Ilford Delta 3200 in DDX or Xtol

[mexipike]

I've been going through some different films lately and feel for the often very dark bar scenes I run into trix pushed to 1250 isn't giving me the look I want. I just developed a roll of delta 3200 I shot a while back and was reminded how much this film can do. I also really could use the push all the way to 3200 sometimes.

X-Tol is my standard developer and I got pretty good results but I read everywhere that DDX is great for delta 3200, and with the other deltas as well(I may just use delta 400 as my slower film at 200-400iso or delta 100). Is there any real advantage to DDX over Xtol for this purpose?

 

[Nuff]

I run xtol replenished. So my times are different than recommended. Since delta3200 is pretty exy here and I didn't feel like burning through few rolls to figure out the dev times. I got ddx. It's not cheap, but it was quick and easy. The results were great too. I shot at 1600 and developed at 3200. If I shoot at 3200 I will dev at 6400.

I don't see why xtol wouldn't work either.

 

[Roger Cole]

I develop it in T-Max developer which is said to be similar to DD-X. I also get excellent results by developing for one stop more than the EI I exposed for. Typically I expose it at EI 3200 and develop for the times Ilford lists for 6400. Results are excellent.

 

[darkosaric]

I develop it in T-Max developer which is said to be similar to DD-X.

Yes, I have couple of delta 3200 negatives developed in Tmax developer - it goes on 30x40 cm paper without any problems.

This example is negative scan 3200 in Tmax developer:

Dead Link Removed

 

[mexipike]

So far it's been confirmed that DDX is good stuff, but is there any advantage to it over Xtol, I mainly care because it costs twice as much.

As far as TMax is concerned, it seems to be out of production so DDX it is.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've been going through some different films lately and feel for the often very dark bar scenes I run into trix pushed to 1250 isn't giving me the look I want. I just developed a roll of delta 3200 I shot a while back and was reminded how much this film can do. I also really could use the push all the way to 3200 sometimes.

X-Tol is my standard developer and I got pretty good results but I read everywhere that DDX is great for delta 3200, and with the other deltas as well(I may just use delta 400 as my slower film at 200-400iso or delta 100). Is there any real advantage to DDX over Xtol for this purpose?

Xtol will have finer grain, be slightly sharper, and more muted highlights. That's it. Both are excellent for use with this film. I recommend Xtol 1+1 and DD-X at 1+9 (or whatever Ilford recommends). If you shoot the film at 1600, use their times for 3200 for best results. Shoot at 3200, use their times for 6400, etc. Adjust as necessary for your personal work flow.

 

[mexipike]

So it sounds like X-tol is still the better choice except for the muted highlights, but not much reason to switch to DDX since it's pricey and I already am used to many films in Xtol.

Just of note for anyone who uses the massive dev chart, it looks like there times are already adjusted to match the one stop suggested increase from ilford's list (which makes sense since it's crowd sourced)

Also Ilford doesn't seem to list a 1:1 version of Xtol but I'm sure it's possible.

 

[mexipike]

Disregard my last statement about the massive dev chart being correct. I got confused by Ilford's crappy skewed lines on the dev chart:http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20114271219521241.pdf , looks like the times they list are the same.

 

[Roger Cole]

So far it's been confirmed that DDX is good stuff, but is there any advantage to it over Xtol, I mainly care because it costs twice as much.

As far as TMax is concerned, it seems to be out of production so DDX it is.

Where did you hear that T-Max was out of production? Freestyle has it, though it's listed as low stock, but it's not shown on their clearance page. I also use the RS version which is nearly interchangeable anyway and certainly isn't out of production.

 

[mexipike]

Where did you hear that T-Max was out of production? Freestyle has it, though it's listed as low stock, but it's not shown on their clearance page. I also use the RS version which is nearly interchangeable anyway and certainly isn't out of production.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/29114-REG/Kodak_1402767_T_Max_Developer_Liquid_for.html

Though they do have the RS but I wasn't sure if it was the same or not. Maybe Tmax replenished would be a great developer for me.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's not the same, but it's close. I use it for T-Max films anyway and really only used the regular T-Max for pushing, and because I still had some. I will happily just start using RS for both when I run out of the regular T-Max.

You don't have to, and most people don't, use the RS replenished. I (and most people I think) just dump the small bottle of Part B into the larger bottle and mix, then dilute from there for one shot use just as I would regular T-Max. Kodak's recommended 1+4 is a little hot, for both versions. Many people seem to use 1+6 or 1+9. I settled on 1+5. I don't like the midtone tonality at 1+9, and my biggest reason for using 1+5 instead of 1+6 is that it seems to work well for me using the Kodak recommended times for 1+4. I could probably add a little time and I doubt I could tell 1+6 from 1+5.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

TMax

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/5050851-Kodak-TMAX-Liquid-Film-Developer-Makes-5-Liters

 

[Roger Cole]

Yeah, I saw that too, see above where I said Freestyle had it.

A panic ensued when B&H listed HC-110 as "discontinued by manufacturer" but it was just the size that was discontinued. They make it in standardized sizes now for different markets. T-Max is already metric standardized, but it could be just a new catalog number for a new bottle or something - B&H is known for that - or not. But RS I feel is superior for most uses anyway. I'm happy to just use it. And if it goes away it sounds like DD-X is a great replacement.

 

[MattKing]

Manufacture of all the Kodak chemistry appears to have been moved from the former North American factories, so it may be that the T-Max developer will show up in new packaging, and possibly a new size, manufactured in Germany (just like HC-110).

Or maybe they have decided to just offer the T-Max RS.

 

[pentaxuser]

OP, if you believe that you will need to do the kind of shooting that you describe on a frequent basis then I'd develop half the film in Xtol and half in DDX or even a third in Xtol, a third in DDX and a third in T-max developer to see which delivers the best negs.

If Xtol meets your requirements then you will find it to be cheaper than DDX and I suspect T-max developer but I am only sure about DDX being more expensive than Xtol. On the other hand if it doesn't compare to DDX or T-max developer then Xtol is an expensive developer even if Kodak were to give it away for free.

pentaxuser

 

[john_s]

A few years ago, over at photo.net, an employee of Ilford (i think his name was David Carper) said that although DDX was the best for Delta 3200, Xtol was "pretty good" or words to that effect.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear John,

I do not know a 'David Carper' at ILFORD Photo but whoever he is Xtol is a fine dev, most others are as well, as always its horses for courses and peoples preferences for devs are very personal ..my absolute favourite Developer is DDX. I shoot loads of DELTA Professional 3200 as I like grain...and it has got grain.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[john_s]

Hi Simon. David Carper was around a while ago. Here is a sample post around 2004 (it only seems like yesterday)

http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/0095Bl

 

[rubyfalls]

I've used ID-11 for delta 3200. Given a choice, however, I'd stick with DD-X for faster films and Perceptol or Microphen for slower. I really wanted to like Ilfosol 3, but wasn't thrilled with the results.

 

[NB23]

Ilfosol-3 is excellent! But good only for slower films, as stated in the literature.
Xtol for delta3200 is amazing if you're after low grain.
It makes smaller grain on delta 3200 then hp5 @800 in hc110!!

I personally prefer grain so i dont hesitate to use hc110 or tmax dev for delta3200 as well as for tmax3200

 

[rubyfalls]

Which films do you like for Ilfosol 3? I used it for tri-x and FP4 plus and was kinda meh about it. Ilford describes it as being for slow and medium films; maybe I would like it more for slow?

I know it is odd, but I'm not partial to grain. Not for my shots, anyway. Love it in other people's stuff. So I am generally looking to reduce grain. I haven't used Xtol (yet), will have to give it a shot.

 

[NB23]

Which films do you like for Ilfosol 3? I used it for tri-x and FP4 plus and was kinda meh about it. Ilford describes it as being for slow and medium films; maybe I would like it more for slow?

I know it is odd, but I'm not partial to grain. Not for my shots, anyway. Love it in other people's stuff. So I am generally looking to reduce grain. I haven't used Xtol (yet), will have to give it a shot.

Pan-F and FP-4 plus are great in it. I chose to develop 40 of those films I shot in Cuba last year and my 150 20x24 prints look great.
HP-5 plus in Ilfosol also looks very good. The grain is sharp. However, I much prefer HP-5 in Rodinal and HC110. Something to do with tonality, probably. Just very pleasing to my eye.

XTOL is all it's hyped up to be. My Delta 3200 negs shot outstanding shadow detail and the grain is fine. It's missing some bite, though. I tend to like my prints with some bite. Grade #3-3 1/2 is my preference.

 

[mexipike]

So it sounds like some people like Xtol just fine but some feel DD-X just does a better job with delta 3200. I also went through some old scans I had and found a good few of my favorites were shot on Delta 400. Since DDX seems to be designed to work with this film and Delta 3200 it may just be the developer for me. I'll order a bottle and do some tests and see. I could keep Delta 400 and 3200 stocked and cover slowish (400 pulled to 100) to quite fastest very comfortably.

I knew all along that I should just test it but I started this thread to make sure it was worth trying in the first place, if a bunch of people said don't bother Xtol is better for sure or positively just as good, I would have saved myself $20. Thanks for helping and I'll let you know how my tests go.

 

[mexipike]

I still haven't tried the 3200 in DDX yet, but I just developed a roll of Delta 400 in DDX rated at 500 (ilford's recommended) and am quite happy with the results. They just kind of pop, crisp, sharp and not crazy grainy. We'll see how the prints and scans look.

 

[StoneNYC]

I still haven't tried the 3200 in DDX yet, but I just developed a roll of Delta 400 in DDX rated at 500 (ilford's recommended) and am quite happy with the results. They just kind of pop, crisp, sharp and not crazy grainy. We'll see how the prints and scans look.

FWIW

Ilfsol 3 is a really nice Dev, I would use it a lot more if Rodinal or HC-110 weren't so cheap. It is similar to HC-110 in it's ability to develop aged film with low fog (something no one ever gives it credit for but is valuable to know) I once developed film expired in 1947 in Ilfsol 3 with excellent results and low fog. It's just a little but sharper than HC-110 but the sharpness shows slightly more grain.

DD-X is excellent! If it were cheaper and came in a higher dilution like Rodinal at a 1:50 dilution, I would exclusively use DD-X for almost everything...

That and I dislike powder developers, especially the whole mixing gallons of the stuff part... Lol so I hope you get hooked on DD-X

D3200 and DD-X are excellent together.

These are my personal observations and opinions.