Question for DD-X users, 1:9 ?

Hi Rob. Welcome, and thanks for reviving this thread. I completely forgot about it and enjoyed reading it again. I can't answer questions on straying because I'm quite happy with DD-X at 1 and 4. The cost isn't a big issue for me as I shoot a relatively small amount of film and struggle to use a 1 litre bottle before it starts getting questionable. I've used it successfully 1 year after the "expiration date". If I had any question to add to the thread it would be "How long does DD-X actually last?"

I guess I'm just trying to find a balance between economy and finding the point at which the developer's acutance characteristics change.
I'm going to try 1+5 and 1+6.5 and compare those to 1+4 to see if there's a discernable difference

Yes, thanks for resurrecting this thread I plan to try developing my next roll of TMAX-100 with 1:9, TMAX Developer (which is similar / clone from DD-X I believe?).
I am getting moderately grainy, not very sharp results at 1:4, 75F. I've had sharper/less grain with FP4+ in D76 1:1 frankly.
Learning and constant experimentation are the reason I've returned to film photography after a 20 year hiatus

Brad Deputy said:

Yes, thanks for resurrecting this thread I plan to try developing my next roll of TMAX-100 with 1:9, TMAX Developer (which is similar / clone from DD-X I believe?).
I am getting moderately grainy, not very sharp results at 1:4, 75F. I've had sharper/less grain with FP4+ in D76 1:1 frankly.
Learning and constant experimentation are the reason I've returned to film photography after a 20 year hiatus

Click to expand...

Well my first roll of Delta 100 in D-X at 1+4 which I'm using as my control point for later experimenting shows very little grain, good (enough) sharpness but quite high contrast when scanned on a Plustek 8100i.
Dev - pre-soak for 5 mins, Ilford method for 10.30 (gentle, rolling agitation for 60 secs inc. 1 inversion, then very gentle agitation every 60 secs, one inversion at 5 mins)... all fluids at 20C.

I have a few more rolls to play with while I'm away on the Dutch coast this week so hopefully will be able to find the sweet spot... My main aim will be to reduce that contrast just a smidge...

Just my experience/02:

I haven't seen meaningful difference of DD-X dilutions from 1+4 to 1+7, 8 or 9. I don't have a densitometer, but I do test via a metered still life with all ranges, from shadow texture to highlight texture (dark fabrics and a styrofoam block) and make test prints at #2.5 to dial in my times. I base test print exposure times on the black point time for unexposed but developed leader or 4x5 edges.

I have dialed in my times for 1+9 at 24°c, which cuts the time a bit. In a rotary sheet film tank, I can process a sheet of 4x5 with 12ml of developer concentrate - this seems to exhaust with 2 sheets, my next test is doubling the overall quantity and testing 1 sheet vs. 2. But impressive savings.

Those mentioning "higher or lower contrast with x-developer vs. y-developer, you simply have to dial in your development times vs. trusting an instruction sheet or Massive charts or others' successes. Our processes and agitation and "eye" and final output are all different, as is every film + developer combination that interests you.

My final test will be a "control neg" with fresh DD-X, so if I'm concerned about the age of a bottle, I can run a quick test and compare.

I processed many sheets of 5x7 Ilford HP5+ and didn‘t have enough DDX for all the negs so the last box or so used 1:9 instead of 1:4 so I was able to compare both dilutions. Under the light table I didn’t see any obvious difference. However I haven’t scanned any of it so can’t comment on micro contrast or other details. Personally if I had to do it again I would have ordered more developer and not cheap out and deviate with important images.