DD-X or HC-110

[markbarendt]

Well as much as I like Xtol I'm considering a switch, simply put I'm not using it fast enough to keep the stock fresh. Color is taking the biggest share of my shooting.

So, DD-X and HC-110 are the short list candidates. DD-X would get used up quicker because of it's lower capacity so the real cost per roll after tossing the out of date Xtol would be similar. HC-110 concentrate lasts long enough that it doesn't matter.

Delta 100 and 400 are my primary films.

I want to try to use my Jobo CPA 2 with a 1520 tank so a full load is 2 films in 240ml.

With the DD-X rotation should reduce the needed time by about 15% per ilford's fact sheet for the Deltas, but the volume of developer is about half of the recommended volume pushing it mathematically close to Ilford's "reuse" capacity limit which would add about 90% to the time per DD-X's data sheet.

So standard time * .85 * 1.9 = about 1.6 * standard for a starting time. Does that make sense? Will DD-X work well used this way?

HC-110 looks like it may be easier to use and more flexible in mixing.

Any thoughts?

 

[anikin]

I don't think you need to increase time based on the capacity. It sounds to me you are planning to use the developer one-shot. If that's the case, you just need 15% adjustment for rotation, and that's it. I'd like to warn you that DD-X and HC-110 have very different looks. I would suggest trying both to see if you might prefer one or the other.

 

[Brian Legge]

I'd use DD-X for the speed boost all the time if it weren't so expensive. I use HC-110 for 80% of my rolls instead. I've been happy with the look I get out of each when used appropriately.

 

[2F/2F]

If you like Delta films to really look like Delta films were designed to look optimally, then I'd use DD-X, the same way I'd use T-Max developer with T-Max film. However, if you just want to use Delta as "any old" general-purpose film and need a general-purpose developer, HC-110 is great for any film. It's probably the most convenient and versatile developer there is, except for maybe those third party pre-mixed D-76 solutions (e.g. Clayton F-76).

 

[zenrhino]

I cant speak directly to the effect of the soups on the films (I'm not much on t-grain films yet -- this may change). I can however say that I love both soups dearly, albeit for different things.

For me (ymmv, natch), 7 minutes of HC-110 dil B in the Jobo is perfect for Tri-X. Gives me excellent, printable negs. Kind of an old-school look, though. Still plenty of grain in there. HC-110 is also freakishly easy to use. That syrup comes with excellent instructions and makes up about 1/2 gallon of working solution. Be sure to find the PDF of Kodak's instructions for it so you make sure you're making and using the right formulas, though. IIRC, there are two bottle thicknesses and you dilute based on which one you worked from.

As for DD-X, I've used it with Delta 3200 and had fine results, but when paired with 120 Neopan 400 (RIP) I find it truly magic. A nearly grainless 400, excellent skin tones and nice printable negs.

Interestingly, HC-110 seemed to work much better in the Jobo for me. DD-X seemed to like really easy, gradual rotations.

Now if getting the very last penny per ounce of soup is the big factor, go with HC-110. It's cheap and the working solution lasts ages. Maybe not into the Rodinal paleolithic era or $.00001 per roll like Rodinal (or whatever the acolytes claim), but long enough for sure.

But tell you what, I sure love both of them. And Rodinal, too for that matter.

 

[markbarendt]

I'd like to warn you that DD-X and HC-110 have very different looks. I would suggest trying both to see if you might prefer one or the other.

How would you describe that difference anikin?

 

[markbarendt]

I'd use DD-X for the speed boost all the time if it weren't so expensive. I use HC-110 for 80% of my rolls instead. I've been happy with the look I get out of each when used appropriately.

The extra speed is nice.

The cost was a factor in my decision years ago when I switched from ID-11 to go with Xtol.

The math has changed. At 2-3 rolls a month a bottle of DD-X and a batch of Xtol will go the same distance. My choice is $9 or $18 for 6 months supply so the real difference is small.

HC-110 would be less expensive but given that the expensive route is under $3 a month it's not worth sweating about. Even at $6 a month I wouldn't care.

 

[markbarendt]

If you like Delta films to really look like Delta films were designed to look optimally, then I'd use DD-X, the same way I'd use T-Max developer with T-Max film. However, if you just want to use Delta as "any old" general-purpose film and need a general-purpose developer, HC-110 is great for any film. It's probably the most convenient and versatile developer there is, except for maybe those third party pre-mixed D-76 solutions (e.g. Clayton F-76).

I do like the way Delta looks.

That's probably the strongest argument for DD-X.

 

[markbarendt]

Interestingly, HC-110 seemed to work much better in the Jobo for me. DD-X seemed to like really easy, gradual rotations.

It would be easy for me to stay with hand tanks. Using the Jobo would be nice but it's not a deal killer.

 

[OMU]

To me, HC in Jobo is excellent.
These are my times in JOBO:

FILM ISO E.I. Dil. Time


FP4+ 125
N - 1, 80, H, 3 min 30 sek
N, 80, H, 5 min 45 sek
N + 1, 80, H, 7 min 12 sek
N + 2, 100, H, 9 min

HP5+ 400
N - 2 200 H 6 min 50 sek
N - 1 250 B 5 min 45 sek
N 320 B 7 min 45 sek
N + 1 320 B 9 min 30 sek
N + 2 400 B 12 min 40 sek

Delta 100
N 80 B 4 min 45 sek

Delta 400
N 320 B 6 min 20 sek
N + 1 320 B 7 min 36 sek
N + 2 320 B 9 min

This is a paste from Excell and there is something wrong with the format, but the read it like this:
Exemple.
Delta 400, N (Normal) development. The film has an EI at 320. Dilution B for 6 min 20 sek.

