Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

john_s · Jan 18, 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.

.............. André

I was under the impression that the diethylene glycol was more likely a solvent of ingredients (à la Gainer) to assist in making the stock developer more concentrated, whereas when we speak of a "solvent developer" we're talking about a solvent of silver (usually sulphite). For what it's worth, here are the contents of DDX according to the Australian MSDS, which usually show more detail than those from other countries. It shows a reasonable amount of sulphite in the undiluted stock.

DDX MSDS:

NAME (CAS No)

2,2'-OXYBISETHANOL (111-46-6) 5-10 % <Diethylene Glycol>

HYDROQUINONE (123-31-9) 1-5 %

1-PHENYL-4-METHYL-4-HYDROXYMETHYL-3-PYRAZOLIDONE (13047-13-7) 0-1 % <Dimezone S>

DIETHYLENETRIAMINE PENTAACETIC ACID NA5 (67-43-6) 1-5 %

SODIUM TETRABORATE (1330-43-4) 1-5 %

BORIC ACID (10043-35-3) 1-5 %

WATER 30-60 %

POTASSIUM SULPHITE (10117-38-1) 30-60 %

pentaxuser · Jan 18, 2009

Thanks Aurelien and Ed. That's two users' times with known satisfactory results for what amounts to three films which are D100 D400 and HP5+ with the added benefit of the fact that the users can give a comparison with results from 1+4 and have concluded that in their cases 1+9 was better.

Anyone else have experience of DDX at 1+9 for these or other films?.

I think we occasionally "miss a trick" here on APUG by not always pooling our actual knowledge on such matters as film and developer times and experiences. We have potentially a massive pool of knowledge but don't always "pool" it in a convenient way.

If a litre of DDX can be made to go over twice as far with great results and only the slight drawback of longer dev times then this has to be one of the biggest benefits I have seen for some time as an APUG member.

It wouild be interesting to get Ilford's view. That too will expand our knowledge.

pentaxuser

André E.C. · Jan 18, 2009

DDX´s MSDS

Ingredient CAS # Weight
----------------------------------------------------
Diethyleneglycol ............ 111-46-6 .. 5 - 10%
Hydroquinone ................ 123-31-9 .. 1 - 5%
Phenidone-B ................. 13047-13-7 .. 0 - 1%
Boric acid .................. 10043-35-3 .. 1 - 5%
DTPA Na5 .................... 67-43-6 .. 1 - 5%
Potassium sulfite ........... 10117-38-1 .. 30 - 60%
Sodium tetraborate .......... 1330-43-4 .. 1 - 5%
Water ..................................... 30 - 60%

Thanks John, the formula is the same, therefore, it's confirmed!

Cheers

André

schlger · Jan 19, 2009

So this is kind of a liquid concentrate version of D-76 D, a buffered borax / boric acid developer, with Dimezone S replacing the metol?

Mark Antony · Jan 19, 2009

I thought DDX was a liquid Microphen? I would also like to say that I think increased dilution increases grain slightly while increasing acutance.
Most acutance developers increase grain slightly, Ilford made one called Hyfin which increased speed by 2/3 stop and rendered detail finer whilst increasing grain slightly hence why they recommend using with slower films.
I would do thorough testing before any critical work.

john_s · Jan 19, 2009

André E.C. said:
DDX´s MSDS

Ingredient CAS # Weight
----------------------------------------------------
Diethyleneglycol ............ 111-46-6 .. 5 - 10%
Hydroquinone ................ 123-31-9 .. 1 - 5%
Phenidone-B ................. 13047-13-7 .. 0 - 1%
Boric acid .................. 10043-35-3 .. 1 - 5%
DTPA Na5 .................... 67-43-6 .. 1 - 5%
Potassium sulfite ........... 10117-38-1 .. 30 - 60%
Sodium tetraborate .......... 1330-43-4 .. 1 - 5%
Water ..................................... 30 - 60%

Thanks John, the formula is the same, therefore, it's confirmed!

Cheers

André

Except for the Dimezone S in one and Phenidone B in the other.

André E.C. · Jan 19, 2009

john_s said:
Except for the Dimezone S in one and Phenidone B in the other.

So, it would be nice if Simon can say something about that, let's wait!

