Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

heart of stone · Jan 16, 2009

I've been using dd-x for a while now and like it. The only down side to it is how expensive it is. I heard you can mix it 1:9, so I gave it a try on a test roll of film. Haven't tried printing them yet but the negs don't look quite as sharp to me. Anyone have any experience with this dilution, and how did it work for you?

Matt5791 · Jan 17, 2009

I have an unopend bottle waiting for my first try of this developer - I too noticed the cost - so I'll be interested to hear any responses.

Aurelien · Jan 17, 2009

Hello

I bought one bottle to develop Delta 3200. I respected first the indications so, I diluted 1:4. But the grain obtained was too big for me. I observed the same fr delta 400. So I looked at some website, and find unblinkingeye. There, people are developping delta 400 with DDX 1:9. I tried. Clearly, this is now for me my working standard dilution. Grain is less visible, and the picture is more subtile. More sensual.

I put an attachment with a delta 400, here exposed @800 and developped in ddx 1:9. Film 135 in Zeiss Ikon and 35mm jup-12.

For more details, ask

André E.C. · Jan 17, 2009

Dilute it at 1:9 and increase your 1:4 time in 60% for a start, see if you like, need more?Increase further.
Regarding sharpness, well, accutance might be a better term, but yes it's a fact, higher the dilution, higher the accutance.
So, the previous friend stated he got more grain at 1:4 dilution than 1:9, well, I don't shoot that much 35mm nowadays, but if my memory isn't failing, wasn 't precisely the contrary? Higher dilution, more grain?

Cheers

André

Aurelien · Jan 17, 2009

I don't think so. The more you dilute, the less energic developer is. And grain is thiner. An example with rodinal: grain is enormous @ 1+25, it is very little @ 1+50 or 1+100 for the one who use stand development

André E.C. · Jan 17, 2009

Perfect, so then, you gave us heaven, I've always thought an higher dilution meant a trade off in image structure and quality.
What you're saying is, at a higher dilution, you get higher accutance and less grain?:confused:

Sounds bloody good to me then!

PS-Rodinal and DD-X aren't the same ball game.

Cheers

André

Aurelien · Jan 17, 2009

Of course, the more you dilute, the more acutance you get.

Shangheye · Jan 17, 2009

OK..this is the way I understood it (but would love to be corrected!). The "Stand" in stand development refers to the agitation type. Effectively the agitation affects the grain size, and acutance is affected by the total time in the developer. Hence for an effect of higher acutance and lower grain, you would use stand development at a higher dilution, but also at the cost of lower contrast. I have never used 1+9 for straight film (I use it for home made emulsion, where I am developing by inspection). The real issue is that there are many published times for 1+4 but not for 1+9 (especially for pushed EI's). Rgds, Kal

André E.C. · Jan 17, 2009

Aurelien said:
Of course, the more you dilute, the more acutance you get.

Well, this everybody knows, you talked about less grain at a higher dilution, hence my surprise.

I always thought when you dilute the silver solvents of the chemestry present in a developer, grain tends to increase as also accutance.

Am I wrong?

Cheers

André

Aurelien · Jan 17, 2009

It depends on the type of developer you use. Some contents solvents (perceptol, microdol, calbe a49) and others no (rodinal, ddx).
So I think the first one may not be diluted so much to have fine grain, but if you do not dilute them enough, acutance is low. You have to find a compromise.

For the second, the more you dilute, the finest grain is. But, it is less thin as the first dev, because of the absence of solvent. But in general they are used for better sensitivity.

André E.C. · Jan 17, 2009

Aurelien said:
It depends on the type of developer you use. Some contents solvents (perceptol, microdol, calbe a49) and others no (rodinal, ddx).

Diethyleneglycol is a solvent indeed and it's part of DD-X's chemical structure I think, so sorry, one of us is wrong here, as I consider DD-X to be a solvent developer.

Anyway, we aren't helping the OP with this rambling, we are way off-topic, mate!

