Ilford DDX versus ID11 (D76).

[smithy17]

Having recently experimented with Perceptol and ID11 developers for Pan F+ and FP4+, I have settled on ID11 diluted 1+1.
I read somewhere that DDX is a modern liquid formula which is similar to ID11 but provides improved over all image quality. In what respect does it actually improve over ID11?

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

DDX is a very good developer for getting film speed; it's a lot like Xtol or T-Max developers in that regard. It gives slightly more grain than Xtol and less than T-Max.
You'll get more film speed than with ID-11, but I doubt overall quality will be any better. You can try it and compare for yourself, but if you have settled on ID-11, and you have used it a lot to learn it, you will realize that one developer is not better than another. Just different. There are no free rides. All developers have some limitations, but your technique in using that developer is far more important than the materials used.

You will be hard pressed to produce negatives that are better than those from ID-11 (or Kodak D76, which is the same).

- Thomas

 

[Gerald C Koch]

They have nothing in common other than both being defined as fine grain developers. ID-11 uses metol while DDX uses a phenidone derivative as the primary developing agent.

 

[tlitody]

DDX was developed for use with T-Grain films such as Delta 100 and delta 400. It gives the shadows a kick which can be a problem with delta films. It gives a slight speed increase too. Not as much as Microphen but gives finer grain than Microphen. I doubt you will notice much difference with Pan+F or FP4 except for 1/3 to 1/2 stop speed increase compared to ID11/D76. Stick with your ID11, it's cheaper!

 

[MartinP]

Just to say that T-grain is the Kodak trade-name for it's 'new' emulsion technology. It is not the same as the design of the 'new' Ilford films ('new' is in quotes as they have been around for a couple of decades now, from both manufacturers) as the photo-sensitive sites either develop/grow in a slightly different manner or are located at a different place on the crystal to start with.

I also usually use ID11 at 1+1, but if I am increasing the exposure-index on HP5+, for example, then I'd look at Microphen or DD-X, depending on if I thought I'd get through the bottle quickly enough. In general use ID11 works very nicely, as does D76 as they are basically functionally the same.

 

[zenrhino]

I'm still happy with Rodinal at 1+50 for PanF+, but I love DD-X for Neopan 400. I get such nice greys from it, next to no grain and good shadow detail. Im happy with it in 35mm and at 6x7 it's just gorgeous.

One thing I've noticed with DD-X is that if you use really slow, gentle agitations, it seems to be "happier" (that is, less contrasty and better greys).

I'm not sure I'd use it in the Jobo.

 

[wclark5179]

D-76/ID-11 is my primary developer.

But I'm getting to like the results of WD2D+

 

[smithy17]

Just done some Googling and found this link. http://www.davebutcher.co.uk/equipment
It looks like Dave Butcher helped to design the developer when working for Ilford. From the replies, it seems that the main benefit is the convenience of being a liquid and touch a more speed.
Given the cost of DDX, I think I will just buy ID11 unless there is any other worthwhile advantage like greater acutance and finer grain.
Thanks all.

 

[pentaxuser]

I found the grain with DDX in 35mm to be much less obtrusive in D3200 than with ID-11, even at 5x7 prints. It is particularly good with the Delta range of films. It is expensive but is obtainable for about £15.00 a litre. At 1+4 in a Jobo tank it will do 20 films in 35mm. With ID-11 I'd get 8 for a litre at 1+1 but I could buy 5L of ID-11 for £9 so the equivalent of 20 films for £4.50. At stock of course that would be 20 films for £9 somore expensive but still only 60% of the DDX price.

However if you were happy with the negs in DDX at 1+9 then that's 40 films per litre of DDX and at stock ID-11 would cost you £18 for 40 films as against £15 for DDX. So the case against the price of DDX v ID-11 is not as clear as it first appears provided that you are happy with DDX at 1+9 and believe that to get comparability you need to use ID-11 at stock.


pentaxuser

 

[frednewman]

Hi smithy17

I prefer Ilford DDX developer. It give me higher film speeds when I did BTZS film tests over most developers. Also I don't like mixing powders and prefer liquid developers, if I did ID-11 would be my choice. They are both good choices for most film and developer combinations. They are the two developers I usually recommend.

Fred Newman

 

[brian steinberger]

I've recently used both ID-11 1:1 and DDX on some HP5 in 120 and found that while DDX did give me slightly more shadow detail, it also produced more "mushy" grain look, similar to Xtol. ID-11 produced sharp, crisp results, with great accutance. Needless to say I choose to stick with ID-11.

 

[smithy17]

I've recently used both ID-11 1:1 and DDX on some HP5 in 120 and found that while DDX did give me slightly more shadow detail, it also produced more "mushy" grain look, similar to Xtol.

ID-11 produced sharp, crisp results, with great accutance. Needless to say I choose to stick with ID-11.

I have decided that I will stick with ID11 and enjoy my photography, thanks Brian.