Cheers

André

Mahler_one · Jan 19, 2009

HI Mark: Do you think the increased grain would actually be easily visible? Sometimes I wonder if the theoretical actually translates into "something" that can be seen and differentiated. In a similar sense, would one really notice the increased accutance? The reason I ask is that, as I posted, with 8x10 and contact prints the accutance of prints with negatives developed in DDX vs. those developed in Pyro were very similar to my eyes. I did not compare prints developed in DDX at 1:4 with those developed at 1:9 vs. prints from Pyro negatives. If indeed the DDx at 1:9 does produce conventional silver prints with accutance similar to Pyro, and IF the grain with such negatives is not appreciably different, then-at least in the instance noted-Pyro might not have any appreciable advantage. Such information would have some practical importance. Once again, not saying that Pyro doesn't have a place with alternate process and contact prints, but one might begin to ask ( as many others have ) whether Pyro has a meaningful advantage in conventional silver printing over DDx developed negatives at 1:9. Recall that there was the expected increased contrast with prints produced from Pyro negatives, but such contrast could be easily matched by a small amount of magenta filtration. Simply asking the question without drawing firm conclusions yet. I know Pyro users attribute magical qualities to negatives developed in Pyro, and I DO use Pyro. However, now I am beginning to ask some questions rather then accepting the gospel. We all know that very well thought of printers have not confirmed any benefit to Pyro developed negatives in conventional silver printing. Perhaps such individuals were more right then wrong? An interesting side discussion to the DDX 1:9 issue.....

Ian Grant · Jan 19, 2009

Looking at the MSDS and comparing to ID-68 (Microphen)

_______________________DDX concentrate. . . . . . ID-68 . . . . . % if concentrated
Diethyleneglycol . . . . . . . 5 - 10%
Hydroquinone . . . . . . . . . 1 - 5% . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 g. . . . . . . . 2.5%
Phenidone-B
or Dimezone S . . . . . . . . . 0 - 1%. . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.13 Phenidone 0.75%
Boric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 - 5%.. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 g . . . . . . . 2%
DTPA Na5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 - 5%
Potassium sulphite . . . . . . 30 - 60% . Sodium Sulphite 60 g . . . . . .30%
Sodium tetraborate. . . . . . 1 - 5% . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 g . . . . . . . 3.5%
Potassium Bromide. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 g. . . . . . . . 0.5%
Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 - 60% .

However in the 50's/60's Axford & Kendal of Ilford Ilford published a number of PQ variants of ID-11 like is this one, and if you made a concentrate these are the percentages::

Axford & Kendal PQ Fine Grain Developer
_____________________________________1+4 Concentrate
Hydroquinone . . . . . . . . . 5 g . . . . . . . . 25 g . . . . . . . 2.5%
Phenidone. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 g . . . . . . . 1 g. . . . . . . . 1 %
Boric acid . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 g. . . . . . . .17.5 g . . . . . 1.75%%
Sodium Sulphite . . . . . . . .100 g. . . . . . . 500 % . . . . . . 50%
Sodium tetraborate. . . . . . 3 g . . . . . . . . 15 g. . . . . . . 1.5%
Potassium Bromide . . . . . . 1 g . . . . . . . . 5 g. . . . . . . . 0.5%
Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 litre. . . . . . . 1 litre

Potassium Sulphite is more soluble than Sodium Sulphite which would help with preventing anything crystallizing out of the concentrate, as would the Diethyleneglycol, and the DTPA Na5 is just a sequestering agent.

Other D76/ID-11 type developers such as D76b & KD28 (Konica) use a higher level of Boric acid/Borax buffer using 8g/litre of each, this would give a concentrate of 4% of each

Some of Ilford's PQ developers have been reformulated with Dimezone-S, so both MSDS's are probably correct.

So DD-X is going to be a developer which falls somewhere between ID-11 & ID-68 (Microphen) it will have some similar characteristics to both but will have been optimised for modern films, the MSDS's are too vague to know or guess the exact formulation, the ratio of Phenidone/Dimezone to Hydroquinone, the level of Sulphite and the exact buffering.

Ian

Bill Jamieson · Jan 22, 2009

I don't have anything to add, my motive in posting is to keep this thread going in the hope that Simon might give us the Ilford view on 1+9 vs 1+4 dilution, particularly with Delta 400.

Bill

Aurelien · Feb 6, 2009

Well I can't resist to show you my last picture, made on HP5+ developped in DD-X 1+9...

johnfromnorwich · Feb 18, 2009

Hi - First post and it's actually something that might help somebody.

I've only just started doing my own develpment so, having no benchmarks I used the manufacturers recommended dilutions and consulted the MDC.
Result: 120/HP5+ in DDX at 1:4 @20c for 9mins. Patterson tank, inverting 10s/min.
Outcome: Okay but a bit grainy and subjectively not quite as sharp or contrasty as I'd hoped. Also: way too expensive. I ordered some Rodinal... However, last night I tried DDX 1:9 @ 20c for 14 mins - again inverting 10/min. Presto! Much finer grain and higher acutance and more pleasing contrast (not extreme, but what I was aiming for). Hard to know what constitutes 'right' in this game but I got exactly what I was after using this combo. I'll run a couple more rolls through using these conditions, then compare with Rodinal but I do like my diluted DDX result better than the 1:4 recomendation.