Cheers

André

Mahler_one · Jan 17, 2009

I have used DDX at 1:9 AND 1:11( for the newer TMX emulsion ) for a long while now. I ran film tests utilizing TMX ( as noted, new and old emulsions ), TMY, HP5, and Delta 100 using the BTZS sytem, my Jobo expert tanks for 4x5 film and 8x10 film, 75F ( in Florida ). I ran tests for conventional silver printing and contact printing, and for doing contact prints for Pt. and Azo. Yes, the tests were involved, but worth it. I can tell you without personal reservations that using DDX at 1:9 produces very sharp negatives that print without any problems at all using Grade Two filters ( or equivalent ) on VC paper, and on graded paper. Indeed, except for the expected higher contrast of negatives developed in Pyro, I see little if any difference with reference to accutance in the negatives developed in DDX vs. those developed in Rollo Pyro using conventional contact prints of 8x10 negatives ( get ready to duck!! ). I believe that such large contact prints are a very good "eye-ball test" to use for the comparison of DDX with RolloPyro as far as negative and print quality are concerned. Caveat: I have not yet done contact printing with the Pyro negatives using Azo/amidol or PT. so as to be able to compare DDx developed negatives with Pyro developed negatives using those "alternate process" techniques.

In sum and substance, IMO, you can feel comfortable developing the films noted above in DDX at the dilutions you mentioned. At such dilutions DDX is a bargain, and I have felt no need to consider another film developer. Best of luck, and be sure to let us know how you make out. If you've any questions please feel free to contact me privately. I suspect that film tests might enable you to feel comfortable with your choice to use DDx. If you live in Europe, does Christopher Woodhouse ( of Way Beyond Monochrome fame ) do such film testing?

Ed

heart of stone · Jan 17, 2009

Sounds like I'll be able to keep my favorite developer and save money, too. Thanks to all for the info.

Aurelien · Jan 17, 2009

André E.C. said:
Diethyleneglycol is a solvent indeed and it's part of DD-X's chemical structure I think, so sorry, one of us is wrong here, as I consider DD-X to be a solvent developer.

Anyway, we aren't helping the OP with this rambling, we are way off-topic, mate!

Cheers

André

Clearly I don't know the composition of DD-X so maybe I'm wrong. I did not class it in the range of solvent developper, but maybe it is a mistake. Well, no matter, the important are results. As far as I am concerner, I prefer using it diluting 1+9: more economic, and image is more beautiful.

pentaxuser · Jan 17, 2009

As a satisfied user of DDX at 1+4 I was intrigued by this thread and the information that 1+9 is not only possible but better. I had a look at Unblinkingeye and noted that there is only one recommendation for DDX at 1+9 for D400 amongst many other developers. I then looked at the Massive Development Chart where there are times for both D400 and D3200 films with DDX but "things seem to be all over the place" and I cannot see any consistency.

On Unblinkingeye the time at 1+9 is 10mins 30 secs at 20C. At the same temperature the time given by Ilford for 1+4 is 8 mins. This is only a 30% increase which is certainly much less than Andre recommends for what is slightly more than a 100% dilution. If the Unblinkingeye time gives good negs then a 60% increase would surely give very dense negs?

If you look at the MDC chart things become even more puzzling. It gives 9 mins 15 secs for D400 but at 24C whereas Unblinkingeye is 10 mins 30 secs at 4 degrees C cooler. One of those two has to be wrong surely?. Even worse the MDC lists on the same page a time of 13 mins for D400 at 1+9 which is almost 4 mins longer than the other time for 9 mins 15 secs and this is for D400 rated at EI 320! So that 4 mins more for the same film but rated at 320!

Turning now to D3200 film but rated at EI1600 the MDC shows an increase of 150% when going from 1+4 to 1+9 so while a 30% increase is right for D400 in going from 1+4 to 1+9 it requires a 150% increase in time when dealing with D3200 at EI 1600.

There might be a way of reconciling all of this or a formula which accounts for what appear to be contradictory times but I am left feeling very wary of any experimentation without some more knowledge. This wariness is made worse by the fact that Ilford make no mention of 1+9 for DDX. This might be to get customers to use more DDX but I doubt it as it does list other ratios for Ilfosol and LC29

I imagine that Ilford carried out extensive research into DDX before its release and I would have thought that it probably experimented with higher dilutions to see the effect or maybe not.

Maybe some others can offer an explanation that covers the points above and certainly it would be helpful if those using DDX at 1+9 could state the times, temperature and agitation pattern so others might try with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Making DDX go over twice as far while at least maintaining neg quality or even improving it, is certainly a worthwhile objective and some have achieved this but I cannot get rid of a slight feeling of unease after discovering what appears to be contradictory information.

pentaxuser

Aurelien · Jan 17, 2009

pentaxuser said:
As a satisfied user of DDX at 1+4 I was intrigued by this thread and the information that 1+9 is not only possible but better. I had a look at Unblinkingeye and noted that there is only one recommendation for DDX at 1+9 for D400 amongst many other developers. I then looked at the Massive Development Chart where there are times for both D400 and D3200 films with DDX but "things seem to be all over the place" and I cannot see any consistency.

On Unblinkingeye the time at 1+9 is 10mins 30 secs at 20C. At the same temperature the time given by Ilford for 1+4 is 8 mins. This is only a 30% increase which is certainly much less than Andre recommends for what is slightly more than a 100% dilution. If the Unblinkingeye time gives good negs then a 60% increase would surely give very dense negs?

If you look at the MDC chart things become even more puzzling. It gives 9 mins 15 secs for D400 but at 24C whereas Unblinkingeye is 10 mins 30 secs at 4 degrees C cooler. One of those two has to be wrong surely?. Even worse the MDC lists on the same page a time of 13 mins for D400 at 1+9 which is almost 4 mins longer than the other time for 9 mins 15 secs and this is for D400 rated at EI 320! So that 4 mins more for the same film but rated at 320!

Turning now to D3200 film but rated at EI1600 the MDC shows an increase of 150% when going from 1+4 to 1+9 so while a 30% increase is right for D400 in going from 1+4 to 1+9 it requires a 150% increase in time when dealing with D3200 at EI 1600.

There might be a way of reconciling all of this or a formula which accounts for what appear to be contradictory times but I am left feeling very wary of any experimentation without some more knowledge. This wariness is made worse by the fact that Ilford make no mention of 1+9 for DDX. This might be to get customers to use more DDX but I doubt it as it does list other ratios for Ilfosol and LC29

I imagine that Ilford carried out extensive research into DDX before its release and I would have thought that it probably experimented with higher dilutions to see the effect or maybe not.

Maybe some others can offer an explanation that covers the points above and certainly it would be helpful if those using DDX at 1+9 could state the times, temperature and agitation pattern so others might try with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Making DDX go over twice as far while at least maintaining neg quality or even improving it, is certainly a worthwhile objective and some have achieved this but I cannot get rid of a slight feeling of unease after discovering what appears to be contradictory information.

pentaxuser

You have to make tests. That was what I made. You also have to trust the people that gives the dev times. On the MDC you don't know them, they are anonymous. On unblinkingeye, you have the mailing adress, examples, etc. And when people like Ed Buffalo gives his dev time, you can trust him.
Analog photography is a world of experiments

pentaxuser · Jan 17, 2009

Thanks and I do understand your point about doing tests but could you give your times, temperature etc for your films with DDX at 1+9? You are right about the MDC. It is anonymous which is why this site with actual users of a certain film is a much better source of information. I have great faith in Ed Buffalo but as far as I could see he didn't have times for DDX and D400 film. It was someone else who is of course named and presumably will have been checked out. Pity there wasn't an article on why DDX at 1+9 is a success.

pentaxuser

Mahler_one · Jan 17, 2009

I agree that one must make some tests. One would much rather go into the field and take photos. However, there is no substitute for knowing a bit of how one's materials behave when developed in YOUR OWN darkroom using your own conditions. The MDC is helpful, but how can one possible know how the time was obtained. Obtaining film curves is not difficult. One can simply obtain film of one's chosing that has been exposed on an appropriate exposure wedge. Develop the film and either read the densities, or better yet, send the developed film back to a person who does such services, and obtain the film curves by return mail. In the USA, there are several such individuals. Fred Newman at the View Camera Store, and I believe, Mr. Ritter in Vermont. I don't recall the exact price, but for about fifty bucks or so one can obtain film curves for the developer one uses, the dilution one uses, the temperature one uses, etc., etc. The film curves need never be done again, and one has an exact idea about what to expect with a given developer. Alternately one can follow instructions for gaining such information using standard exposures and various developing parameters ( see Minor White's learned book ). My suggestion: Obtain the exposed film, develop at various times, send the film back, and get the curves. Much quicker, no waste of material, no need to buy a densitometer, etc., etc. Just one person's opinion.

Ed

heart of stone · Jan 17, 2009

In response to pentaxuser, I've had some of the same concerns about the 1:9dilution. I have seen vastly different times posted and some of them were not all that different than those listed for 1:4. What made me think that it is worth while to pursue is the fact that although Ilford doesn't address 1:9 it does cover reuse of the developer. My thought was if you can adjust for exhaustion then, I would think, you should be able to adjust for higher dilution. After a test roll of rather questionable results I thought I would toss it out here and see if others have been able to make it work. Since there are those that have, I'm more than eager to find a way to make it work for me.

