Ilfotec HC vs DD-X for Kodak P3200?

[B&Wpositive]

Going to shoot T-Max P3200 for a live performance once more time. I used to develop it in Ilfotec HC. Would DD-X be a much better choice for overall speed and image quality? I hesitate to experiment with a different developer than what I'm used to...but if the two react similarly as far as developing times, I could give DD-X a shot if it's better for this film. I need to buy some new developer anyway, I think...

 

[StoneNYC]

Well ilford specifically states that DD-X is made for T- Grain films ESPECIALLY for use with D3200 (deltas 3200 film) so I'm sure it would be a good match. I've only used Ilfsol 3 with 3200 but that came out great too, however I just picked up a bottle of DD-X, but it does state on the bottle that its only good for 3 months with a half filled open bottle so I would buy the 1 liter instead of the 5 liter that I bought, had I realized I would have not bought the larger one. Unless you shoot a lot more film than I do in 3 months.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Colin Corneau]

What Mr. Stone says, above...pretty much exactly my points.

DD-X is a great speed developer, gives terrific grain and shadow detail. It's actually a terrific developer, and I'm a Rodinal guy!

 

[markbarendt]

DD-X is great with Delta 3200 and Delta 400 and Fp4 and Hp5, my favorite developer actually.

I have felt the itch to try HC or HC110 but haven't yet so can't give you a comparison.


Stone, you can use marbles to top up the bottle or use a protective gas of some sort to extend its life considerably.

 

[StoneNYC]

DD-X is great with Delta 3200 and Delta 400 and Fp4 and Hp5, my favorite developer actually.

I have felt the itch to try HC or HC110 but haven't yet so can't give you a comparison.


Stone, you can use marbles to top up the bottle or use a protective gas of some sort to extend its life considerably.

I heard marbles were dangerous as they often crack and the leave glass shards that scratch the film?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MartinP]

Simply split your large amount of developer into smaller bottles. If you can't find specialised chemistry bottles you can try the thin-but-strong ones which are used for fizzy drinks. If you do end up with this option, make sure they are very clearly labelled and stored safely with photographic products, not food related ones.

 

[markbarendt]

I heard marbles were dangerous as they often crack and the leave glass shards that scratch the film?


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1st I've heard of that. Breaking the marbles is a possibility I guess, but dropping them into a viscous liquid from a very low altitude would appear to me be a very hard way to do that.

My experience with marbles as a kid would suggest that somewhat rougher treatment might be required.

Getting the oxygen out of the bottle is the goal.

Personally I just use a little propane, easy but flammable, the volume is really low though, starting my gas stove burners wastes more and provides IMO a bigger risk. Others use nitrogen and its inert but it is tougher to get. There are also accordion style bottles.

None of these solutions are perfect but each markedly improves the storage life.

 

[MarkL]

Dust-off is inert, isn't it?

 

[markbarendt]

Dust-off is inert, isn't it?

I don't know.

I've used it and seemed to protect the developer but when I came back to to bottles for the next session they were normally sucking themselves inward. Why I don't know, that does not seem to happen with propane.

 

[B&Wpositive]

So DD-X has a shorter concentrate shelf life than HC?

Now, what about developing times? I hate to play with something new all of a sudden and screw it up. With HC, I always have good results developing for one EI higher than the rated EI. (I guess the push EI values are not really based on middle gray tones, but something midway between white and middle gray.) For example, if I shoot the film at 3200, I'm developing using the EI 6400 time. Always 1 EI higher in development than rated speed. If I get some DD-X and just follow this rule, would I get good results? I was hoping the negs might be similar in look to those developed with Ilfotec HC, but less contrasty/blocked-up and a bit less grainy...and thus easier to scan. (I get a lot of noise/grain and have trouble getting even a hint of shadow detail when scanning P3200 developed in Ilford HC at EI 6400.)

Does DD-X with P3200 at EI values from 1600 to 12,800 sound like a safe experiment for images that I care about considering my experience with Ilfotec HC? If it's no trouble making the conversion to DD-X from HC, and the resulting images are a half a stop better, I'd consider it a successful outcome and small risk.

Finally, what is the dilution when using DD-X? For HC, it's 1+31. And what are the development times for Kodak P3200 in DD-X like?

Thanks again.

 

[pentaxuser]

My experience with DDX and D3200 is that you should use the dev times for the next speed up i.e. if you are shooting at 3200 then go for the time for 6400. I can't say that this applies to P3200 but the two films are very similar and it is worth asking the question.

Again and this is only my D3200 experience, I'd try and shoot at say 1600 if the light conditions allow.

pentaxuser

 

[StoneNYC]

This is what I get for massive dev chart says at 6400, 3200, 1600, and 800... All ok DD-X

I've found the times fairly accurate for development

If that gives any indication?



~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[StoneNYC]

Also for comparison the HC times with P3200

~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

My experience with DDX and D3200 is that you should use the dev times for the next speed up i.e. if you are shooting at 3200 then go for the time for 6400. I can't say that this applies to P3200 but the two films are very similar and it is worth asking the question.

Again and this is only my D3200 experience, I'd try and shoot at say 1600 if the light conditions allow.

pentaxuser

Exactly my experience too, using in my case T-Max developer for both (which works great for both these films.)

I think "develop for one EI higher" is safe advice for both. I think the development times were probably kept to the shortest that would work in most situations, aiming more for keeping graininess and contrast gain down than for best mid tone densities. Well TMZ is fine grained enough to make really good 5x7s and "old school gritty but nice) 8x10s from 35mm, and I've been shooting D3200 in 120 where grain, while visible, is just really not enough to worry about. Contrast is reasonable in both when shot at 3200 and developed for 6400, though I end up printing TMZ about one half to one and a half grades softer than my other negatives, on grade 2 or even 1.5 rather than 2.5-3.0. That's fine with me. I've never gone below 1.5 and multigrade papers still work fine at that contrast.

 

[markbarendt]

So DD-X has a shorter concentrate shelf life than HC?

Now, what about developing times? I hate to play with something new all of a sudden and screw it up. With HC, I always have good results developing for one EI higher than the rated EI. (I guess the push EI values are not really based on middle gray tones, but something midway between white and middle gray.) For example, if I shoot the film at 3200, I'm developing using the EI 6400 time. Always 1 EI higher in development than rated speed. If I get some DD-X and just follow this rule, would I get good results? I was hoping the negs might be similar in look to those developed with Ilfotec HC, but less contrasty/blocked-up and a bit less grainy...and thus easier to scan. (I get a lot of noise/grain and have trouble getting even a hint of shadow detail when scanning P3200 developed in Ilford HC at EI 6400.)

Does DD-X with P3200 at EI values from 1600 to 12,800 sound like a safe experiment for images that I care about considering my experience with Ilfotec HC? If it's no trouble making the conversion to DD-X from HC, and the resulting images are a half a stop better, I'd consider it a successful outcome and small risk.

Finally, what is the dilution when using DD-X? For HC, it's 1+31. And what are the development times for Kodak P3200 in DD-X like?

Thanks again.

Yes DD-X has a shorter shelf life.

Dilution for DD-X is 1+4

I'd say DD-X is a very safe experiment.

I generally use Ilford's numbers to start with. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427124733149.pdf

 

[StoneNYC]

Yes DD-X has a shorter shelf life.

Dilution for DD-X is 1+4

I'd say DD-X is a very safe experiment.

I generally use Ilford's numbers to start with. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/2011427124733149.pdf

Do you have an updated sheet with the Ilfsol 3 times? Looks the same as the dev chart I listed but curious if it is.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201142795941192.pdf

 

[B&Wpositive]

Is the image quality gain with DD-X over HC noticeable at EI values above 1600?

 

[StoneNYC]

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/201142795941192.pdf

Thanks!


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[John Shriver]

Kodak HC-110 and Ilford Ilfotech HC are mixed in ethylene glycol (if I remember correctly), no water, so that they are rather impermeable to oxygen. This leaves the syrup with enormous shelf life.

However, I've been very happy with the shelf-life of open bottles of Ilford Ilfotec DD-X. Have almost always gotten a year with no problem in by cool basement. I did have a crystallization event in one bottle that had about 20% left in a cold winter, had to ditch that. But I've never had it fail, and never felt that old DD-X was giving me under-developed negatives. I like everything about DD-X except the price. (You won't catch me mixing 36 ounces of it to feed my 4x5 Nikor tank.)

 

[Vincent Peri]

I have a question. Is IlfoTec DD the same as DD-X?

The reason I ask is because I wrote the Darkroom photo lab and they said they develop the B&W film in IlfoTec DD, leaving off the X.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I have a question. Is IlfoTec DD the same as DD-X?

The reason I ask is because I wrote the Darkroom photo lab and they said they develop the B&W film in IlfoTec DD, leaving off the X.

Yes, I think so, more or less the same. The 'DD' developer is packed in a 5 litre container designed for higher volume lab use.

 

[foc]

I have a question. Is IlfoTec DD the same as DD-X?

The reason I ask is because I wrote the Darkroom photo lab and they said they develop the B&W film in IlfoTec DD, leaving off the X.

Ilfotec DD is a commercial developer designed for large tank developing machines (dip & dunk, continuous/leadercard ) used in a professional lab.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/574/product/544/

DD-X is designed for home use.

Are they the same? I don't know enough about them to guess.

Any developer by Ilford is good, it's just your own personal preference.

 

[Vincent Peri]

Thanks for the replies. I had almost figured it out by myself .