- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,307
- Format
- 35mm
I wonder if the improvements in results noted are due to people exposing their film at their usual EI then gaining half a stop, or more, of shadow detail through using DDX ? Might be worth trying more light and the previous developer too.
Yes, it was a question I had in mind.
Basically, on a 36 exposure roll and shooting a Leica, there will always be a variation up or down in regards to "perfect" exposure. Either because of the mechanical shutter and it not being 100% accurate from one shot to another and, more importantly, because of how I choose to expose the scene once I read the meter. Go for the shadows? highlights? Or prioritizing the moment and not care about the exposure for candid shots.
In the end, a 36 exposure roll will always yield an array of different exposures that are off the strict exposure that a light-meter proposes. And all the shots look better in DD-X versus any other developer. There is a brilliance, an added vibrancy.
I'm not a fanboy and I'd certainly gain from preferring much cheaper developers that the market offers. But over and over, DD-X has proven itself to me. And too many times in the past I was like "Geez this print is so complex to print, I wish my neg had more information buried in there". This really happened a lot with any 400 negative that I pushed to 1600 with Rodinal and especially with Fomapan 400 and the old Agfapan 400 developed in any developer and at any speed. That last film would have totally benefited from DD-X.



