Popularity of Ilford DDX?

Rafal Lukawiecki · Feb 20, 2014

I use and like DDX with Delta 100, a relatively recent combination for me. I like it, because this combination gives me a fairly long, straight-line curve, see here: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

This means—to me—a more neutral-looking negative with more ability to control the resulting contrast under the enlarger, at a price, perhaps, of some by-default mid-tone "pop" that I see with 320TXP or HP5+ in XTol, both giving a curvier curve (posted here in the past, too). XTol is the only other developer that I still use. I have not plotted those two films in DDX though, yet.

Trask · Feb 20, 2014

pentaxuser said:
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.

Yes, it's possible something was wrong with the product -- obviously so. I don't have a thing against DDX or Ilford, but when the discussion was raised about why DDX is less spoken of, I wished to relay my experience which, perhaps, paralleled the experience of others. From the comments in this thread, it seems that my experience is not that of others. But please don't read my words as an attack that must be defended against. I was simply reporting what my experience had been.

RattyMouse · Feb 20, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
They will both give you a fairly long straight line with most films, but DDX is a general purpose PQ formulation giving fine grain (similar to D-76/ID-11) with excellent film speed, while Perceptol is formulated for extra-fine grain at the expense of some film speed.

I am currently using D-76 and am thinking about trying DD-X. Are you suggesting that I wont see much difference, either at low ISO values or higher like 3200?

hacked - sepiareverb · Feb 20, 2014

Bloxygen will extend the shelf life of the concentrate, I use it with much success and have kept a partially full bottle of concentrate for months and months (waiting for the sun in Northern VT can require patience).

I find DD-X gives much cleaner looking negatives, that really do sparkle, than Perceptol does. I've not mixed up Perceptol in quite some time, I go to it for pulling HP5+ to ISO50 in extreme contrast situations, like bare lightbulbs in dim rooms.

Andrew K · Feb 20, 2014

I forgot to mention I leave the DDX as stock, and dilute it down as needed. 20ml stock to 60ml water - add 560ml water and I have the working solution.

develop Across for 6 1/2 min@ 20C

pentaxuser · Feb 20, 2014

My post, Trask, was certainly not intended to be an attack on you or your unfortunate experience but was merely to point out to the OP that in my opinion and backed by several others your experience was the exception and pointed to a fault with your bottle of DDX and was not representative of DDX per se.

So if DDX gave you what you needed then in your shoes I'd give it another go and expect not to have only a 3 week expiry time next time.

In fact if DDX gives anyone what they cannot achieve with any other developer then it is still cheap when you work out the cost per frame of 35mm or 120 film.

In my case I have since found that I can achieve what I need with Xtol even with a fast film like D3200 but I should qualify this by stating that if I were to shoot at 3200 or even higher then it may well be that DDX has the edge but I have never put this to the test.

pentaxuser

Nuff · Feb 20, 2014

Because of these thread I developed trix@800 in ddx. Normally I use xtol, but it was few months since I used my replenished xtol solution, and I think there's a possibility it might have failed. And I prefer not to find out on these important set of photos.

The resulting negs look wonderful. Results I would expect from xtol, lots of shadow detail and fine grain. But at $50 per bottle in Australia, it works out to be nearly $2.50 per 35mm roll and $4.20 per 120 roll. And xtol costs cents...

Nige · Feb 20, 2014

Nuff said:
But at $50 per bottle in Australia, it works out to be nearly $2.50 per 35mm roll and $4.20 per 120 roll. And xtol costs cents...

yep! I used a few bottles when it was only $25 or so. No complaints other than the price.

markbarendt · Feb 20, 2014

Nuff said:
Because of these thread I developed trix@800 in ddx. Normally I use xtol, but it was few months since I used my replenished xtol solution, and I think there's a possibility it might have failed. And I prefer not to find out on these important set of photos.

The resulting negs look wonderful. Results I would expect from xtol, lots of shadow detail and fine grain. But at $50 per bottle in Australia, it works out to be nearly $2.50 per 35mm roll and $4.20 per 120 roll. And xtol costs cents...

Wow that is expensive, you need to move.

That said at $22 a bottle after shipping here it's still not nearly as cheap as Xtol. Still, the results are so nice and so consistent and it is so easy to measure/use, that I don't really care.

It is only about twice as expensive as xtol and given the time frame I use it up in that difference is truly insignificant in my big picture.

Nige · Feb 20, 2014

here, DD-X works out to be 5.6 times expensive assuming using xtol 1:1 and DD-X 1:4, and that's after xtol seems to have had a recent price hike! (online price I found seems a lot dearer than what I remember paying for my last pkt of Xtol not that long ago)

Nuff · Feb 20, 2014

Well, xtol is a lot cheaper. I have just calculated it again and 1:1 for 120 film costs around 70cents, even less for 35mm. Replenished, it costs around 30cents per roll of 35mm or 120 film.

Roger Cole · Feb 20, 2014

Everyone says it's a lot like T-Max developer which I use, but no one seems to praise T-Max as much. I do end up stocking both regular T-Max and RS, because I like the regular a bit better for pushing D3200 (and my remaining stock of TMZ.) I may just go to DD-X next since they seem to be quite similar and I'd only have to stock one developer.

I just don't get to shoot enough film to be too worried about the price, within reason.

JW PHOTO · Feb 20, 2014

I only ran two rolls of 120 Acros at 1:4 and ran the rest at a higher dilution (I think 1:8, but don't have my notes) and liked the higher dilution better. Plus, it is a little cheaper that way. When I used the DDX I was also using Xtol mainly at 1:2 and I couldn't see that much difference between the two. Ilford is pretty inline as far as price with their other developers, but DDX must have something in it to have it cost that much more. I liked it very much, but I like what I'm using now just as well and it's much cheaper. JW

RattyMouse · Feb 20, 2014

Roger Cole said:
I just don't get to shoot enough film to be too worried about the price, within reason.

You really ought to fix that problem.

Roger Cole · Feb 21, 2014

RattyMouse said:
You really ought to fix that problem.

If you only knew - sigh.

JamesMorris · Feb 21, 2014

Is anyone using DD-X at higher dilutions, like 1+9? If so, how does it compare with 1+4? Ilford only mention the one dilution, and I presume there's some technical reason for that.

Roger Cole · Feb 21, 2014

That's an interesting question. Not many people seem to use T-Max at the standard 1+4. I tend to use 1+5. Many people use 1+9 though I didn't like that myself. (I settled on 1+5 only because I could use the Kodak times for 1+4 and get results I liked. 1+6 is virtually identical except will, in my experience, need some time adjustment.)

markbarendt · Feb 21, 2014

JamesMorris said:
Is anyone using DD-X at higher dilutions, like 1+9? If so, how does it compare with 1+4? Ilford only mention the one dilution, and I presume there's some technical reason for that.

I have not used high dilutions.

What I have done though is reuse it per Ilford's instructions and that has worked just fine. It is fairly economical.

Xmas · Feb 21, 2014

I use Microphen or ID68 you only need micro scale with 0.01 gm resolution if you can get the raw chemicals.

Either are low pH PQ fine grain no loss of speed...

miha · Feb 21, 2014

I have only developed 2 rolls of 120 HP5+ with it a couple of years ago. The resulting negatives printed very easily on Efke Emaks paper, the tonality was nothing short of superb but the grain was coarser in comparison to ID11.

GarageBoy · Feb 21, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Everyone says it's a lot like T-Max developer which I use, but no one seems to praise T-Max as much. I do end up stocking both regular T-Max and RS, because I like the regular a bit better for pushing D3200 (and my remaining stock of TMZ.) I may just go to DD-X next since they seem to be quite similar and I'd only have to stock one developer.

I just don't get to shoot enough film to be too worried about the price, within reason.

I think TMax regular- Non RS is gone
New RS is avail in those German made square bottles
I've been using TMAX RS with my remaining TMZ andman, though I don't have anything else to compare to, I LOVE the look (I do that dirty thing that involves a computer with my negs, though)

TMax/TMZ is THE reason I love B/W

Ronald Moravec · Feb 21, 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.

Got to know the date code which Ilford hides in the lot #. You can not count on the stuff which is great when it works. Your bottle was close to expiration date when you got it. Use a volume dealer that rotates stock . I gave it all up, and just mix D76 from scratch so I know it is fresh + it turn color if bad.

Roger Cole · Feb 21, 2014

GarageBoy said:
I think TMax regular- Non RS is gone
New RS is avail in those German made square bottles
I've been using TMAX RS with my remaining TMZ andman, though I don't have anything else to compare to, I LOVE the look (I do that dirty thing that involves a computer with my negs, though)

TMax/TMZ is THE reason I love B/W

I like the look too. TMZ us discontinued but try D3200. It's certainly different but I think I like it even better, especially since it's available in 120. Love it in my M645.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trask · Feb 21, 2014

Ronald Moravec said:
Got to know the date code which Ilford hides in the lot #.

Yes, I was thinking that it's too bad manufacturers of developers can't mimic milk distributors and clearly indicate either a production date or an expiration date (I'd prefer a production date, so I can decide whether it's expired or not). Seems like good customer service to me.

JamesMorris · Feb 22, 2014

markbarendt said:
I have not used high dilutions.

What I have done though is reuse it per Ilford's instructions and that has worked just fine. It is fairly economical.

Unfortunately, it's not economical in Australia, at nearly $50 a bottle, potentially plus shipping.

I'm thinking about filling a suitcase up next time I'm in the US.

Popularity of Ilford DDX?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency