DD-X / Ultrafin Plus 1+9 dilution - any disadvantage?

I've just experimented a couple of times with using Tetenal Ultrafin Plus at 1+9 dilution rather than the 1+4 or 1+6 option listed in the instructions, partly to achieve slightly longer processing times when running at 24ºC in a Jobo, and also as I've found the 1+4 option rather "strong" for regular 100-400 ISO film processing. I have a hunch that dilution might adversely alter effective film speed and shadow detail but most reports online give anecdotally positive feedback for higher dilutions in the case of these products.

Any views?

Tom

Ultrafin Plus or the T-Plus?

Hi Miha,

I've been using Ultrafin Plus but I guess the same or similar would apply to the newer T-Plus product.

Tom

Hi Tom, I have always found the grain to be significatly coarser in DD-X. The smoothest TRI-X negs I have ever seen came from now defunct Ultrafin Plus. I don't consider this two developers to be similar.

miha said:

Hi Tom, I have always found the grain to be significatly coarser in DD-X. The smoothest TRI-X negs I have ever seen came from now defunct Ultrafin Plus. I don't consider this two developers to be similar.

Click to expand...

I've only used T-max developer and Ultrafin Plus recently. I didn't realise DD-X was that different. My usual stock is XTOL.

Tom

It isn't that different, same PQ family, 1+4 dilution, good keeping, but the grain.... way too coarse for me but the negs print easily. Sorry for diverting your thread.

miha said:

It isn't that different, same PQ family, 1+4 dilution, good keeping, but the grain.... way too coarse for me but the negs print easily. Sorry for diverting your thread.

Click to expand...

I'm just surprised if they're similar that two products can produce such different results. No grain problems with Ultrafin Plus...

I like DD-X for LF tray development. Easy to print 4x5 negatives. For 35mm Ilfotec HC is my choice. I have recently purcased a bottle of LC29, should be similar/same Ilford say.