 

[Colin Corneau]

If it's economy you want, consider Rodinal...the stuff lasts forever after you open the bottle. Differing dilutions for one-shot use is handy and it gives fine results with just about everything.

Although, I tried DD-X on a few rolls (HP5 pushed, Pan 400) and was really impressed. Easy to mix up, great for speed and wonderful grain...based on your choice, I'd vouch for this one.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If you don't intend on doing much BW work then HC-110 is a good choice. The concentrate keeps for years even in opened bottles. Do not follow Kodak's recommendation for making an intermediate solution but dilute the concentrate directly.

 

[sepiareverb]

Agreed that DD-X will give more XTOL-like results with the Delta films than HC-110. Having HC-110 on hand in concentrate (syrup) form is easy, and for the times you run out of DD-X it will serve you well, plus not go bad for a long time (if mixed from the syrup). You'll just need a 50ml syringe to use the syrup.

 

[Gabino]

If you don't intend on doing much BW work then HC-110 is a good choice. The concentrate keeps for years even in opened bottles. Do not follow Kodak's recommendation for making an intermediate solution but dilute mthe concentrate directly.

I just used for the first time HC110 as developer, so I don't have much experience with it, but why do you recommend using the syrup directly from the bottle as opposed to the stock solution recommended by Kodak?

 

[MattKing]

I just used for the first time HC110 as developer, so I don't have much experience with it, but why do you recommend using the syrup directly from the bottle as opposed to the stock solution recommended by Kodak?

The concentrate lasts a very, very, very long time, even when in a half filled bottle.

The intermediate stock solution lasts a much shorter time.

 

[markbarendt]

Note that DDX is a little sharper with Delta 100 than HC110. Also you will get better film speed with DDX. Depending on contrast, you can get a pretty usable box speed out of Delta 100 with DDX.

...

One additional note on DDX with Delta. I suggest you do a few tests of your own for development time.

I'll test some regardless of my choice.

The extra speed is one of the reasons I'm leaning toward DD-X. Extra shapness is good to.

 

[markbarendt]

Agreed that DD-X will give more XTOL-like results with the Delta films than HC-110. Having HC-110 on hand in concentrate (syrup) form is easy, and for the times you run out of DD-X it will serve you well, plus not go bad for a long time (if mixed from the syrup). You'll just need a 50ml syringe to use the syrup.

I'll probably just buy more real early since it keeps for 24 months in full undiluted bottles.

 

[markbarendt]

If it's economy you want, consider Rodinal...the stuff lasts forever after you open the bottle. Differing dilutions for one-shot use is handy and it gives fine results with just about everything.

Although, I tried DD-X on a few rolls (HP5 pushed, Pan 400) and was really impressed. Easy to mix up, great for speed and wonderful grain...based on your choice, I'd vouch for this one.

Not necessarily after economy. Quality is a bigger consideration.

My impression of Rodinal is that it is great for the slower films but not necesarily the first choice for say pushing Delta 400 to 3200.

One thing I know I want is "just one developer" on my shelf.

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks all!

After thinking about the responses and my motivations the only "ace" that HC-110 really brings to my darkroom over DD-X is it's shelf life.

DD-X seems to hold the stronger hand everywhere else.

The only real complaint I've ever heard about DD-X is on price, and that is reflected in this thread.

Given it's well within my budget I am giving DD-X the job.

 

[John Shriver]

I've never had DD-X fail, even with open bottles a year old. I did have one crystallization event, but that I'm sure I can blame on a very cold winter chilling down the basement. Very happy with the results, always look wonderful.

I also keep HC-110 around, for work which would be breathtakingly expensive with DD-X, like running the Nikor sheet film tank, or developing a roll of Verichrome Pan 122 in 28 ounces of developer in a Nikor reel and tank. Also, the fog-inhibiting properties of HC-110 are good for processing 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year old Verichrome Pan.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

HC-110 is a rather unique developer in that the concentrate contains no water. Without water oxidation is very slow. I think Kodak gives a shelf life for the intermediate solution of 6 months.

 

[markbarendt]

I've never had DD-X fail, even with open bottles a year old. I did have one crystallization event, but that I'm sure I can blame on a very cold winter chilling down the basement. Very happy with the results, always look wonderful.

That's good to know.

I also keep HC-110 around, for work which would be breathtakingly expensive with DD-X, like running the Nikor sheet film tank, or developing a roll of Verichrome Pan 122 in 28 ounces of developer in a Nikor reel and tank. Also, the fog-inhibiting properties of HC-110 are good for processing 20, 30, 40, or even 50 year old Verichrome Pan.

I can see not wanting to spend $3.60 on one sheet of 4x5. But, for me, if I get out the 4x5 camera I'm normally going to shoot much more than one and/or shoot something really important. In the latter situation I would happily spend $3.60 for one sheet.

The low fog characteristics were an interesting side note in my research.

For the purposes of this discussion though; well kept, fairly young film, is my target.

 

[anikin]

How would you describe that difference anikin?

By now you have plenty of good descriptions in this thread. I use both developers, but for different applications. If I need smooth tones with very little grain (portraits for example), then it's DD-X. HC is a great cheap middle of the road developer - more grain with great sharpness, good speed and contrast. It's a perfect reliable general purpose developer. And since HC110 lasts for years, there is no reason not to have it. So there you go. Try them both, they are both good.
:munch:

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks Anikin.

I've made the decision to go with DD-X.

I really don't want to have two different developers.