Ilford Ilfotec DD-X vs Rodinal

[FrankB]

I use Ilfotec DD-X for all my B&W film processing and am very happy with what I get back. However, having seen the number of people using Rodinal in other threads here I'm starting to wonder on what I am missing out.

So, if you have actually used both Rodinal and DD-X I'd be very interested in hearing your views on the similarities and differences between the two.

Thanks in advance,

Frank

 

[Dave Miller]

I find little difference in results between the two products, however the use of Rodinal at 1:50 allows me greater leeway on the longer developing time, and Rodinal seems to have a better shelf life.

 

[titrisol]

DD-X and Rodinal are 2 completely different developers.
I like Rodinal a lot, but DD-X seems to work better with faster films (and Ilford Deltas)

It wouldn;t hurt if you gave Rodinal a shot, is cheap enough and lasts for years so you can use it infrequently.
I love Rodinal with Agfa APX100, FP4 and just developed a couple of HP5 rolls in it.

 

[scootermm]

I have both Rodinal and DDX on the darkroom shelf right now. so I think I can honestly answer this one.
Ive found I get alot better results with the DDX when I develope Delta 3200 in it. Especially when pushed to 5000 or 6400. (wonderfully contrasty grainy negatives if you havent tried it- fits concert photography great)
I get some amazing results with the rodinal on almost all of my standard films PanF (35mm and 120) FP4 (35mm, 120, 4x5) Hp5 (35mm, 120, 4x5)
I prefer the rodinal over the DDX for these films but use the DDX over the rodinal for the faster films (neopan 1600 and delta 3200)
The fact that rodinal is economical is jsut an added bonus (especially with the photoformulary selling it a liter size so inexpensively)

hope that helps.

PS one of my favorite combinations is PanF in rodinal 1:50. (Im trying out the PMK Pryo 1:1:100 vs Rodinal 1:50 with PanF tonite so I will post what my findings are)

 

[TPPhotog]

Rodinal and DD-X are now the only 2 film developers I use and as has already been said they are very different.

For films 100asa and below I like Rodinal (1+50) for the look it gives with those films. Fine sharp salt and pepper grain, sharp pictures and beautiful contrast. So for me that means using Ilford Pan F @ 50; FP4+ @ 100 and Delta 100 @ 100.

At 200asa and above then I use DD-X (1+4) with HP5+ @ 200-1600; Delta 400 @ 400 and Delta 3200 @3200.

That said if you want really large grain then you could try a faster film with Rodinal.

My advice would be if you use slower films then give Rodinal a try, after all it's cheap enough to experiment with. But be warned once I tried it with Pan F and FP4+ I was hooked

 

[Ed Sukach]

I *still* say that the idea of a *increased* physical grain size with Rodinal is nothing more than a myth. Rodinal is a decidedly "clean" developer; the grain itself is more clearly defined - and there is a HIGH degree of acutance. I've been using Rodinal 1:50 with Agfapan 400 regularly: I really *LIKE* the look of the - not "large" - but sharply defined grain.

Amazing, in a way, that there are so many who will not even try Rodinal with fast films ... one thing is sure - there is very little probability of an explosion ....

 

[david b]

APX 100 and Rodinal 1+50 is a hard to beat combo. Absolutely wonderful stuff.

 

[TPPhotog]

I tried Rodinal with a roll of Agfa Pan 25 (not APX) that expired in 01/00 the other day and it came out beautiful.

Ed - Fair enough if I'll try most things so if I have time I'll shoot a roll of HP5+ tomorrow (Friday) and develop it in Rodinal 1+50 to see how it comes out

 

[John McCallum]

I *still* say that the idea of a *increased* physical grain size with Rodinal is nothing more than a myth. Rodinal is a decidedly "clean" developer; the grain itself is more clearly defined - and there is a HIGH degree of acutance. I've been using Rodinal 1:50 with Agfapan 400 regularly: I really *LIKE* the look of the - not "large" - but sharply defined grain.

Amazing, in a way, that there are so many who will not even try Rodinal with fast films ... one thing is sure - there is very little probability of an explosion ....

Agreed - sharply defined grain with Rodinal (i.e. not grain desolving). Definately appealing on the fine-grained films. I would suggest this is the main difference with DD-X. But although I had DDX on the shelf, i'm not qualified to make the comment Frank sorry .

 

[Eric Rose]

HC110 dil B is another good winner. I use both Rodinal and HC110 depending on what I want the final image to look like. Each has it's own flavor which can be used to artistic advantage. To only use one developer, unless you are doing the alt process stuff, is short changing your ability to fully express yourself.