BobNewYork · Feb 18, 2009

I think you'll find that with higher dilutions acutance AND grain increase. The sulfite in developers I believe, etches the edges of the grains to reduce the appearance of grain and hence reduced perceived sharpness in he image, (think fuzzy edged grains!) At higher developer dilutions the sulfite concentration is lower and hence "etches" at the grain edges less. I haven't used used DD-X but I've found this is true of Xtol and D-76. The above assumes, of course, that there is no change in agitation frequency or method.

What I have never understood is that while the effect of reduced sulfite concentration is understandable, at higher dilutions the film is exposed to this lower sulfite concentration for a longer period of time. Wouldn't it be self-canceling? It doesn't seem to be - but I wonder why!?!

johnfromnorwich · Feb 18, 2009

Bob - Not necessarily. It will depend on the reaction kinetics - specifically whether the reaction is first order with respect to the sulphite concentration or if the sulphite is still in excess at higher dilution.... I'm just happy I've got a result I like at a price I can afford

Simon E · Feb 18, 2009

I remember reading over on photo.net John Hicks had done some tests and said that adding 50% to your 1+4 times when diluting 1+8 or 1+9 was a good place to start.

Simon E · Feb 20, 2009

For anyone wanting a handy chart of dilutions, I have one (that now includes 1+8) at http://www.geocities.com/ruralwales/dilute.html

pentaxuser · Feb 20, 2009

I think we are now further forward on this thread of using DDX at 1+9. This isn't meant to start any arguments between members but for sake of clarity I feel I need to refer to both members by name. Both johnfromnorwich and aurelien may have the times right for the negs they like but there are differences in the times the temp difference table would give us compared to those used by the two members.

With HP5+ and the time for development at 20 degrees of 14mins(johnfromnorwich), the time for development at 24 degrees should be 10 mins but at this temp the other member(aurelien) uses 12 mins which is 20% more and which is appreciable. So my conclusion is that using 12 mins instead of 10 gives by comparison a more contrasty neg.

OK I should add that one film is 35mm( I think) and the other is 120( I know as it is stated) and I know that some well known and respected photographers( Les McLean for one) believe that 35mm and 120 films of the same kind do need different development times. So that might explain it.

An interesting question to ask would be: What grade do the two members print their negs at? This might help. Better than this would be two prints for comparison. We've seen aurelien's one. Can johnfromnorwich supply one?

Simon E's comment about John Hicks increase of 50% at 1+9 would seem to get us close to the time used by johnfromnorwich of 14mins which is useful. Ilford says 1+4 at 20 degrees C is 9 mins. Plus 50% is 13.5 mins so close to 14 mins

I'd like to say that it's thanks to honest posts given in the right spirit of help from both members, aurelien and johnfromnorwich that those of us who haven't tried 1+9 have something to base a trial on.

Unfortunately its the old story of internet information exchange having problems that do not arise in face to face communications. If we were all in the same camera club and meeting face to face then we'd have "solved the problem by now with face to face discussion and looking at actual prints. The best we can have here is scans but this can be very informative

pentaxuser

Michael W · Feb 21, 2009

I'm interested in this topic. I shoot Delta 3200 rated at 1600 in 120 & generally process in DD-X 1:4 at the time recommended for if the film was rated at 3200. 9.5 min at 20 deg C. A lot of people seem to do this. I'll try the next roll at 1:9, not sure yet what the time will be but I'll report back.

johnfromnorwich · Feb 24, 2009

Okay - as requested, here's an example. Of no particular artistic merit but it's a good example of the grain/contrast I'm getting (wanting) under these conditions. Shot in the flattest 'northern hemishphere winter 50% greyscale sky' light imaginable!. Scanned at 3200dpi.

Heres a link to a bigger version

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3661/3289273582_037cd126e1_o.jpg

Note that I am ruthless about temperature control so 20 means exactly 20.

= John

johnfromnorwich · Feb 24, 2009

Obviously the above is a scan of a neg not a print. No extra variables - just what some light and some developer did to the film

pentaxuser · Feb 24, 2009

Thanks John. Based on your post and pic, I intend developing my exposed HP5+ roll at 14 mins and 20 degrees C. It certainly represents quite a saving on DDX, doubling the number of films I can develop from the same 1 litre of DDX.

