Your thoughts on DD-X?

Bormental · Jun 7, 2020

Adrian Bacon said:
True, but it's not hard to figure out how many ml to use per 35mm exposure. 70ml / 36 exposures = ~1.944ml per exposure. So if you loaded and shot 18 exposures, that'd be 1.94 x 18 = ~35ml. If you loaded and shot 12, that'd be ~24ml. Going that route, you'd be better off with a larger bottle of working solution (like at least 2L) as it'll really even things out and give you a pretty big "rolling solution buffer". You could even just round it up to 2ml per exposure and adjust your processing time to whatever works for you.

I am considering it! But how to adjust for infrequent development? Someone here suggested replenishing 70ml of fresh developer every two weeks if you don't develop*, something I wasn't able to find confirmation for in Kodak PDFs. Thanks.

* asking because some films are better in D76, and also I'm adding more color to my shooting lately.

MattKing · Jun 7, 2020

Bormental said:
I am considering it! But how to adjust for infrequent development? Someone here suggested replenishing 70ml of fresh developer every two weeks if you don't develop*, something I wasn't able to find confirmation for in Kodak PDFs. Thanks.

* asking because some films are better in D76, and also I'm adding more color to my shooting lately.

You won't find that suggestion confirmed in any Kodak documentation.
It works.
Think of it as part of the Kodak suggestion to adjust replenishment as required - which you will find in the Kodak documentation.

braxus · Jun 7, 2020

The Lab in Vancouver uses DD-X and is replenished weekly I would think. I dont know why they chose DD-X over ID11 or D76, or even Xtol.

Grim Tuesday · Jun 7, 2020

braxus said:
The Lab in Vancouver uses DD-X and is replenished weekly I would think. I dont know why they chose DD-X over ID11 or D76, or even Xtol.

It's possible they tell you they use DDX and actually use Ilford DD, which is the chemistry Ilford made for Dip 'N Dunk processing B&W:

This developer is designed for use in dip and dunk replenished processors. It is used in conjunction with ILFOTEC DD starter. The chemistry can be replenished, has a long tank life and a good resistance to contamination. It is available as a 1L item, with a 5L replenisher item available too. It is used at a 1+4 dilution.

DDX is the "at home" version of DD

MattKing · Jun 7, 2020

As a matter of fact, The Lab website says explicitly that they use Ilford DD. As far as I know, all of their processing lines are dip and dunk.
https://www.thelabvancouver.com/services/film-processing/
"DIP & DUNK
E6, C41 and B&W
Our strict sensimetrically controlled development processes offer consistent quality for professional results. 135,120 and sheet film are developed through a dip & dunk process to ensure exacting results. We offer clip tests and push & pull processing as requested. In addition, post development services such as contact sheets, scanning services and machine prints can all be added to your order."

braxus · Jun 7, 2020

Ok. I stand corrected. For some reason I thought it was the X version. They are basically the same developer otherwise, No?

MattKing · Jun 7, 2020

braxus said:
Ok. I stand corrected. For some reason I thought it was the X version. They are basically the same developer otherwise, No?

Ilford DD is designed to be used in a replenishment regime.
It is designed to be used at 24C.
DD-X is designed to be used one-shot, and while Ilford provides times for 24C, they are different than the times for DD.
The beginning words on the DD datasheet read:
"ILFORD ILFOTEC DD is a replenishable developer for all general purpose black and white films. "
The beginning words on the DD-X datasheet read:
"ILFORD ILFOTEC DD-X is an excellent fine grain developer which gives full film speed and produces negatives
that are easy to print. Correctly exposed negatives developed in ILFOTEC DD-X have a full range of tones, with
depth in the shadows, a smooth transition through the mid-tones and bright detailed highlights.
ILFOTEC DD-X is designed to complement the features of all ILFORD films, especially the range of ILFORD DELTA
PROFESSIONAL films. It is particularly recommended for use with DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL film rated at EI
3200/36. It also gives excellent results when used with quality black and white films from other manufacturers.
ILFOTEC DD-X ensures a good balance of fine grain, sharpness and tonal rendition producing negatives which
allow a high degree of enlargement. In addition, it is highly recommended when fast films need to be push
processed such as HP5 Plus, DELTA 400 PROFESSIONAL, DELTA 3200 PROFESSIONAL and SFX200."
I am confident that DD's per roll cost at the Lab is far less than it would be if they used DD-X - which may not even be practically usable in a dip and dunk regime.

NB23 · Jun 8, 2020

DD-X is ok, loved it until I compared it to other developers. It gave me higher contrast negatives. I had to work harder to retreive the shadows when printing. Xtol is pretty much Unbeatable.

This being said, I have a soft spot for Ilfosol-3.

Adrian Bacon · Jun 8, 2020

MattKing said:
You won't find that suggestion confirmed in any Kodak documentation.
It works.
Think of it as part of the Kodak suggestion to adjust replenishment as required - which you will find in the Kodak documentation.

+1

That being said, I will generally run at least 36 exposures through of a grey card every two weeks as a control strip to monitor activity levels. It doesn't have to be expensive film or even 36 exposures, it could just be a cheap 24 exposure roll of the cheapest stuff you can find. Buy 24 rolls and you have a years supply of monitoring your activity levels. Spend an hour or so exposing all the rolls with an 18% grey card. Make all the exposures exactly the same. Then every two weeks run one of the rolls through with the same time and temperature, then measure it. You can find an X-Rite transmissive densitometer on eBay for less than $200, and it's completely worth it. If you're ever in doubt about what your bottle is doing, you can find out at any time quite quickly, and it has the added benefit of actually running film through it.

Radost · May 31, 2022

Just did some tmax400 fuji 69 panoramic in DD-X 4-1. Negatives look good. Will scan tomorrow.

oxcanary · May 31, 2022

I agree on Ilfosol 3 and HP5+

foc · May 31, 2022

oxcanary said:
I agree on Ilfosol 3 and HP5+

I have used Ilfosol 3 for many years at 1+14 @20C and found it to be a very economical developer with great results.

ymc226 · Oct 31, 2023

Adrian Bacon said:
I'm working through a bottle of DD-X now. The only thing I like about it so far is it's an easy to mix liquid concentrate. Otherwise, I very much prefer XTOL. It gives at least the same speed and looks way better IMHO.

I came back to film and developing my own (after a long time with digital) but started out with DD-X this time. Back in the 2005, I started with D-76 and then ended with the old HC-110 and Rodinal prior to the Kodak bankruptcy. The convenience of DD-X in mixing and the relatively good storing properties make it convenient in the 1L bottles it is sold in; only have to dilute 1+4 as one shot and will use up the bottle in about 4 months.

I've read on various forums that people don't like DD-X for "flat/dead" looking negatives but much prefer Xtol which is less convenient. If the negatives are that much better, I could commit to mixing 5 L and getting about 10 x 500ml brown glass storage bottles to maximize storage life.

What are the particular qualities of Xtol which many love, particularly compared with DD-X or other 1 shot speed preserving developers? Is the mid scale tonality, my most cherished value, better with X-tol? My main B&W films would be T-Max 400, Tri-X, and a smattering of HP5+ and HP4+, all shot at box speed. Format would be 120 (90%) and 135.

Steven Lee · Oct 31, 2023

@ymc226 I agree that Xtol offers a more pleasant curve by default than DD-X with most films. But the mandatory caveat is that a curve can be bent, although I have no experience experimenting with DD-X development times or dilutions. Xtol is just easier.

You don't need to mix 5L all at once. First of all, Xtol is actually extremely similar to D76/ID-11 and that developer is offered in 1L packets from numerous manufacturers. Moreover, there's an Xtol clone from ADOX called XT-3 which is also available in 1L quantities.

ymc226 · Oct 31, 2023

Steven Lee said:
@ymc226 I agree that Xtol offers a more pleasant curve by default than DD-X with most films. But the mandatory caveat is that a curve can be bent, although I have no experience experimenting with DD-X development times or dilutions. Xtol is just easier.

You don't need to mix 5L all at once. First of all, Xtol is actually extremely similar to D76/ID-11 and that developer is offered in 1L packets from numerous manufacturers. Moreover, there's an Xtol clone from ADOX called XT-3 which is also available in 1L quantities.

Thanks so much Steven. I will try Adox XT-3 but it is out of stock at Freestyle which is likely the only US dealer?? Shipping 10 packets from Germany is 36 euros so not cost effective.

blee1996 · Oct 31, 2023

Steven Lee said:
You don't need to mix 5L all at once. First of all, Xtol is actually extremely similar to D76/ID-11 and that developer is offered in 1L packets from numerous manufacturers. Moreover, there's an Xtol clone from ADOX called XT-3 which is also available in 1L quantities.

I guess that means dividing white powder on a jewelry scale in the kitchen?

Radost · Oct 31, 2023

Radost said:
Just did some tmax400 fuji 69 panoramic in DD-X 4-1. Negatives look good. Will scan tomorrow.

Following up. The negatives looked… Like they had a lot less detail than XTOL. A little surprised it was that bad.

ymc226 · Nov 1, 2023

Radost said:
Following up. The negatives looked… Like they had a lot less detail than XTOL. A little surprised it was that bad.

Thanks for the follow up. I'll try either XT-3 or ID-11, whichever I can get in the 1L size and use it as one shot as I do 500ml tanks x 2 for a total of 8 rolls. No need to store any left over developer

Radost · Nov 1, 2023

Xt3 should be close to XTOL. search here on the forum about XT3

bluechromis · Nov 1, 2023

Anchell and Troop in FDC 2nd ed. praise DDX as the best for films shot at a more than two-stop push. They surmise it is because DDX uses potassium sulfite instead of sodium sulfite. There was a thread about this recently. Ilford says it is best for D3200. It seemed to work well for D3200 when I used it.

bluechromis · Nov 1, 2023

DDX can be costly. As an alternative, Anchell and Troop in the FDC 2nd, p. 124, offer a recipe from a patent they say is similar to DDX. Presumably, this could be modified to use readily available ingredients.

Pot. Sulfite (65% w/v) 548 ml.
Water 380 ml
Digol (diethylene glycol) 45 ml.
Hydroquinone 44 g
Dimezone-S 1.2 g
DATPA (DTPA) 4.8 g
Borax 23.5 g

Water to 1 L.

Dilute 1+4,

blee1996 · Nov 1, 2023

I used to use DD-X exclusively for all film, and gets consistently good results whether it is T-grain or traditional film.

Since DD-X is quite expensive, I have now standardized on Clayton F76+ (a D76 improvement, also sold as Arista Premium). Liquid solution (1+9 dilution), very cheap, long shelf life, and good for a wide range of film emulsions (especially higher speed film ISO 200/400/3200).

I complement it with Adox FX-39 II for slower film (ISO 25/50/100), to control contrast as well as grain/sharpness.

Rodinal is always good for stand/semi-stand development of 4x5 film in a Yankee tank, where agitation is limited.

Your thoughts on DD-X?

Bormental

MattKing

Moderator

braxus

Grim Tuesday

MattKing

Moderator

braxus

MattKing

Moderator

NB23

Adrian Bacon

Radost

oxcanary

foc

ymc226

Steven Lee

ymc226

blee1996

Radost

ymc226

Radost

bluechromis

bluechromis

blee1996

Your thoughts on DD-X?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency