Film Dev test

[rufusm]

Hello all, I'd like your opinion on using DD-X for both FP4+ and HP5+, what should I expext for contrast tested at box speed and ilford time with this combination? The reason I ask is that in the past ID-11, D-76 is what I used and I am interested in how DD-X performs which I have never used.
note: I have read that Weston post and I am not looking for the silver bullit

 

[pentaxuser]

I started with ID-11 and moved on to DDX. I can't say I noticed any difference in contrast at box speed between these two but the DDX gives less grainy negs in my opinion. This effect becomes even more noticeable with D3200. Some photogs, Roger Hicks being one I think believes that DDX gives up to EI 600 for HP5+.

Generally it is probably possibly to re-rate both films by a third to half a stop increase with DDX. I was looking at a range of my negs tonight developed at box speed in DDX at Ilford's times and I think there is a case for reducing the Ilford times. It is a very good developer although quite expensive.

pentaxuser

 

[rufusm]

I picked up some chemistry today but they were sold out of DDX, since the first roll I finished this morning was FP4+ I purchased Ilfosol 3. From what I've read here and elseware I will try this for FP4+ and DDX for medium speed and modern films. Thanks for the info on DDX pentaxuser, I`ll try those suggestions.

The other films I'm going to shoot (test), all in 35mm, aside from HP5+ are the Delta and Tmax (both 100 and 400) films which I will develop in DDX. At the end of all of this effort I will have one slow and one medium speed film to go forth and enjoy taking photographs.

One more thing to test is my enlarger (printing), I've been out of practice a little while so please refresh my memory. I have a Durst M370 color, what differences in relation to film dev (contrast) are there for diffusion vs. condenser aside from contrast grade starting point or is this moot.

Thanks

 

[ic-racer]

contrast tested at box speed

I'd expect you pictures to be under exposed and maybe slightly under developed if you use a diffusion enlarger.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'd expect you pictures to be under exposed and maybe slightly under developed if you use a diffusion enlarger.

:confused: exposure?

While printing, I follow: 'expose for the highlights and control the shadows with contrast'

A condenser enlarger needs a softer negative or a softer grade of paper than a diffusion enlarger to make an almost identical picture. To make a softer negative, you need more exposure and less development, but if you follow the above rule, a softer paper will do almost the same thing for you if the negative already exists.

There are no appreciable tonality differences between condenser and diffusion enlargers if negative or paper contrast are adjusted accordingly.

 

[ic-racer]

I guess I should have written "negatives" in stead of "pictures."

Of course EI and development are highly user dependent, but over the years I'd say my IE is frequently around 1 stop slower than box speed and development around 20% less than MFG specs.

 

[brian steinberger]

For FP4 and HP5 I much prefer ID-11 used 1:1 over DD-X. I've tried DD-X on a few occasions and found it to produce a "mushying" of the grain, similar to what Xtol does. ID-11 1:1 used one-shot provides nice crisp grain and great sharpness. DD-X does increase film speed, this is true, but I only find it useful for pushing film.

 

[rufusm]

To ic. Are you suggesting under expose and under develop for diffusion enlarger? Isn't diffusion softer to begin with comparitive to condenser? I must be out of practice, sorry if I'm missing something here.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

To ic. Are you suggesting under expose and under develop for diffusion enlarger? Isn't diffusion softer to begin with comparitive to condenser? I must be out of practice, sorry if I'm missing something here.

Me too. I think he is referring to the fact that a negative developed for a diffusion enlarger must have a bit more contrast, which means it receives less exposure and more development than a condenser-optimized negative. But I don't think that means that the same negative, printed with a condenser, appears underexposed with proper enlarger exposure and filtration.

 

[rufusm]

For FP4 and HP5 I much prefer ID-11 used 1:1 over DD-X. I've tried DD-X on a few occasions and found it to produce a "mushying" of the grain, similar to what Xtol does. ID-11 1:1 used one-shot provides nice crisp grain and great sharpness. DD-X does increase film speed, this is true, but I only find it useful for pushing film.

Thanks Brian, I certainly do not want mushy grain but I will still put a roll through DD-X and see how bad it is. It seems that ID-11 is the way to go and DD-X for new emulsions and push.

 

[rufusm]

Me too. I think he is referring to the fact that a negative developed for a diffusion enlarger must have a bit more contrast, which means it receives less exposure and more development than a condenser-optimized negative. But I don't think that means that the same negative, printed with a condenser, appears underexposed with proper enlarger exposure and filtration.

Thanks for clearing this up about the differences in enlargers. I think I'd rather get my exposures in camera and print for contrast, that just seems logical for me althouth once I get that to a good process then I will try some different dev times and exposure combinations.

Chris

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Ilford`s times are perfect for me if I print with a diffusion enlarger and #2 paper or filter.
Subtract 10% for condenser times. I use a standardised test target with detailed highlights and textured shadows and fine details which I light with studio strobes. So the target is always the same for initial calibration, summer, winter, night, or day. I have been using parts of it for 50 years and it always works.

My thermometers are calibrated and checked, clocks are correct, water is standard Chicago tap filtered. Agitation is exactly what Ilford recommends and developer is fresh.

It always works. Kodaks times are perfect also. What is way off is the massive development chart.

Now here is what you do after satisying the above and actually printing the test negs so you get detailed blacks and textured highlights. If your best time is 10% longer than Ilfords, when you change to a different Ilford developer, simply start with the 10 % correction as first step. Always print with no maniputation.

DDX is excellent if fresh and nothing except that and Xtol work well with Delta 400. Problem is the dates are coded and you don`t know what you are buying. It does not change color when it goes bad. There is no home method to test it except methods that do not work 100%, only partially.

There are no great differences in developers, only conviences. Just use ID11 or D76 and be happy. Pretty much the grain is built in and developers change it little. Concentrate on learning control and taking great pics. You will be better off. Really

 

[rufusm]

There are no great differences in developers, only conviences. Just use ID11 or D76 and be happy. Pretty much the grain is built in and developers change it little. Concentrate on learning control and taking great pics. You will be better off. Really

There you go, go with what I know.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... There are no great differences in developers, only conviences. Just use ID11 or D76 and be happy. Pretty much the grain is built in and developers change it little. Concentrate on learning control and taking great pics. You will be better off. Really

I agree with that.

The differences are minor.