Popularity of Ilford DDX?

Rolfe Tessem · Feb 22, 2014

I think this has been pretty well covered in this thread, but my experience with DDX is that it is hugely expensive compared to Xtol and gives very similar results -- namely very good highlight separation...

I can't believe that Ilford can't figure out a more economical way to package it -- in a syrup form for example.

RattyMouse · Feb 22, 2014

Rolfe Tessem said:
I can't believe that Ilford can't figure out a more economical way to package it -- in a syrup form for example.

DD-X is NOT for pancakes!!!

Rolfe Tessem · Feb 22, 2014

Very funny! But if Ilford packaged it as HC110 is packaged, it might be much more competitive...

Nuff · Feb 24, 2014

Just for kicks, I developed 2 x 120 TMY2 in DDX. I really like the results, but it cost me $8 to develop these 2 rolls. I will keep using it only for Delta 3200 from now on.

RattyMouse · Feb 24, 2014

Nuff said:
Just for kicks, I developed 2 x 120 TMY2 in DDX. I really like the results, but it cost me $8 to develop these 2 rolls. I will keep using it only for Delta 3200 from now on.

WOW! DD-X is expensive where you are. Two rolls of film processed in DD-X would cost me around $4. Half the price!

Edit: Actually, at 1:4 my cost per roll is $3 for DD-X, even cheaper.

JPR · Feb 24, 2014

In fact, DD-X has been my only developer over the last 4 years. I got great results with:

Pan F Plus
125PX
Neopan 1600

The problem I am facing is that I'm kind of in a period of transition, now that 2 of my 3 main films are gone. DD-X is so unpopular that it is difficult to find information for alternative films. I have no idea how to develop SILVERMAX 21, Retro 80s, etc. Until I find my new films, anything could happen. Right now, I'm working with ACUROL-N and I will give Rodinal a go.

I found the results with DD-X consistent and the shelf life good. But, I also transfered it to a glass bottle.

Thomas Bertilsson · Feb 24, 2014

JPR said:
In fact, DD-X has been my only developer over the last 4 years. I got great results with:

Pan F Plus
125PX
Neopan 1600

The problem I am facing is that I'm kind of in a period of transition, now that 2 of my 3 main films are gone. DD-X is so unpopular that it is difficult to find information for alternative films. I have no idea how to develop SILVERMAX 21, Retro 80s, etc. Until I find my new films, anything could happen. Right now, I'm working with ACUROL-N and I will give Rodinal a go.

I found the results with DD-X consistent and the shelf life good. But, I also transfered it to a glass bottle.

Substitute FP4+ for 125PX and enjoy results that are similar. Wicked nice film in DD-X (and any developer you care to throw at it).
Neopan 1600 is difficult to replace. My recommendation would probably be TMax 400, shot at 800. Different color reproduction, different tonality, but in DD-X it will still be awesome.

GarageBoy · Feb 24, 2014

Alessandro Serrao said:
No. T-Max is still manufactured by Kodak.
IS NOT DISCONTINUED AT ALL!

Where can I get it?

Roger Cole · Feb 24, 2014

Freestyle has it.

Edited to add link:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/5050851-Kodak-TMAX-Liquid-Film-Developer-Makes-5-Liters

MattKing · Feb 24, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Freestyle has it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And digitaltruth.com appears to have case lots of T-Max developer.

markbarendt · Feb 24, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Substitute FP4+ for 125PX and enjoy results that are similar. Wicked nice film in DD-X (and any developer you care to throw at it).
Neopan 1600 is difficult to replace. My recommendation would probably be TMax 400, shot at 800. Different color reproduction, different tonality, but in DD-X it will still be awesome.

I agree on FP4

john_s · Feb 24, 2014

Here in Australia DDX is now $48 a litre. Although we're talking AUD and not real dollars, it's rather expensive. The price of Microphen has gone up to be comparable, and they have discontinued the 2.5L package.

http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=49728

Xtol now looks like a bargain, but Kodak is going broke and Ilford isn't. Food for thought.

Nuff · Feb 24, 2014

john_s said:
Here in Australia DDX is now $48 a litre. Although we're talking AUD and not real dollars, it's rather expensive. The price of Microphen has gone up to be comparable, and they have discontinued the 2.5L package.

http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=49728

Xtol now looks like a bargain, but Kodak is going broke and Ilford isn't. Food for thought.

I guess it means buy and use more Xtol so they don't go broke? I guess it's time to buy another packet from vanbar and restart my replenished xtol. I have been neglecting it for number of months...

RattyMouse · Feb 24, 2014

john_s said:
Here in Australia DDX is now $48 a litre. Although we're talking AUD and not real dollars, it's rather expensive. The price of Microphen has gone up to be comparable, and they have discontinued the 2.5L package.

http://www.vanbar.com.au/catalogue/product.php?id=49728

Xtol now looks like a bargain, but Kodak is going broke and Ilford isn't. Food for thought.

Kodak isnt going broke. Please cut out the nonsense.

MartinP · Feb 24, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Kodak isnt going broke.

That's right. They already went broke . . .

Nuff · Feb 24, 2014

I always like the peoples atittude, spread rumours that someone goes broke. Stop buying their stuff so they really go broke. Spinmeister at work? Who knows...

I will buy whatever I like. If it finishes, it finishes. Worrying never accomplished anything. If I had that attitude I would never start shooting film again after being away for 10 years.

MartinP · Feb 25, 2014

It might not have been a noticeable event in Oz, but Kodak exited their Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in September last year, after massive re-structuring. It is completely correct to say that they have already gone bankrupt. Not to forget, of course, that the original Ilford company also went bankrupt. Their recovery struggle was a success and I think most people hope the same for Kodak-Alaris.

GarageBoy · Feb 25, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Freestyle has it.

Edited to add link:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/5050851-Kodak-TMAX-Liquid-Film-Developer-Makes-5-Liters

I wonder if thats the new bottles or the old

Rolfe Tessem · Feb 25, 2014

LegacyPro makes an Xtol clone that is functionally identical.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/74771...orbic-Acid-Powder-BW-Film-Developer-to-make-5

Simon R Galley · Feb 26, 2014

The packaging for DDX ( and numurous other ILFORD Chemicals ) is dictated by the legislation around the world, and we supply around the world, the US is different to Europe for example, on top of that you have additional shipping regulations to adhere to and we try and have as few packaging items for the same chemicals as possible, believe me it aint easy, 17 languages alone required for Europe!

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

Keith Tapscott. · Feb 27, 2014

Rolfe Tessem said:
LegacyPro makes an Xtol clone that is functionally identical.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/74771...orbic-Acid-Powder-BW-Film-Developer-to-make-5

I believe that the developer you linked to is a different formula altogether than Xtol.

The page mentions that it is free from borates and Xtol contains Kodalk. (sodium metaborate)

This developer could be one of Ryuji Suzuki's inventions.

Anon Ymous · Feb 27, 2014

Keith Tapscott. said:
I believe that the developer you linked to is a different formula altogether than Xtol.

The page mentions that it is free from borates and Xtol contains Kodalk. (sodium metaborate)

This developer could be one of Ryuji Suzuki's inventions.

Free from borates? That's what they say at the webpage, but the MSDS clearly states that it contains sodium metaborate. Go figure...

EDIT: Oh it also contains Pentenic Acid (DTPA) Pentasodium Salt, while the webpage says that it doesn't.

Rolfe Tessem · Feb 27, 2014

Keith Tapscott. said:
I believe that the developer you linked to is a different formula altogether than Xtol.

The page mentions that it is free from borates and Xtol contains Kodalk. (sodium metaborate)

This developer could be one of Ryuji Suzuki's inventions.

It is definitely a complete Xtol clone.

Rolfe Tessem · Feb 27, 2014

Simon R Galley said:
The packaging for DDX ( and numurous other ILFORD Chemicals ) is dictated by the legislation around the world, and we supply around the world, the US is different to Europe for example, on top of that you have additional shipping regulations to adhere to and we try and have as few packaging items for the same chemicals as possible, believe me it aint easy, 17 languages alone required for Europe!

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited.

Simon,

I grant you that packaging for worldwide distribution is not a simple matter.

But given that shipping weight around the world is expensive, is there any good reason why DDX couldn't be supplied in a more concentrated form? After all, this is a developer that is used in dilution anyway, so why not supply a more syrupy concentrate that could be used more in a manner such as HC110 is used? I would note that virtually nobody uses HC110 in the Kodak recommended manner, which is mixing a "stock" dilution and then diluting it further immediately prior to use. Everybody dilutes directly from the bottle at 1:31 or any number of other dilutions

It seems to me that this would benefit Ilford by shipping the actual proprietary product at lesser expense but avoiding shipping water around the world. Everybody thinks this is a terrific developer, but I think the current packaging is killing it due to expense.

Your thoughts?

Rolfe

john_s · Mar 2, 2014

Rolfe Tessem said:
Simon,

I grant you that packaging for worldwide distribution is not a simple matter.

But given that shipping weight around the world is expensive, is there any good reason why DDX couldn't be supplied in a more concentrated form? After all, this is a developer that is used in dilution anyway, so why not supply a more syrupy concentrate that could be used more in a manner such as HC110 is used? I would note that virtually nobody uses HC110 in the Kodak recommended manner, which is mixing a "stock" dilution and then diluting it further immediately prior to use. Everybody dilutes directly from the bottle at 1:31 or any number of other dilutions

It seems to me that this would benefit Ilford by shipping the actual proprietary product at lesser expense but avoiding shipping water around the world. Everybody thinks this is a terrific developer, but I think the current packaging is killing it due to expense.

Your thoughts?

Rolfe

Well, Microphen (powder) is a rather similar developer, and its price has been adjusted to be around the same as working solution DDX, at least here in Australia. The discontinuance of the larger packet was part of the problem.

Popularity of Ilford DDX?

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency