D 3200 in DDX ?

I know I've seen a thread with recommended dilutions and dev times in here somewhere, but I can't seem to fish it out...

I usually use D3200 in Rodinal, but wanted to try DDX. I rated the roll @ 1600. Do I use a normal dev time (for 3200) or do I go with a time for 1600? I seem to remember someone saying that I should rate lower and develop normally...sound right? :confused:

I used D3200 with Microphen, which I understand to be very close to DDX but in powder form. I was never pleased with the results, but I have to say, there was a marked improvement once I read about the "develop for one more stop than you rated" rule. I would definitely go that route from my experiences. Definitely a "pushed" look to be expected from my experiences, which is not necessarily a bad thing for this very particular of films. In the end, I gave up on Delta 3200 - I was just not capable of getting good results from it, but I blame that on the photographer not the materials.
I suppose the way I started looking at it is, the film will always have boulder sized grain - might as well use it, trying to hide is doomed to failure and just looks "blah". I have another roll, and if find a striking subject for it, I think its going to go into low dilution Rodinal in a case of can't beat it, make it work for you. Sorry about the ramblings, hope this helps at all.

Peter.

If you've exposed for 1600 I'd advise processing for 3200.

Ilford's recommendations for Delta 3200 always seem to result in very thin negs for me. (Now why didn't I ask that when we went round the factory! <Duh!>)

I shoot Delta3200@1600 in DD-X and have been very happy with the results.
The negatives will look very thin, but when you print or scan them everything will be
there. I've also shot it at 3200, but prefer 1200-1600 and a fast Leica lens. ;-)

I like it better than Neopan1600, which lacks shadow detail.

Delta3200's true speed is about 1200asa.
Neopan1600 is about 640asa.

Thanks guys!

Timed for 3200 it is...we'll see how it goes...