HP5+ ... TRI-X+D76

[dxphoto]

I was told Tri-x + D76 is a classic combination. I have been using it with D76(1+1). Now if I use the HP5+ now, what will be a good developer to create similar result? Should I keep using D76 or switch to DDX. Thanks.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I was told Tri-x + D76 is a classic combination. I have been using it with D76(1+1). Now if I use the HP5+ now, what will be a good developer to create similar result? Should I keep using D76 or switch to DDX. Thanks.

I regularly use HP5 Plus developed in D-76 diluted 1+1 and find this to be a very pleasing combination. It all comes down to personal preference really.

 

[Gerald Koch]

There is really no need to change from D-76. Remember that Ilford ID-11 is essentially the same thing.

Kodak HC-110 was formulated to produce results very similar to D-76 and has the advantage of being a liquid concentrate with a very long shelf life. Kodak Xtol is also very good, producing somewhat finer grain and higher speed than D-76.

 

[tim atherton]

well, they are different films... so you aren't going to get exactly the same result/look

that said, while HP5 is nice in D-76 (though there has always been something very slightly unquantifiably better about ID-11 imo...), I really like HP5 in DD-X

 

[childers-jk]

I have been using both Tri X and HP 5 in D 76. I really like the look and grain I get from D 76. I haven't tried many other developers, some Diafine and HC110. Put I do really like the effect of D 76 and both films.

 

[david b]

HP5+ and ID-11 are my favorite.

 

[AlanC]

I was told recently by a retired Ilford chemist tha DDX is a liquid version of ID11.

Alan Clark

 

[Gerald Koch]

I was told recently by a retired Ilford chemist tha DDX is a liquid version of ID11.
Alan Clark

Only to the extent that DDX is a high sulfite low pH (pH = 8.5 to 9.0) hydroquinone developer. ID-11 contains Metol as the primary developing agent while DDX uses Dimezone S.

 

[tim atherton]

I've heard that once or twice before but don't believe it's true (seems to recall someone checking the msds sheets). Apart from the fact the two developers have different times for the same films and give a different look... but I don't think I've ever seen the question settled

 

[Jose A Martinez]

My choice for HP 5 is Ilford ID11, go for it. Test direct or 1+1, it depends on your agitation habits and how "grainy" you like.

 

[juanito]

I mostly use TRI X and HP5 and develop them in TMAX in a JOBO processor.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I was told recently by a retired Ilford chemist tha DDX is a liquid version of ID11.

Alan Clark

Based on the 1998 Ilfotec DDX MSDS it would probably be more accurate to say that DDX is a liquid concentrate version of Ilford ID-68 (or Ilford Microphen).

See: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The 1998 DDX MSDS called out Phenidone (not Dimezone-S), Hydroquinone, Sodium Tetraborate, Boric Acid and Potassium Sulfite.

The current HARMAN Ilfotec DDX MSDS does not call out any of the Phenidone compounds, only Hydroquinone


Ilford ID-68

 

[AlanC]

Tom

I'm sure you are right, and won't argue with you. I am no chemist; I was only quoting one ! The chemist in question was Dave Butcher, who gave a lecture to the Yorkshire Monochrome group recently. Perhaps the main point here is that he showed some photographs printed from FP4 negatives developed in DDX that were of snow scenes taken in bright sun, and the prints had plenty of both shadow and highlight detail. So whatever is in DDX it seems to come up with the goods.

Alan Clark

 

[david b]

HP5+ at 250 developed in ID-11 (1+1) for 12 minutes. Three inversions every 30 seconds. I love it.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Tom

I'm sure you are right, and won't argue with you. I am no chemist; I was only quoting one ! The chemist in question was Dave Butcher, who gave a lecture to the Yorkshire Monochrome group recently. Perhaps the main point here is that he showed some photographs printed from FP4 negatives developed in DDX that were of snow scenes taken in bright sun, and the prints had plenty of both shadow and highlight detail. So whatever is in DDX it seems to come up with the goods.

Alan Clark

Alan, DDX is an excellent concentrated developer which has demonstrated that it is capable of delivering excellent results that are similar to those produced by Ilford Microphen.

Concentrated Kodak developers that can produce similar results are Kodak Tmax and Kodak HC110

 

[Harry Lime]

Tri-X in DD-X is a great combination. Fine grain, full speed, lots of shadow and highlight detail. It has a very luminous and three dimensional fingerprint; at least that's what I see when I shoot this combo with my Leica glass. I prefer it over XTOL, which is techinally brilliant, but to my eye looks...brash and very modern. DD-X gives all you the technical advantages of a modern developer, but to me has a smoother, more classic look than XTOL.

Also consider Divided D76. Basically this is D76, broken up in to two components. In my opinion it has a very beautiful, creamy look. Because it is a divided developer it is almost impossible to blow out the highlights and it seems like the exposure is made to 'fit' within the latitude of the negative. I find DD76 negatives, very easy to print unless I have done something really stupid. Also a good developer for hot climates. DD76 is also nearly impervious to temperature fluctuations.

 

[rst]

HP5@200ASA in Perceptol 1+2 at 24°C for 12 minutes with 4 inversions every minute (as recommended by Barry Thornton) gives me fine grain and sharp negatives with a great tonality. Does it give the same result than TriX in D76 - probably not, but maybe it is worth a try.

Regards
Ruediger

 

[eddym]

My developer of choice for HP5 at 400 is ID 11, 1/1. For pushing, I like Ilfotec HC 1/31 (similar to HC110).

 

[hka]

I also use HP5+ @400 with ID11, 1:1 and develop them in a JOBO processor at 20°C time is 11:35 min. and no presoak. In very warm weather conditions I increase the temperature to 24°C time is 7:30 min.. Great combo!

 

[tim atherton]

FYI (and for the "record"), Ilford confirmed that ID-11 and DD-X are indeed different developers