So as you can see it's not just a matter of N or N-1 etc. it's that and what developer to use too. It's all part of the previsualization.

 

[titrisol]

Absolutely, Rodinal will give you a "HONEST GRAIN". Whatever the structure of the film is, will be shown.
The developer agent p-aminophenol will make very sharply defined grain, giving a very clean look. I doubt there is any sulfite or other silver solvent to decrease grain size as in most other developers.

I *still* say that the idea of a *increased* physical grain size with Rodinal is nothing more than a myth. Rodinal is a decidedly "clean" developer; the grain itself is more clearly defined - and there is a HIGH degree of acutance. I've been using Rodinal 1:50 with Agfapan 400 regularly: I really *LIKE* the look of the - not "large" - but sharply defined grain.

Amazing, in a way, that there are so many who will not even try Rodinal with fast films ... one thing is sure - there is very little probability of an explosion ....

 

[FrankB]

Very many thanks to all contributors, especially those giving their experiences of both developers.

My current "pending" tray for processing is too important for me to experiment on, but I will get hold of some Rodinal and try it out very soon (especially as in my locale DD-X is currently about as available as rocking-horse pee!).

Thanks again,

Frank

 

[TPPhotog]

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

 

[scootermm]

TPP
nice job. Thanks for posting the scans really informative.
Im gonna try some HP5 I have sitting collecting dust in rodinal v. PMK Pyro.

hugely noticeable difference in you scans.

 

[FrankB]

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

Tony,

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?

No pressure...!

Seriously though, many thanks. I really appreciate all the time and trouble.

All the best,

Frank

 

[titrisol]

Go with the tried and trusted for important pics!!!!
You have to try Rodinal in D100 first, shoot 1 or 2 rolls of not-so-important pics to get a feel of it.

PS. Check in (there was a url link here which no longer exists) for some pics taken with HP5+ and Rodinal 1+50. Shot in a bright day.

 

[titrisol]

One of the thigns we haven;t touched here is pushing films with DD-X wth Rondial.

I think DDX has the upper hand. am I wrong?

 

[Ian Grant]

Well

I did all my first Zone System tests with Ilfotec HD and Tmax 100 both then newly released.

But I switched to Rodinal and Tmax 100, and when i found I could get it AP100 & then APX100. Quality across the formats was indistinguishable between Agfa & Koda,k but the Agfa APX100 was a whole stop faster than Kodak TMX.

While once I prefered Rodinal - for reasons of economy I switched to X-tol and get comparable results. Rodinal is one-shot not so economic tor 5"x4". I use Xtol on a replenishment basis and its superb.

 

[david b]

i've been using xtol with APX100 and 400TX but lately I have been using rodinal 1+50 with APX 100 and I love the results.

I've found xtol to be very good with just about everything especially tmax films.

 

[TPPhotog]

... 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?

No pressure...!Frank

Frank,
I think I would point the camera out of the window and shoot off a roll of Delta 100 then develop it in Rodinal 1+50 first. Then you would see the results and decide if you want to change how long you leave it in the soup for a real film ::rolleyes:

One of the things we haven;t touched here is pushing films with DD-X with Rodinal.

I think DDX has the upper hand. am I wrong?

Well I push HP5+ to 1600 developed in DD-X quite often when working with models and it works very well ... but now I've discovered Rodinal Think when I have the time this will need another test LOL

 

[Dave Miller]

Given the amount of interest in Rodinal the following link to a section of Ed Buffaloe's Unblinking Eye site may stimulate further chatter
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Rodinal/rodinal.html

as well as answering, as yet, unasked questions.

 

[TPPhotog]

Dave,
Many thanks for the link I tried Rodinal 1+50 with Ilford Delta 400 this morning with some rolls I shot at a steam fair last night. I'm impressed as under the same lighting conditions (and using flash which I hate) with DD-X I would have got good enough but laking something. With the Rodinal there's a beautiful satin feel and that sharpness is there again.

Trying it with asa 400 pushed to 1600 and then Delta 3200 (with it's feisty attitude) are the next logical steps I guess LOL

 

[titrisol]

There is perverted Xtol by addign Rodinal, anyone tried perverting DDX???

 

[TPPhotog]

There is perverted Xtol by addign Rodinal, anyone tried perverting DDX???

As it happends after asking around here a few days ago or was it a couple of weeks (mmm old age) I'm planning on doing just that as soon as I have a chance to shoot off some test rolls

 

[titrisol]

OK, I was thinking in using 40ml DDX + 4ml Rodnal in 400 water (1:9+1:100)
And give EFKE 100 about 25% less time than for 1+9 (14 minutes)

Does that sound about right?
Also what is the effect of using DDX 1+9, should I double times?