Ken

Chazzy · Jan 18, 2009

I think what needs to happen is for Ilford to publish some recommended times at the 1+9 dilution for its various films. Simon, are you reading this?

Actually, I think it would help Ilford sell more DDX, not less, because people would be less put off by the price.

Mahler_one · Jan 18, 2009

I agree chazzy that for those who are not inclined to do film tests that some basic data for people to build upon would be very useful. Given such information individuals could easily modify the parameters to fit their own preferences. I do have some basic information for roll film based upon the SBR, the use of the Jobo processor, and DDX at 1:9. Let me see if I can dig the data out and then post the information here. I almost always now us sheet film, so I have not used the roll film information within the past year. I will indicate the exact way the tests were done so that those interested can use the information as they see fit.

Ed

Mahler_one · Jan 18, 2009

By the way, before looking for the film curves, for those interested, allow me to set down Phil Davis's method of determinging the SBR. Mr. Davis surely doesn't receive the credit due him for his explication of the "BTZS" system which built upon the zone system.

At any rate, from Beyond the Zone System:

Take the bright light reading
Take the shadow reading
Subtract the low reading from the high reading ( in stops )
Add the difference to 5 ( the standard minimum range ) to find the total subject range ( SBR) in stops.

Mr. Davis then suggests metering the shadows after consutling your effective film speed chart which was developed by BTZS methodology. Obviously, however, one can rate the film speed whatever one wishes without doing any such film speed curves.

Then, select the exposure based upon the shadow reading ( as we wll know, expose for the shadows ). Based upon the film speed that one has entered into the meter, make an exposure. Based upon the SBR value you have determine, the correct development can be determined from your charts-or in the case of roll film the data I will supply for my darkroom. I need a few hours to find the curves.

Mahler_one · Jan 18, 2009

For those who might be interested, here are the developing times for Delta 35mm and 120 films, 75F, Jobo expert tanks rotating at "P" speed. DDX 1:9 ( that is, 1 part DDX AND 9 part of DISTILLED water ), prewash for 5 minutes in distilled water, develop, stop via two rinses for 30 seconds each in distilled water, Formulary TF 4 for 3 minutes, then wash for 20 minutes changing distilled water every 5 minutes. Then a few drops of photoflow in a tray of water to rinse, no squeegee, hung up to dry in the darkroom. These curves will produce negatives that are meant to print easily on a grade 2 paper, or VC paper at grade 2, and my lab studies are confirmed in real life situations. Note that I did not do any curves below SBR of 7, and thus you will have to do some experimentation on your own if your subjects are exposed to be "flat".

35mm:

Delta 400...SBR of 7 is 9'30" and SBR of 8 is 7'30". Delta 100....SBR of 7 is 10'10" and SBR of 8 is 8'20'

Delta 120:

400 speed...SBR of 7 is 10'30' and SBR of 8 is 7'50'. 100 speed.....SBR of 7 is 7'30" and SBR of 8 is 6'30"

I sincerely hope that some will be able to use these curves as a starting point with DDX at 1:9. Simon, if you are reading, please feel free to use the curves in anyway that will help others.

Ed

Chazzy · Jan 18, 2009

Thanks very much, Ed. Unfortunately, I don't use either of those films currently, and actually I am quite happy with XTOL. But I have heard that DDX is a good match with HP5+ (which I use a lot) and Delta 3200 (which I have wanted to try), and that piques my curiosity. If I am going to try Delta 3200 in 120, it might as well be in a developer which is an excellent match for it. I hope that Ilford will do their own testing and publish times for a wide variety of emulsions at this dilution. As I said in my last post, I think they would sell more DDX if a more economical dilution were supported.

Aurelien · Jan 18, 2009

For HP5+, I used DDX 1+9 @ 24°C for 12 minutes.
Good results.

And delta 400, the time given by unblinkingeye is perfect for my use.

Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

heart of stone

Matt5791

Aurelien

Advertiser

Attachments

André E.C.

Aurelien

Advertiser

André E.C.

Aurelien

Advertiser

Shangheye

André E.C.

Aurelien

Advertiser

André E.C.

Mahler_one

heart of stone

Aurelien

Advertiser

pentaxuser

Aurelien

Advertiser

pentaxuser

Mahler_one

heart of stone

Chazzy

Mahler_one

Mahler_one

Mahler_one

Chazzy

Aurelien

Advertiser

Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

Advertiser

Attachments

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency