OK folks I've tried a little test and have posted the results in the technical gallery for comparison. They are only negative scans as I didn't have time to wet print, but I hope they are of some use
What can I say?! I posted the question hoping for a little feedback. I certainly didn't expect anyone to go to the trouble of running a test for me!
I'm very grateful and, honestly, more than a little touched. Thank you very much indeed.
The differences are clear and stunning.
I looked at the Rodinal neg first and found the grain very prominent, compared with what I'm used to. Then I looked at the DD-X neg and immediately noticed the apparent lack of sharpness when compared to the first neg.
I have to say that I prefer the look of the Rodinal neg. Which gives me a problem...
I have a roll of 35mm Delta 100 to process. It contains some waterfall shots that I yomped 10 kg of kit 5 miles on a hot day in order to take (I still have the bruises and blisters to prove it!). I'm as sure as I can be that I've honestly nailed those waterfalls. So...
Do I wait until I get some DD-X and go with the tried and trusted? Or (bearing in mind that I want some of these shots on toned 16x12 fibre hanging on my wall) do I go with the brand new bottle of untried (but promising) Rodinal lurking in my briefcase and face the prospect of another 5 mile yomp if it all goes horribly pear-shaped?
Seriously though, many thanks. I really appreciate all the time and trouble.
All the best,