pentaxuser

Mahler_one · Feb 24, 2009

We the utmost respect and friendship, I believe that you simply cannot draw firm conclusions as to time and temperature of developing your negatives based upon the very helpful and well related experience of others as stated in detail here. As you have concluded, you CAN have an approximate basis with which to start your own trials of developing your film at a certain time and temperature. However, if you wish to save time and, at the same time have accurate information for time and temperature, then one might argue that doing film curves is the fastest -and possibly in the long term the cheapest-way to proceed. Please note that I am NOT saying that making film curves is the ONLY way to proceed, and I am certainly NOT being critical of those who do not make such curves and who arrive at valid conclusions by trial and error. Do what works best in your situation. As to how to make such curves -there are many texts available that can guide you. The "easiest way" is to contact someone who can help with such curves, i.e., will read the negatives you develop in your own darkroom ( negatives made by using a step wedge at a "valid exposure" by the person who is helping you ) on a densitometer, and who will then plot the densities against time of development in order to give you details as to the "correct" time of development in each lighting situation you are likely to encounter. Given such information based upon the conditions in your own darkroom (AND the enlarging paper you are likely to employ ), and using your own techniques and your own chemicals, will allow you to develop your negatives correctly most of the time. As stated, I believe that Chris Woodhouse of Way Beyond Monochrome fame does such curves, and the expense is probably within reach of many of us. Once again please do not think that I am stating that doing film curves is/are the only way to derive accurate times for developing your negatives. If empirical methods developing multiple rolls of film and printing the negatives at various times enables you to derive processing times that work for you, then you have succeeded in your quest to make negatives that will print reliably, and most of the time, on grade 2 paper.

My very best wishes for your success. Please let us know how things are going.

Tom Stanworth · Feb 25, 2009

spot on; you can't and to try is to waste your time. i generally develop longer than many people, but I have to otherwise I get flat negs that print badly on my set up.

FWIW, I use DDX at 1:6.5 because that is more economical, gives me a neat 200ml dev in a 1500ml tank and produces nice looking negs that are not too hot.

It is interesting to note that Paterson DOUBLE the time for 1+19 over their 1+9 dilution - technically I believe this is correct, but is is generalised and does not account for agitation issues. I believe with constant agitation, the increase in time required for doubling the dilution (half the dev) is far less - about +40% So using that logic, those who agitate more (say 10s/30s) vs. those who do 10s/60s will need less of an increase. Those who agitate less will need more. My times at 1:6.5 wont relate to anything useful for anyone else (you must test) but I would start with +75% on YOUR 1+9 times. That might mean +50% on ilfords if you develop for less time than they recc at 1+4. I generally dev for about the recc times (I have a very soft colour head); sometimes less, often more. Note also that Kodak gives times for agitation every 30 secs, but I agitate every minute, so one would expect my times to be longer.

My logic is simple. at 1+4 it is too expensive for me, so I use it at 1+6.5 for better economy. The results are great, it handles high contrast well and provides me with a convenient developer. If I had extreme contrast I would use 1+9 probably at about the 1+6.5 times, tho I have not gone that far yet. Never had too.

DDX is a good all rounder, but it is not too strong on acutance at any dilution IMO. Dilute Xtol (esp at 1+3) gives appreciably greater acutance, but a different look overall. Take your pick... but 120 HP5+ in DDX 1+6.5 looks particularly nice. Seems to have a lovely tonality with conservative development.

johnfromnorwich · Feb 25, 2009

In short YMMV! At this stage, just getting a reproducible effects and negatives with enough dynamic range to print from without too many headaches is a reasonable target.

It also depends what you want, artistically. I developed a roll of 35mm Tri-X last night. I'd exposed it at 800iso and was intending to push it in DDX (1:9) but completely mis-estimated the development time - i used an ipod as a stopwatch and it remembers the timings so I know this is correct: 12.5 mins @ 20C. Agitating 10sec/min. Results? Contrasty, black blacks with just enough detail and borderline blown whites. By a total fluke it really suits the subject matter (vandalised and abandoned objects) but it's not what I was expecting based on my HP5 experience. Lesson learned? Record everything, replicate, change one thing at a time, keep shooting and try not to get arrested. This is fun.

Rob Knight · Apr 2, 2022

Newbie here and firstly, apologies for resurrecting a zombie thread from 13 years ago... But to save time reading through the many-many-many threads on DD-X dilutions that have appeared in the meantime, is there a current thread where there's a more definitive set of timings for 1+9 and more particularly 1+6.5...?
And what are people's thoughts on straying from 1+4...

Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

john_s

pentaxuser

André E.C.

schlger

Mark Antony

john_s

André E.C.

Mahler_one

Ian Grant

Bill Jamieson

Aurelien

Advertiser

Attachments

johnfromnorwich

BobNewYork

johnfromnorwich

Simon E

Simon E

pentaxuser

Michael W

johnfromnorwich

johnfromnorwich

pentaxuser

Mahler_one

Tom Stanworth

johnfromnorwich

Rob Knight

Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

Advertiser

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency