Possibly switching from HC-110 to Ilford DD-X. What differences might I see?

[logan2z]

I'm getting near the end of my bottle of original formula HC-110 (the one that pours like maple syrup) and am pondering a change to Ilford Ilfotec DD-X. I've read through several threads/articles that make some comparisons between them, but they mostly talk about longevity rather than actual visible differences in the negatives. I have seen some vague references to 'big differences' in the the look of the negatives developed with DD-X' but no real specifics.

Has anyone done a comparison between these two developers and could share the differences they've observed in the negatives? FYI, I'll be using it to develop HP5+.

 

[George Collier]

"Try it, Try it, Try it..."

Fred Picker, Zone VI Studios and workshop.

If I was in your position, I would take a roll, cut it in half after shooting, and do one half in DD-X, and the other in another possible replacement (maybe a good time to try Rodinal.)

 

[madNbad]

Ilfotec HC is closer to a direct replacement for HC-110. It's expensive but has good shelf life.

 

[logan2z]

Ilfotec HC is closer to a direct replacement for HC-110. It's expensive but has good shelf life.

I spoke to Ilford about HC and they encouraged me to go with DD-X instead They claimed better sharpness/shadow detail and, of course, easier handling since DD-X can be poured/measured more easily. I was just curious if those claims of better image quality were borne out in practice.

I have an unopened bottle of L110 that I was going to use but thought I'd do some research on DD-X before starting with it. If I stick with an HC-110 like developer I'll probably try L110 before Ilford's clone since I already have it.

 

[madNbad]

I just got a small (8 oz) bottle of the Film Photography Project HC-110. I was ordering a few more of their one liter packages of FPP-76 when I saw they had it in the smaller size, I thought it would be usefull to have on hand. Of course I could have bought a full liter of L-110 for a few dollars more. Member dourbalistar has been using Legacy Pro L-110 and has a posted a lot of images developed with it.

 

[Steven Lee]

DD-X gives higher speed and straightened curve. HP5+ looks incredibly bland in it. Flat midtones which is particularly noticeable when photographing people, their faces look like flat grey ovals. It works better with Deltas, TMY and Tri-X. I was actually mad at Ilford for recommending DD-X. I see it as a specialized tool for pushing, not a good general purpose developer. Ilfotec HC is more "cinematic" for HP5+ and FP4+.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've use both, currently I use HC 110 and Rodinal, when I used DDX and Tamx developer I was shooting mostly Tmax 400 and 100, it is a great combo for Tgain films, but bit too much grain for my daily shoot around film Foma 400. I like HC 110 with Foma as I can shoot at a lower or higher dilution depending on the amount of grain I want. HC 110 and ILford HC are expensive to buy to but when used at higher dilution ratios the price per roll is less than DDX with is best at 1:4, I tired it at 1:9 did not like the tones. If you shoot Tmax or Delta I would give DDX a go.

 

[logan2z]

I've use both, currently I use HC 110 and Rodinal, when I used DDX and Tamx developer I was shooting mostly Tmax 400 and 100, it is a great combo for Tgain films, but bit too much grain for my daily shoot around film Foma 400. I like HC 110 with Foma as I can shoot at a lower or higher dilution depending on the amount of grain I want. HC 110 and ILford HC are expensive to buy to but when used at higher dilution ratios the price per roll is less than DDX with is best at 1:4, I tired it at 1:9 did not like the tones. If you shoot Tmax or Delta I would give DDX a go.

I only use HC-110 for HP5+, I've been using Rodinal (1:50) with FP4+. Those are currently the only film stocks I shoot. I use Dilution H (1:63) with 110 so it's pretty economical per roll - much more so than DD-X would be at 1:4. I was willing to switch for the easier handling and the promise of better image quality, but maybe I'm better off just sticking with some variant of 110 (HC or L110).

 

[Elmarc]

DD-X gives higher speed and straightened curve. HP5+ looks incredibly bland in it. Flat midtones which is particularly noticeable when photographing people, their faces look like flat grey ovals. It works better with Deltas, TMY and Tri-X. I was actually mad at Ilford for recommending DD-X. I see it as a specialized tool for pushing, not a good general purpose developer. Ilfotec HC is more "cinematic" for HP5+ and FP4+.

I have also been disappointed with the DDX/Hp5 combination for the same reasons.
I switched to Hp5 from Tri-X (due to the price increase) and could never achieve satisfactory results even after much experimentation.
No such problems with Fp4 though.
I have no experience with HC110.

 

[Todd Niccole]

I hate DD-X. It makes everything grainier. Clayton F76 Plus is really good. It produced noticeably finer grain with HP5.

 

[Paul Howell]

Recently I had been using Clayton F76+, I bought the house branded version from Freestyle, reason I moved to HC 110 was that I'm not shooting enough film to finish a bottle of F76+ before it goes bad. Clayton tames the gain of Foma 400, results are pretty close to D76 1:1, shadow details are fair, and close to box speed, Foma 400 at 320.

 

[ymc226]

DD-X gives higher speed and straightened curve. HP5+ looks incredibly bland in it. Flat midtones which is particularly noticeable when photographing people, their faces look like flat grey ovals. It works better with Deltas, TMY and Tri-X. I was actually mad at Ilford for recommending DD-X. I see it as a specialized tool for pushing, not a good general purpose developer. Ilfotec HC is more "cinematic" for HP5+ and FP4+.

Does a flat negative work towards an easier starting point if scanning and post processing digitally?

 

[Steven Lee]

@ymc226 Not really. From the histogram perspective you get an image which looks like a column: very little on the left (toe), very little on the right (shoulder) and a bunch of similar looking mid-grey values. When you begin bending them into an S-shape to spread them trying to fill up the 8-bits of a good-looking JPG, you end up meaningfully increasing grain which isn't fine to begin with. Essentially you're digitally pushing. That is why I believe that DD-X, just like Microphen, is not meant to be used in normal development and Ilford is giving everyone a terrible advice in their datasheets recommending DD-X as "best overall image quality". DD-X is good for pushing and nothing else.

Ilford's best developer in Ilfosol 3. Full film speed and gorgeous looking tight grain. Gives every image a premium feel due to texture. ID-11, being a variation of D76, never looks bad with any film. And finally, for that cinematic moody look they have the HC which I love for street/casual 35mm photography and also for rotary processing because in addition to development time you also can play with dilutions to bend the curve into a shape you want. DD-X is at the very bottom of my list. Even for pushing I prefer Microphen simply because 1L powder packs are more convenient.

 

[ymc226]

Thanks so much Steven. After I finish this first and final bottle of DD-X, I’ll try Ilfosol 3 for sure.

 

[250swb]

Does a flat negative work towards an easier starting point if scanning and post processing digitally?

Yesterdays terminology certainly needs qualifying if the user is scanning negatives because ideal developer and film combinations have had the goalposts moved. Yes, if using a dedicated film scanner with limited DR scanning a nice low contrast negative is best, scan it as a low contrast image and then having captured all the tones without clipping do the final normal contrast image in Photoshop/Lightroom. If using a digital camera to scan the negative it can be a normal contrast negative like most people here are talking about.

As regards the question, the biggest difference you'll see with DD-X is in your bank balance. That said I do like Ilford's Delta films and I wouldn't use anything else. For any other 'traditional' emulsion film I use HC-110 (aka Ilford HC) or a Pyro developer, or XTOL (aka Adox XT-3) and if recommending a single alternative to DD-X it would be XTOL/Adox XT-3.

 

[albireo]

Yesterdays terminology certainly needs qualifying if the user is scanning negatives because ideal developer and film combinations have had the goalposts moved. Yes, if using a dedicated film scanner with limited DR scanning a nice low contrast negative is best, scan it as a low contrast image and then having captured all the tones without clipping do the final normal contrast image in Photoshop/Lightroom. If using a digital camera to scan the negative it can be a normal contrast negative like most people here are talking about.

Good dedicated film scanners (most Nikons, Minoltas, Canons, Reflecta and even the humble Plusteks) do not have limited DR.

The only difficult material for ANY CMOS or CCD sensor (including the less adequate [for film scanning purposes] Bayer or CMOS interpolating sensors found in modern DSLRs/mirrorless cameras) is represented by poorly exposed, ultra dense slide film.

If you are having DR issues in scanning film using a dedicated film scanner, I'd suggest you review your exposure practices. You will get inferior scans from ultra dense negatives or positives no matter the equipment used.

Please stop spreading blatantly false information on film scanners as some people could think you're trying to push some sort of agenda.

 

[albireo]

Does a flat negative work towards an easier starting point if scanning and post processing digitally?

Yes for some of us. If the purpose is not only an easier, but also a technically better, starting point for serious scanning, a flat negative is essential.

It does depend on what your planned workflow is, however. Mine is a workflow which accounts for the following two needs

• I want negatives that allow me to spend the smallest amount of time possible in front of the computer post-scanning. The amount of information in the negative must allow for my wanted results to come through from a maximum of 60 seconds of minimal post-processing the raw linear 16bit/channel signal. This is because I don't enjoy working with PS and if I wanted to spend a lot of time post-processing my images to achieve the final result, I'd use a DSLR or a mirrorless camera. So if my image is not to my liking after a basic inversion, gamma correction, and black point set up, I go back to the drawing board at exposure and development stage (as I'm not able, and not interested, in attempting to recover a poorly exposed and developed negative by tinkering in post-processing).
• I want negatives that are also good enough for easy printing in a darkroom, if in the future I decided to go along that route.

So if your needs at least partially overlap with mine, here is what you want to avoid when exposing and developing your negatives:

• Avoid under-exposure. Under-exposure results in poor scans. N/S ratio shoots up the closer the negative approaches base+veil density. This leads to thermal noise taking over and it's what people sometimes describe as 'grainy shadows'.
• Avoid over-development. Improper development leads to emphasised grain in uniform areas. Extreme over-development leads to strong highlight density which shows as over-emphasised scanned grain and worse, unrecoverable clipping

Now - if on the other hand you're going to edit your digital file within an inch of its life, adding eg sepia dominants, corny (imho) digital vignetting, AI noise reduction and other PS bells & whistles (and that's fair enough, if post processing is what tickles your fancy) then of course disregard all of the above and feel free to bake all the contrast you want in your negative already.

 

[mrosenlof]

The difference will be subtle. I'll admit I haven't used DDX, but HC110, xtol, D76, even Rodinal, the differences are subtle. Ya, there are differences, but not dramatic.

 

[Steven Lee]

I disagree strongly with the idea that scanning somehow requires a negative that's developed differently and is somehow flatter. Scanning is exactly the same process as printing: a light passes through a negative and hits another medium: a paper or a sensor. Variable contrast papers make the analogy even closer because sensors also sort of offer variable contrast via digital processing.

Underdeveloped and low contrast negatives are a pain to scan, because they require more aggressive application of an S-curve which amplifies grain appearance making it look unnatural. A correctly exposed and developed negative is what you want for scanning and printing.

 

[albireo]

I disagree strongly with the idea that scanning somehow requires a negative that's developed differently and is somehow flatter. Scanning is exactly the same process as printing

Scanning is not at all like printing, as the pair paper+enlarger lens (+lens flare) is a strongly non linear transformation of the signal in the negative (non linear expansion of zones II,III and IV and VII, VIII, IX) whereas a CCD response is completely linear down to thermal noise (of course, provided the operator does not rely on automatic editing of the scanner signal).

