DDX user question

[dpurdy]

I am continuing my experiments with delta 3200 and just got a bottle of DDX which people say gives finer grain than XTOL. I noticed one oddity. On the times recommendation chart it shows much shorter times for D3200 than for Delta 100. In fact if you were to process the D3200 at the same time as D100 you would be processing for aproximately the EI 6400 time. that is weird to me.

Another thing I noticed on the poop sheet is that they say you can do the extended development method of reusing the developer. Anyone doing this?, and does it work well and how far do you go with it. One problem I have with DDX is that it is a one shot developer and is kind of expensive in my system. I use the extended times method with XTOL and have perfect success with it. Be great if DDX worked that way as well.

thanks Dennis

 

[john_s]

One way to make it more economical is to dilute it. I haven't tried it, but a search will uncover some recommendations at 1+6 and 1+9. Less dilution would alter the characteristics less, I suppose. If you dilute it more it might become much like Xtol, except more expensive.

 

[pentaxuser]

An economical alternative, if your have the equipment is rotary processing for which DDX is suitable. My 35mm Jobo tank needs only 140 mls as opposed to 240mls for inversion. At 1+4 this is say 30mls of DDX, using 150 mls instead of the min of 140mls so in a 1L container there is about 33 films worth of developer. At 36 frames per film the price per frame is incredibly cheap. Less so if its 120 of course but 120 is by definition less of a bang for your buck.

I have no idea about the price in $ but in the U.K. this makes DDX very economical. Even at inversion quantities it is still economical. When you take into account the total cost of getting the neg you want, developer is cheap and if DDX gives you what you want and no other dev quite matches it then it becomes both cheap and priceless at the same time.

pentaxuser

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

I no longer use DDX, but I remember using it for the first few rolls of D3200, and going by the times on the DDX package, my negs were way thin. The general concensus was the recommended development times were one stop off: i.e., if you shoot at ISO1600, use the 3200 development time. I found this to be true. Perhaps compare with the times on the massive chart, or somebody here will chime in with a recommendation.

 

[dpurdy]

Thanks for the tip. I think I am going to mix up the whole 5L and keep pouring it back in the bottle and try to create my own developer extention chart. I will give extra development to the first test as you suggest.
Dennis

 

[buze]

I used DDX quite a lot before switching to Barry Thornston 2 bath last year, and the 1+9 dilution works very well. Just use x1.70 for your base time as a start.

 

[haziz]

Thanks for the tip. I think I am going to mix up the whole 5L and keep pouring it back in the bottle and try to create my own developer extention chart. I will give extra development to the first test as you suggest.
Dennis

Why mix the whole amount? You will likely lose it's efficacy faster, mix as you go. That is the main advantage of liquid concentrates anyway. DDX seems to have a very good shelf life. I was able to use an opened bottle of concentrate beyond a year of opening it with good results.

Sincerely,

Hany.

 

[dpurdy]

I think I should mix the whole 5L because I process a lot of film and at that volume the decrease in activity will be far more gradual.
Dennis

 

[pentaxuser]

I think I should mix the whole 5L because I process a lot of film and at that volume the decrease in activity will be far more gradual.
Dennis

Dennis. It is of course up to you but I don't think that what you have said necessarily follows. You'll use the 1L concentrate over the same time as the 5L working solution but it is my understanding that with DDX it's keeping properties are adversely affected by having it at working strength.

Unless of course you can develop all the films that 1 litre's worth can cope wtih over a very short time then I suppose having the dev at working strength saves a bit of preparation time. I'd still check the keeping time of working solution with Ilford to be sure.

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

......... but it is my understanding that with DDX it's keeping properties are adversely affected by having it at working strength.........

This is the case with every developer, is it not?

For what it may be worth, this is cut from an Agfa pdf for Rodinal Special (a.k.a. Studional) which is a developer something like DD-X (nothing like normal Rodinal):

"The concentrate will keep for at least two years in the original
pack. Developer mixed ready for use will keep for three months
in brimful tightly capped bottles. Used developer should be
stored separately from fresh."

And from the same document, on the subject of reusing this made up developer:

"Lengthening time for multiple batches
(small tank, tray, drum)
To ensure consistent speed yield and contrast, the developing
times for each successive batch must be lengthened. It is not
possible to give exact times, since these are governed by the
idle time between two batches and the method of storing the
developer (glass or plastic bottles, brimful or part-full, capped
bottle). If used developer is kept in brimful tightly capped
bottles between batches, the guiding figures given in the table
below should be used.
The following is a guide: after processing one film in 500 ml
developer, lengthen the developing time by about 10 %. With a
five-litre tank volume lengthen the time after ten films.

Idle time between ________Development lengthened
two batches ____________by

few hours (but develpment ________none
on same day)
1 - 3 days _____________+ 5 %
4 - 8 days ______________+ 10 %
1 - 2 weeks ______________+ 15 %
over 2 weeks ______________+ 20 %

<end of quote>

edit: sorry about the formatting, but I think you get the idea