Popularity of Ilford DDX?

RattyMouse · Feb 19, 2014

Reading this forum for some time, I rarely see anyone who has settled on Ilford's DD-X developer as their "go to" developer across the board? Is my observation correct or have I missed some key posts? I ask because I want to start shooting some high ISO film and this developer is known for doing well for films shot in this manner. I normally use D-76 and I'm thinking that using only one developer would be better for me, as the chemicals would age far less if only one stock solution was being used. Is DD-X a good normal developer for films at all ISO levels? Let me hear your thoughts!

Thanks,

hacked - sepiareverb · Feb 19, 2014

My favorite developer for PanF+ and FP4+. No, not the cheapest route to the negative, but worth every penny with PanF+ in full sun. Stunning tonality.

RattyMouse · Feb 19, 2014

D'oh!! I forgot about price. I can understand a bit more why I hear less about DD-X. Maybe it would be better for me to have a 1 liter stock of Perceptol when I want to shoot very high speed film. That might make more sense....and cents.

rubyfalls · Feb 19, 2014

DDX is my default developer. I will occasionally use Perceptol, but 90% of the time I use DDX. Yes, it is expensive, but I am set in my ways. Ha ha. FWIW, I shoot probably 10-15 rolls of 120 per month and maybe a couple of 35mm. Tri-X and various ilford films.

Nuff · Feb 19, 2014

I use DDX for Delta 3200. I don't use much of it, simply because of the price. But it does give good reliable results.

rubyfalls · Feb 19, 2014

I shoot D3200 at 1600 and develop in DDX. Thanks to all the smarties and good advice of APUG.

Hatchetman · Feb 19, 2014

I use it for PanF+ with great results. Otherwise haven't tried it. Kind of pricey.

nworth · Feb 19, 2014

As with most popular products, the popularity of DD-X is a combination of quality and availability.

StoneNYC · Feb 19, 2014

If it weren't for the price I would have used it exclusively, but in the past I always used Rodinal for normal films (even HP5+) and reserved DD-X use for pushing films HP5+ and D3200.

But lately I've been thinking of switching to it exclusively. It's a beautiful developer, I wish it came a little more concentrated (at the same price). And I will most likely switch to it for all my processing since I'm going rotary and find it much better for rotary than Rodinal.

Trask · Feb 19, 2014

I bought a bottle several years ago from either Freestyle or B&H, and the DDX failed in about three weeks. The cost of DDX wouldn't dissuade me if I thought it offered value, but to pay that much for stuff I have to toss after three weeks, no thanks. I'll not be trying it again.

winger · Feb 19, 2014

I use it as my default. I loved Ilfosol S, but did not like Ilfosol 3 (shorter times led to uneven development for me) and I don't want to mess with powders. I can't say I've done exhaustive testing at this point because I just don't get the chance to shoot and develop close enough together to know what's even on a roll by the time I process it. I just developed a roll of 120 Acros with it and it looks good quickly. The Delta 100 4x5 sheets look fine, too, as far as developing (focus issues aren't caused by the developer ). And this is a bottle that's about half full and was opened in November - worked fine. I don't worry about the cost because it's still cheaper than sending it out and I don't shoot that much these days.

Vilk · Feb 19, 2014

used it exclusively for years. stocked up on D-76/ID-11 lately--lots of travel and liquid things make x-ray eyes uneasy these days... white powder not so much but for local work, DD-X only, 'mazing stuff

RattyMouse · Feb 19, 2014

Trask said:
I bought a bottle several years ago from either Freestyle or B&H, and the DDX failed in about three weeks. The cost of DDX wouldn't dissuade me if I thought it offered value, but to pay that much for stuff I have to toss after three weeks, no thanks. I'll not be trying it again.

Failed in 3 weeks??? That is FAST! I could never use up 5 liters in 3 weeks.

StoneNYC · Feb 19, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Failed in 3 weeks??? That is FAST! I could never use up 5 liters in 3 weeks.

5L?? It comes in 1L bottles.

It's best to move it to a glass bottle, the plastic bottles with safety cap don't re-seal well with the paper stopper at the top and let's air in, however I've kept DD-X for 3-4 months easy in a glass bottle, no marbles used.

chriscrawfordphoto · Feb 19, 2014

I don't use DDX because the local camera store has never sold it, and they do sell Kodak Tmax Developer, which is a similar developer. Tmax is a magnificent pushing developer, and the best developer I have used for Delta 3200. It gives good results on normally exposed and developed slower films, but is not the best for them in most cases. I think that is probably true of DDX and is a large part of why it is no so popular

sly · Feb 19, 2014

I use it for Delta 3200@1600. I've never had the stock go off in the bottles it came in, though I might go months between batches of Delta 3200. I'm sure there have been occasions when there has been a year or so between opening a bottle and finishing it.

As 99% of my photo supplies are shipped to me, I order powders. Shipping liquids is just too expensive. (Rodinal is an exception, as it is so concentrated, and a bottle goes a long way.) I bought a couple of cases of DDX about 10 years ago when the local college stopped teaching darkroom work and it was on sale. (Got a whole bunch of 16x20 MGWT at the same time.) I'm not sure what I'll do when I finish the second case - I'm half way through it now.

Andrew K · Feb 19, 2014

DDX is my standard developer for all films. I find it easy to use, and the stock solution lasts forever - well at least a year opened. I just processed some Fuji Across using stock developer that was very dark, and the results were perfect

pentaxuser · Feb 20, 2014

When a company's product quality needs defending then it should be defended and in this case I'd like to join the ranks of others who are astounded that DDX only lasted 3 weeks. Unless I and the others who use or have used this stuff were extremely lucky( unlikely) then I'd contend that there was something wrong with that particular container of DDX and not with DDX per se.

It is a very good developer but unfortunately expensive in comparison with Xtol which I have switched to simply on cost grounds.

I wonder what is in DDX that makes it expensive compared to other developers?

pentaxuser

Tom Kershaw · Feb 20, 2014

pentaxuser said:
It is a very good developer but unfortunately expensive in comparison with Xtol which I have switched to simply on cost grounds.

I wonder what is in DDX that makes it expensive compared to other developers?

pentaxuser

Tetenal Ultrafin T-Plus is even more expensive: http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/tetenal-ultrafin-t-plus-500ml-3526-p.asp ,
whereas Kodak T-Max developer is slightly cheaper than DD-X: http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/kodak-t-max-developer-1l-369-p.asp
Interesting to note that ILFORD doesn't advise against using DD-X with sheet film unlike Kodak with the plain T-Max developer.

Tom

JW PHOTO · Feb 20, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
Ilford DD-X, Kodak T-Max dev., Tetenal Ultrafin T-Plus are very similar to each other and are worth every penny!

I've used one bottle of DDX and thought it was darn good, but like everyone else says, a little more costly. I didn't have a shelf life problem, but I used it up in about 6 mos.. I'm now using Claytons F76+ developer and the results seem very much like DDX, but dilutions are different. I would probably be using DDX if it were sold locally, but while my local store handles Ilford developers they don't stock DDX. I can't see where anybody could complain about the results from DDX. Maybe the cost, but not the results. JW

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 20, 2014

What I like about DD-X is that it's incredibly consistent, gives a LOT of shadow detail (which boosts film speed), is very easy to work with, responds beautifully to agitation changes, and isn't compensating in character, but rather gives brilliant highlights that just seem to go on forever. It also yields relatively sharp results. I find that many of the negatives I have that were developed in DD-X are very easy to print, but I can't really pinpoint why.

For a film like Delta 3200 it's a wonderful developer, but its main strength I think is that it works very well with all sorts of films, from slow speed ISO 50 films like Pan-F, through the gamut of TMX, FP4+ and Delta 100, to Tri-X and HP5+. It is a great compromise because it does very little wrong, and a few things it does really really well.

markbarendt · Feb 20, 2014

Yeah, what Thomad said.

Vilk · Feb 20, 2014

sigh... i see bad moon rising... we have to stop heaping these praises... rush on stores... dwindling supplies... price goes up... trouble on the way

markbarendt · Feb 20, 2014

Higher volume, lower price

Slixtiesix · Feb 20, 2014

The high price kept me from trying. Maybe I would have done it if it was available in smaller quantities. Could those of you who use it along with Perceptol (which is my favorite) please comment on how both do compare?

Popularity of Ilford DDX?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency