What about DD-X ? Microphen for push ?

[Alexz]

I noticed DD-X developers tends to be quite a bit on the expensive side relatively to the other general use developers available on the market, which leads to the question:
What so great about it ? What justifies the expense onie is going to pay for DD-X while teher are lots of other, well regarded and widely known developers that are hafl and third the price (or even cheaper) then DD-X ?

I'm just going to stock up on B&H chemicals (my HC-110 stock is drying up), will be placing an order soon, so wonder whether there is the point to give a try that mysterous DD-X (aside of XTOL which is also new to me)...
I mainly shoot Tri-X.

Besides, I keep hearing people recommend Microphen for pushing (I'm interested in working out my approach with Tri-X pushing to 800/1600). So far I seem to work out my way pushing Tri-X in HC-110, should I expect Microphen producing better results in this regard ?

 

[Paul Howell]

Although my standard 35mm developer is Edwal 12 I use DDX for Tmax 3200 which I rate at 1600, I consider 3200 to be push. I no longer push Tri X or HP5, Tmax or Delta 3200 provides much better grain and shadow detail. DDX and HC110 have a long shelf life so if use D76 or another developer as your standard developer and just DDX for pushing a small bottle will last a long time. Other than DDX I have also used Microdol X and Acufine with Tmax with good resluts. I think Acufine is very similar to Microphen.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

The object of a developer like Acufine or Microphen is to produce more speed and normal contrast. Conventional developers produce more contrast with extended development time, but don't necessarily improve speed very much--certainly not as much as is claimed.

I use Acufine quite a bit, and with most films, I find it produces about a one stop boost over the box speed. To keep grain down, I usually target my Acufine negs to print at about grade 3.

 

[Alexz]

Thanks.
So, both Microphen and DDX are equally suited for push ?
I'm preparing my order for quite a bunch of B&W chemicals to get ordered from overseas (in Israel B&W chemicals are quite scarce - total digitalization swallowed nearly everything), figured bottles shipment is quite expensive, while powder can be obtained in large quantities at relatively reasonable shipment charge.
So, since I'm satisfied with HC-110 (will also be trying Xtol) for my regular work (Tri-X at 400 and 200), I'm going to use others for push only, be it DDX or Microphen. However Microphen goes as powder and is considerably cheaper then DDX (both its price and shipment), I consider dropping DD-X in favor of Microphen.

So, if you only would be interested in push, would you prefer DDX or Microphen ?

 

[rusty71]

Thanks.

So, since I'm satisfied with HC-110 (will also be trying Xtol) for my regular work (Tri-X at 400 and 200), I'm going to use others for push only, be it DDX or Microphen. However Microphen goes as powder and is considerably cheaper then DDX (both its price and shipment), I consider dropping DD-X in favor of Microphen.

So, if you only would be interested in push, would you prefer DDX or Microphen ?

I've used both Microphen and DD-X a lot. DD-X is my first choice for push processing. Frankly, no other developer offers such fine grain and good shadow detail. I've used Microphen as well, and it is a close cousin to DD-X. I believe DD-X is essentially a liquid version of Microphen, which also gives good film speed but a bit more grain. I would order the Microphen powder and save on shipping. Results should be very similar.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used both Microphen and DD-X a lot. DD-X is my first choice for push processing. Frankly, no other developer offers such fine grain and good shadow detail. I've used Microphen as well, and it is a close cousin to DD-X. I believe DD-X is essentially a liquid version of Microphen, which also gives good film speed but a bit more grain. I would order the Microphen powder and save on shipping. Results should be very similar.

I was under the impression that DDX is simliar to Kodak Tx developers, in the same family as HC 110, while Microphen is related to Aucfine or DK 50. I dont think DDX has the same look as Microphen, more grain. HC 110 was developed as liguid evualivant of D 76, so if you want to ship a poweder get D 76 or ID 11.

 

[Alexz]

Paul, more grainy for push by Microphen or DDX ?
No problem with HC-110 - it is still available locally so no overseas shipment involved with one (and I prefer liquids - no hassle preparing stock solutions with powders).

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

I was under the impression that DDX is simliar to Kodak Tx developers, in the same family as HC 110, while Microphen is related to Aucfine or DK 50. I dont think DDX has the same look as Microphen, more grain. HC 110 was developed as liguid evualivant of D 76, so if you want to ship a poweder get D 76 or ID 11.

Microphen is a PQ DEVELOPER - Phenidone/Hydroqinone Ilford developer - it is very similar to Ilford ID-62.

kODAK DK-50 is an MQ Developer (Metol/Hydroquinone developer) not similar to Microphen.

It would be more correct to say that Acufine is a PQ developer that is related to Microphen (or is a Microphen Clone).

 

[Paul Howell]

Paul, more grainy for push by Microphen or DDX ?
No problem with HC-110 - it is still available locally so no overseas shipment involved with one (and I prefer liquids - no hassle preparing stock solutions with powders).

DDX or Tmax/RS gives the best grain, HC 110 is also good, but if you want the best grain and shadow detail use Tmax 3200, if you push Trix or HPT you will lose shadow detail and increase grain. When I was working PJ, pushing TriX was a standard techquie, I have pushed with just about every developer know to man. I have not found any combination that compaires with Tmax at 1600 developed in DDX. Here in the States Clayton F76 seems to very close to DDX or Tmax/RS.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

DDX or Tmax/RS gives the best grain, HC 110 is also good, but if you want the best grain and shadow detail use Tmax 3200, if you push Trix or HPT you will lose shadow detail and increase grain. When I was working PJ, pushing TriX was a standard techquie, I have pushed with just about every developer know to man. I have not found any combination that compaires with Tmax at 1600 developed in DDX. Here in the States Clayton F76 seems to very close to DDX or Tmax/RS.

Not surprising, F76, DDX and Tmax/RS are all PQ Developers.

 

[dxphoto]

dd-x can push hp5+ to 1600 easily. i have a half bottle left from almost 2 years ago, i don't think it is still any good now.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Test your DDX before you dump it

dd-x can push hp5+ to 1600 easily. i have a half bottle left from almost 2 years ago, i don't think it is still any good now.

Test your DDX before you dump it - unmixed, it is a concentrate with a good shelf life.

 

[aldevo]

Test your DDX before you dump it - unmixed, it is a concentrate with a good shelf life.

I agree with Tom; it's worth a test. I have a one-third-full bottle of DD-X that is just shy of three years old. The last time I used it was two months ago and it passed the clip test and developed the film roll that followed like a champ.