for about the last 10 years but it may not have been much if any worse

pentaxuser

Delta3200 is definitely wrong film for me.Unfortunately Tmax3200 only comes in 135.
And I tried DD-X with Max 400 and the results are very dull compared to what I usually get with Xtol.
even my previous Delta3200 developed with Xtol look better.

 

[Radost]

Did you expose it at EI 3200? One common advice about Delta 3200 I see spreading online is to expose it at 800 or 1600. Doing so will lead to crap results. It's quite apparent that Ilford wants you to expose at 3200 and accept somewhat crushed shadows.

Delta 3200 exposed @EI 3200 with incident metering, developed in Xtol:
View attachment 307225

Exposed 1250 develop 1600

 

[McDiesel]

@Radost if you're still curious about this film and willing to experiment, try exposing at 3200. You're compressing mids/highlights by exposing at 1250. But you have to pick a developer that works. Xtol is actually quite tricky - I was only getting good results with stock full strength Xtol. Not 1+1 and not replenished.

Delta 3200 is a tricky film to use, I can see why some folks prefer pushing HP5+. But it's worth the effort. Nothing else is comparable in medium format.

 

[Radost]

@Radost if you're still curious about this film and willing to experiment, try exposing at 3200. You're compressing mids/highlights by exposing at 1250. But you have to pick a developer that works. Xtol is actually quite tricky - I was only getting good results with stock full strength Xtol. Not 1+1 and not replenished.

Delta 3200 is a tricky film to use, I can see why some folks prefer pushing HP5+. But it's worth the effort. Nothing else is comparable in medium format.

I use 95% xtol one shot stock for everything. Works great.
I will try 3200 but I travel a lot and scanners don’t like anything over 1600. For 35 I am happy with tmax3200.
Is it better to push delta 400? Since it is a fiber grain?

 

[Radost]

I wish Kodak made tmax3200 in 120.

 

[McDiesel]

@Radost I wouldn't know, I've never gotten good results from any film by pushing. I'm a bit weird this way

 

[Radost]

@Radost I wouldn't know, I've never gotten good results from any film by pushing. I'm a bit weird this way

TriX 1250 6x4.5,9 especially with flash looks great

 

[Radost]

So does anybody in vegas want that developer?

 

[MattKing]

Perhaps no one in Las Vegas wants to gamble - on a partially used bottle of developer.

Sorry, I know I shouldn't have, but I couldn't resist.

 

[McDiesel]

 

[Radost]

Perhaps no one in Las Vegas wants to gamble - on a partially used bottle of developer.

Sorry, I know I shouldn't have, but I couldn't resist.

Funny one.
I just opened it. Also developer can be checked.

 

[pentaxuser]

Maybe we don't have anyone in Las Vegas or even within a reasonably close driving distance? Is our man still there in Havanna even ?

pentaxuser

 

[250swb]

I'm kind of with you, DD-X can look too clinical, a bit like a perfectly exposed digital image histogram. On the other hand it does bring out the sharpness in something like Delta 100. Not wanting to blame my tools I don't think it is the end of the world, just another learning curve.