• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Microphen or DDX for Ilford Delta box speed

jeztastic

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
102
Format
Medium Format
Hi,

Heard lots around here to the effect that DDX and microphen are very similar. Is it a good alternative to DDX for getting box speed with Delta 400 and 100? DDX is a little pricey for me, and I like the smaller quantities of microphen. A litre of stock at a time is about right for me.

I have found stock microphen a little too grainy and soft when it comes to hp5 at 800 ISO even on 120. It also jearly blew the highlights (or my development did at least). But I am intrigued at the thought of using it with Delta instead of DDX.

Will using it 1:1 to preserve highlights negate advantages over DDX? In which case I may as well stick to ID11.

Thanks for you input in advance...

Jez

Sent from my SM-T805 using Tapatalk
 
DDX will out keep Microphen or ID11 by a very long time so the 1 litre stock argument is total nonsense.

DDX is designed specifically for T-Grain films and will give better shadow separation (shorter toe).

DDX will give approx 1/3 stop more speed than ID11.

DDX will give sharper grain than ID11 (read fractionally bigger grain than ID11)

So use DDX for best speed and shadow separation. Use ID11 if you want a tad less grain at the expense of a little speed and shadow separation.

Alternatively try Tetenal Ultrafin and for finest grain Tetenal Ultrafin Plus both of which will last for years in opened bottles. (and cheaper than DDX)
 
Never used DDX, but I use microphen for most everything and really like it. I have always thought HP5 is kind of grainy and low contrast - Tri-X it's not. I also like Ilfosol 3 - always keep some around. Put marbles in the bottle and squeeze all the air out - lasts quite a while.
 
I'd have to agree on HP5+ vs Tri-X...I've always used DD-X more because it's worked so well with pushing (I almost always shoot 400 at 800) and as mentioned earlier, it is better suited to T-grain type film.
While I doubt it would last as long as Rodinal, say, you may want to try DD-X at 1:9 to see if it will be more economical - as for having it last longer before going bad, it really depends on how much you shoot but I've not heard of it going bad any sooner than any other developer.
 
Wow...

Anyone want to answer the question I actually asked rather than the one they thought I should have?
 
Thanks for the advice. Using it 1:9 may be worth a try, but the data sheet says six months keeping open bottles of stock, and I may not get through that. I could decant into smaller bottles I suppose.

I'm not a massive fan of Ilfosol for faster films, but thanks for advice.

Still curious if anyone has compared DDX and microphen specifically in terms of speed and grain size.
 
Just do it. Delta 400 and Microphen works quiet well. DDX is slightly sharper as it has less solvent action than microphen but other than that the results will be very close imo and not worth the extra price.

Regarding the blown ihighlights istead of changing developer you can change your agitation less agitation might give you better highlights.

As for HP5 vs Tri-X the latter might be more dramatic but the former has the longer tonal scale so for fine tones and smooth tonal transition HP5+ is the better film. Tri-X is supposed to push better but never had any problems pushing HP5+.
 
It's a few years since I used HP5 and Microphen but it was combination for shotting theatre and rock bands live forvquite a while.

Microphen and DDX will give sharper grain (and sharper looking images) compared to ID-11/D76 but at a higher EI, it's all about comprimises and what each of us will accept. It's still well worth while though.

Ian
 
jeztastic said:
Wow...

Anyone want to answer the question I actually asked rather than the one they thought I should have?
Click to expand...

Both are excellent choices.

Unless you breakout a microscope and do truly scientific testing in a fully controlled situation using test targets you'll never see the difference.
 
markbarendt said:
Both are excellent choices.

Unless you breakout a microscope and do truly scientific testing in a fully controlled situation using test targets you'll never see the difference.
Click to expand...
Lovely. Thanks for all the replies people. I'll stick with Delta 400 and microphen for a while then.
 
jeztastic said:
Wow...

Anyone want to answer the question I actually asked rather than the one they thought I should have?
Click to expand...

Yes Microphen is a good developer for any of the Deltas or Tmax films.

It keeps as well as D76 and you might get 1/3 of a stop toe speed and more grain but I've not noticed either.

I've only used it as stock and you can get 10 X 135 films out of 1litre pack. It is not a good idea to try more than 14, don't ask.

Most of the time I scratch mix ID68 which is a Microphen clone, no detectable difference.
 
PDH said:
Is there a replenisher for Microphen?
Click to expand...

Yes add fresh Microphen to maintain the same volume. If you want a replenished PQ there is a different formula that the photo processors used. I need to filter the 2.5 litre of stock I use frequently so 1:3 or 1:2 may be better option.
 
DDX and Microphen are not similar. DDX will give you finer grain. It works better at 1:9 dilution.
At box speed Microphen 1:1 will give you good results. But Microphen never give you fine grain negative.
If you want to preserve highlights, agitate every 90 or 120 seconds during development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register