Ilford FP4+ developed in DD-X, 1+9 dilution.

Ulrik Christiansen · Jun 21, 2023

Hi all

I usually develop all my rolls in DD-X, 1+9 dilution. I get fine results using the Massive Dev Chart. But, there are no times for FP4+. For 1+4, it says 10 minutes and 20 degrees celcius water. For 1+9, I have seen suggestions extending the time +125% (that is 22,5 minutes) or using stand development for 35 to 45 minutes without agitation. I can just test it, but I want to hear any experiences from users here.

Thanks

BrianShaw · Jun 21, 2023

I process FP-4+ per the Ilford recommedation for EI125/22: 1+4 for 10 minutes at 20 degC/68 degF. Never thought it worth the effort to figure out 1+9 processing, especially since nobody seems to recommend it.

Todd Niccole · Jun 21, 2023

In this situation I find another film that has the stated development times for both dilutions and devise a ratio. HP5 lists DDX development times: (1+4) 9min. and (1+9) 15.75min. 15.75/9= 1.75. Multiply that by the 10min for FP4(@1+4 dil.) and get 17.5 minutes; It's a starting point.

Edit: This still seems a bit high come to think of it. Ratios for other films with these two different DDX dilutions differed. SFX is 1.4 times and others varied. You can take an average or I would recommend starting on the lower side of these ratios. Using SFX as the comparison would put FP4/DDX(1+9) at 14 minutes.

Ulrik Christiansen · Jun 22, 2023

BrianShaw said:
I process FP-4+ per the Ilford recommedation for EI125/22: 1+4 for 10 minutes at 20 degC/68 degF. Never thought it worth the effort to figure out 1+9 processing, especially since nobody seems to recommend it.

For me 1+9 works very nice with shelf time and the number of rolls I shoot and quality is very acceptable. At least with HP5, Delta100+400, Tri-x and the tmax films. imho.

Ulrik Christiansen · Jun 22, 2023

Todd Niccole said:
In this situation I find another film that has the stated development times for both dilutions and devise a ratio. HP5 lists DDX development times: (1+4) 9min. and (1+9) 15.75min. 15.75/9= 1.75. Multiply that by the 10min for FP4(@1+4 dil.) and get 17.5 minutes; It's a starting point.

Edit: This still seems a bit high come to think of it. Ratios for other films with these two different DDX dilutions differed. SFX is 1.4 times and others varied. You can take an average or I would recommend starting on the lower side of these ratios. Using SFX as the comparison would put FP4/DDX(1+9) at 14 minutes.

Thats seems reasonable. I'll try your method for the next FP4 roll. Thanks for your investigation

Steven Lee · Jun 22, 2023

@Ulrik Christiansen apologies if I'm taking this conversation away from the original question, which you seem to have received a few good answers to. But I am curious about your overall experience with the 1+9 dilution. I've used DD-X before, but strictly following the Ilford's instructions that use 1+4. Given the high price of the developer, it is quite unusual for Ilford not recommending 1+9. Even when they expect quality deterioration, at least they mention the possibility of other dilutions, see Ilfosol 3 datasheet. But not with DD-X.

Have you tried comparing the two dilutions to see what the difference (speed | grain | curve) is?

Ulrik Christiansen · Jun 22, 2023

Steven Lee said:
@Ulrik Christiansen apologies if I'm taking this conversation away from the original question, which you seem to have received a few good answers to. But I am curious about your overall experience with the 1+9 dilution. I've used DD-X before, but strictly following the Ilford's instructions that use 1+4. Given the high price of the developer, it is quite unusual for Ilford not recommending 1+9. Even when they expect quality deterioration, at least they mention the possibility of other dilutions, see Ilfosol 3 datasheet. But not with DD-X.

Have you tried comparing the two dilutions to see what the difference (speed | grain | curve) is?

Hi Steven

No problem. My overall experience with DD-X 1+9 is very good. I started with 1+4 and then tried 1+9 for the film stocks where Massive Dev Chart has times for. That worked fine too, with no serious diminished quality, as far as I van see. So I just kept going with 1+9. It is quite an expensive developer, so if I can get about 18 films in 1 bottle, you save a little. Admittedly, if I have a roll with very very important images, I will use 1+4, just to be absolutely sure that they will come out optimally. It seems as long as I make sure to expose correctly, 1+9 is fine.

I am not smart enough to guess why Ilford would not recommend 1+9... Though, I think they would recommend procedures which secure optimal quality.

A few of my images from a "100 strangers" portrait series developed in DD-X 1+9:

Delta 100

Tmax 100

Delta 400

Tri-X

blee1996 · Jun 22, 2023

Thanks for sharing your experience with DD-X 1+9. Indeed it is an expensive developer and higher dilution will be nice to have.

@Ulrik Christiansen really nice portraits from your 100 strangers series!

It seems your images have covered my question regarding T-grain film like Delta 100/400 in the DD-X 1+9.

Ulrik Christiansen · Jun 22, 2023

blee1996 said:
Thanks for sharing your experience with DD-X 1+9. Indeed it is an expensive developer and higher dilution will be nice to have.

@Ulrik Christiansen really nice portraits from your 100 strangers series!

It seems your images have covered my question regarding T-grain film like Delta 100/400 in the DD-X 1+9.

Thank you very much. The Delta 400 is actually one of my preferred films for this project. I use my Mamiya C220 with an 80mm f/2.8 lens, which I can handhold to 1/30 and still get sharp images. With iso 400, I can use this from dawn til dusk. And the grain is very fine with DD-X and Delta 400.

Simon E · Jun 24, 2023

There were various discussions in the early 2000s (photo.net and elsewhere) by experienced people who found that DD-X at 1+9 dilution was at least as good as at 1+4. I think they suggested that it was like diluting Microphen 1+1 vs stock. I believe the recommended times were 140% of the times for 1+4 (add a bit less than half to the time you use at 1+4).

faberryman · Jun 24, 2023

Ulrik Christiansen said:
I usually develop all my rolls in DD-X, 1+9 dilution. I get fine results using the Massive Dev Chart. But, there are no times for FP4+. For 1+4, it says 10 minutes and 20 degrees celcius water. For 1+9, I have seen suggestions extending the time +125% (that is 22,5 minutes) or using stand development for 35 to 45 minutes without agitation. I can just test it, but I want to hear any experiences from users here.

How did people arrive at a 1:9 dilution for DDX? It does not appear in the Ilford DDX instruction sheet, and does not appear in the recommended time/dilution options in the various Ilford film developing instructions.

BrianShaw · Jun 24, 2023

faberryman said:
How did people arrive at a 1:9 dilution for DDX? It does not appear in the Ilford DDX instruction sheet, and does not appear in the recommended time/dilution options in the various Ilford film developing instructions.

Quite likely... conjecture. For example (and I did not read the entire thread so, perhaps, there may have been some testing but not in the first page, at least):

Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

I've been using dd-x for a while now and like it. The only down side to it is how expensive it is. I heard you can mix it 1:9, so I gave it a try on a test roll of film. Haven't tried printing them yet but the negs don't look quite as sharp to me. Anyone have any experience with this dilution...

www.photrio.com

and in other forums there may have been some personal attestations based on experience:

Ilfotec DDX dilution 1:4 vs 1:9

What effect does diluting DDX to 1:9 (or 1:8) have on the image vs the Ilford recommended dilution of 1:4 apart from economy which is not my main concern. What pros and cons does it impart to the image. I dislike the idea of prolonged devlopment time (I find times beyond 10-12 min tedious) but ca...

www.photo.net

DDX @ 1:9

groups.google.com

Or was that a rhetorical question???

pentaxuser · Jun 24, 2023

BrianShaw said:
Quite likely... conjecture. For example (and I did not read the entire thread so, perhaps, there may have been some testing but not in the first page, at least):

Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

I've been using dd-x for a while now and like it. The only down side to it is how expensive it is. I heard you can mix it 1:9, so I gave it a try on a test roll of film. Haven't tried printing them yet but the negs don't look quite as sharp to me. Anyone have any experience with this dilution...

www.photrio.com

and in other forums there may have been some personal attestations based on experience:

Ilfotec DDX dilution 1:4 vs 1:9

What effect does diluting DDX to 1:9 (or 1:8) have on the image vs the Ilford recommended dilution of 1:4 apart from economy which is not my main concern. What pros and cons does it impart to the image. I dislike the idea of prolonged devlopment time (I find times beyond 10-12 min tedious) but ca...

www.photo.net

DDX @ 1:9

groups.google.com

Two interesting links there Brian As usual some posts answered another aspect that the OP was not inquiring about but interestingly the Google group seemed to stick to the point the best. Dare I say it, probably better than Photrio does although I accept that one Google swallow does not by itself make a summer

pentaxuser

faberryman · Jun 24, 2023

BrianShaw said:
Or was that a rhetorical question???

No, that question was not rhetorical. The dilution of 1:4 and the developing times for the different films Ilford suggests are for a 0.62 contrast index. I was wondering if someone had actually done the science for the 1:9 dilution to determine the times for a 0.62 (or some other) contrast index.

BrianShaw · Jun 24, 2023

faberryman said:
No, that question was not rhetorical. The dilution of 1:4 and the developing times for the different films Ilford suggests are for a 0.62 contrast index. I was wondering if someone had actually done the science for the 1:9 dilution to determine the times for a 0.62 (or some other) contrast index.

Yep… as I implied in post 2, and so have you, if it were a good idea it seems that Ilford would have recommended it as an option and educated us on the difference.

john_s · Jun 24, 2023

It might be that 1:4 gives the best result but 1:9 is nearly as good. This is like comparing Microphen full strength v 1+1 especially for maximizing film speed, full strength being a bit better. A cynic might think that the more expensive developer is used, the better it is for Ilford's bottom line. I am a loyal Ilford customer but now that Microphen is now available only in 1L package it is quite expensive, especially for roll film use (500mL per film). So now I use ID-68 and I can make at least 6L for the price of 1L of Microphen, and that's not at the best possible price for ingredients.

faberryman · Jun 25, 2023

For those of you who develop film using DD-X 1:9, do you use it one-shot or do you reuse it for subsequent rolls of film?

Ulrik Christiansen · Jun 25, 2023

faberryman said:
For those of you who develop film using DD-X 1:9, do you use it one-shot or do you reuse it for subsequent rolls of film?

I use it one-shot. I figure around 19 rolls of 120 film for 1 bottle of DD-X is quite all right.

faberryman · Jun 26, 2023

Ulrik Christiansen said:
I use it one-shot. I figure around 19 rolls of 120 film for 1 bottle of DD-X is quite all right.

I was asking because if people are using DD-X 1:9 for economy, wouldn't they be economically better off going with the normal dilution of 1:4 and reusing the solution for 5-10 rolls of film according to Ilford's reuse rubric?

Ilford FP4+ developed in DD-X, 1+9 dilution.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency