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

[albireo]

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.

I don't see anything 'addressed' by you. And what I've shown you is not a caveat, but a set of inherent non linearities that wet printers need to work around and film scanners need to think about differently (unless they're happy with scans still having considerable room for improvement).

The same exposure and processing is required for both reproduction methods

You haven't shown any concrete evidence that that is the case or made any attempt at constructive discussion around this interesting topic, so I'm going to apologise to everyone for the OT and go ahead and ignore your opinions from now on. Enjoy the analogue ride as you see fit!

 

[pentaxuser]

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

It might depend on how far you want to push I have never gone further than 2 stops so cannot speak of any experience with DDX at the level above 1600 However up to 1600 I have found Xtol as good and when I was buying it, it was cheaper. That may not be the case any longer but DDX was always a relatively expensive developer and for the benefits I could see, there were cheaper alternatives


pentaxuser

 

[250swb]

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.

Thank you, but I have no need for your advice that is offered in a condescending manner in assuming I have no experience at all and fall over my own feet when it comes to scanning film. I started with the technicalities of developing negatives with having to learn the Zone System straight out of the box on day one at college in 1975, so I think I know a little bit about how to do it. Of course there were no scanners back then, so it's particularly amusing when a 'Johnny come lately' gives out lectures on manipulating contrast.

 

[warden]

It might depend on how far you want to push I have never gone further than 2 stops so cannot speak of any experience with DDX at the level above 1600 However up to 1600 I have found Xtol as good and when I was buying it, it was cheaper. That may not be the case any longer but DDX was always a relatively expensive developer and for the benefits I could see, there were cheaper alternatives


pentaxuser

I’m guessing we’re talking about pennies of difference here per roll of film, and I’m not going to do that math. If price is the deciding factor, go with the cheapest, of course.

 

[ymc226]

@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.

I would like to maintain film speed if possible and like Ilfosol 3 given it is what Ilford states on their technical sheet. Does Ilfosol 3 also work well for T Max 100/400? I am switching from TriX to get a less grainy look.

 

[Steven Lee]

I would like to maintain film speed if possible and like Ilfosol 3 given it is what Ilford states on their technical sheet. Does Ilfosol 3 also work well for T Max 100/400? I am switching from TriX to get a less grainy look.

I do not shoot TMax films, but having seen the results of the Ilfosol+Delta combination, I am fairly certain that you'll be pleased.

 

[warden]

I would like to maintain film speed if possible and like Ilfosol 3 given it is what Ilford states on their technical sheet. Does Ilfosol 3 also work well for T Max 100/400? I am switching from TriX to get a less grainy look.

It works quite well with TMax400.

 

[Paul Howell]

I would like to maintain film speed if possible and like Ilfosol 3 given it is what Ilford states on their technical sheet. Does Ilfosol 3 also work well for T Max 100/400? I am switching from TriX to get a less grainy look.

Because of the small gain, Tmax 100 the finest grain, Tmax much finer than any of the traditional grain films, TriX, HP5, Foma 400, not to mention Delta 400, any of the developers that accent acuity ILosol 3, Rodinal, DDX, HC 110 at higher dilutions, FX, Acufine, DK 50, all work pretty well. The difference will be found in the tones. I'm not currently shooting a lot of film, I use Rodinal and HC 100 for long shelf life once the bottle is open. I would think about getting 3 or 4 developers to see which one will float your boat.

 

[ymc226]

Thank you to all who replied to my inquiry. I will also try T Max 100 in Ilfosol 3 as well. I'm not wanting to go into more than one developer as my go to as I want to keep it simple. Prior to going digital around 2009, I used HC 110 and Rodinal when they were readily available. I just want to use sources that will more likely be there in the future such as Kodak and Ilford for both chemicals and film.

 

[Paul Howell]

ILford Tech HC is a clone of HC 110, there are a couple of Rodinal clones, I have an open bottle of R09, working characteristics seems to very close the last Agfa formula. Freestyles sells a HC 110 clone, Legacy Pro L110. But, most seem to be out of stock, the Legacy Pro L110 is in stock, as is Clayton which is also sold as Freestyle house brand Artista, in small bottles. Because there are so many clones, best bet for availability, D76, ID 11, Legacy Pro, Foma, Artista, Adox, and Photo Wearhouse has a clone as well.