Decisions must be taken an exposure and development stage to accommodate for this fundamental difference if optimal results are sought.

 

[250swb]

Good dedicated film scanners (most Nikons, Minoltas, Canons, Reflecta and even the humble Plusteks) do not have limited DR.

The only difficult material for ANY CMOS or CCD sensor (including the less adequate [for film scanning purposes] Bayer or CMOS interpolating sensors found in modern DSLRs/mirrorless cameras) is represented by poorly exposed, ultra dense slide film.

If you are having DR issues in scanning film using a dedicated film scanner, I'd suggest you review your exposure practices. You will get inferior scans from ultra dense negatives or positives no matter the equipment used.

Please stop spreading blatantly false information on film scanners as some people could think you're trying to push some sort of agenda.

Asserting that a dedicated film scanner has a higher DR than a modern up to date full frame digital camera is naïve, I think you should shut your mouth and leave facts to people who have used both. I mean, why do scanner manufacturers say what the DR is if it is 'unlimited'? Good grief, what is it about Sunday's?

 

[albireo]

Asserting that a dedicated film scanner has a higher DR than a modern up to date full frame digital camera is naïve, I think you should shut your mouth and leave facts to people who have used both. I mean, why do scanner manufacturers say what the DR is if it is 'unlimited'?

What I meant by that 'limited DR' bit is that a dedicated film scanner's effective DR will not be the weak chain in your workflow, unless you're exposing or developing so poorly that your negatives can be used to look at sun flares.

I never asserted that film scanners have higher DR than digital cameras.

Learn to expose and develop your negatives correctly, and read your film scanner manual, and any perceived or imaginary DR difference (which will need to be tested and proved before asserting it) between dedicated film scanner sensors and mirrorless camera sensor will no have influence on your results whatsoever.

 

[albireo]

Scanning is not at all like printing, as the pair paper+enlarger lens (+lens flare) is a strongly non linear transformation of the signal in the negative (non linear expansion of zones II,III and IV and VII, VIII, IX) whereas a CCD response is completely linear down to thermal noise (of course, provided the operator does not rely on automatic editing of the scanner signal).

Following on from the above - From 'Way Beyond Monochrome' (Ralph Lambrecht, Chris Woodhouse 2012 - moderators please remove if this represents a copyright violation)

The last two transformations are replaced with something radically different when scanning.

 

[warden]

I'm getting near the end of my bottle of original formula HC-110 (the one that pours like maple syrup) and am pondering a change to Ilford Ilfotec DD-X. I've read through several threads/articles that make some comparisons between them, but they mostly talk about longevity rather than actual visible differences in the negatives. I have seen some vague references to 'big differences' in the the look of the negatives developed with DD-X' but no real specifics.

Has anyone done a comparison between these two developers and could share the differences they've observed in the negatives? FYI, I'll be using it to develop HP5+.

I’d say give DDX a try, especially if you push HP5.

My two developers are Ilfosol 3 for the slower stuff (up to iso400 films) and DDX for pushing or faster films. They are both very good developers.

 

[Steven Lee]

Scanning is not at all like printing, as the pair paper+enlarger lens (+lens flare) is a strongly non linear transformation of the signal in the negative (non linear expansion of zones II,III and IV and VII, VIII, IX) whereas a CCD response is completely linear down to thermal noise (of course, provided the operator does not rely on automatic editing of the scanner signal).

I addressed this irrelevant caveat in my original comment. So I will just repeat that scanning is the same as printing. It is trivial for a sensor and corresponding software to simulate any paper response.

Decisions must be taken an exposure and development stage to accommodate for this fundamental difference if optimal results are sought.

Wrong. There are no "fundamental" (look up the meaning of the word, BTW) differences between identical things. The same exposure and processing is required for both reproduction methods. Ok, perhaps for printing purposes you may want to be more careful simply because the printing skill required to unfuck a suboptimal exposure are rarer and harder to acquire than corresponding digital image processing skills.