Your thoughts on DD-X?

[Bormental]

DD-X was my first developer when I got back into developing film at home. I liked the convenience, I generally prefer Ilford for everything for silly reasons, and the results did not disappoint (at first).

But I do not think I'll be ordering it anymore. Wanted to run my thoughts by you to see if I'm missing anything, or if my experience was atypical:

1. It is on a grainy side. ID-11 and Xtol, both diluted 1:1 and especially full-strength deliver noticeably nicer grain. It just seems uglier with DD-X, especially with Delta films which I found strange, since so many people online say that "DD-X was optimized for Delta".
   
2. HP5+ has a tendency to look flat, but especially so in DD-X. All midtones get compressed into the same narrow spectrum. People's faces look flat and grey with this combination. I tried different times, agitation and even tried diluting DD-X, but why bother if HP5 looks so much better in ID-11 with zero effort?
3. Supposedly DD-X gives you effective speed increase, but I never noticed it compared to ID-11 and Xtol. Perhaps this is more important for pushing, but I do not push.
4. It is more expensive. This wasn't a factor for 135 but I am shooting mostly medium format, and Ilford insists on 1:4 ratio, this means $2 per roll just for the developer, that's 4x of Xtol.

Anything I'm missing? I honestly do not know why I wanted to like DD-X so much, maybe because I like the sound of it?

 

[Paul Howell]

I like DD X with t grain films, gain is not as much of an issue with Tmax 400 and not at with Tmax 100. In terms of price, yeah, I would use Xtol, D76 (one of the clones replenished) for convenience HC 110.

 

[pentaxuser]

Anything I'm missing? I honestly do not know why I wanted to like DD-X so much, maybe because I like the sound of it?

No, that sounds like a pretty comprehensive condemnation as it stands. As far as the sound is concerned is it the way that the letters DD-X run together ?

On a more serious note my only problem with it was the price but recently other developers has caught up with it especially my current developer Xtol. Now that's a sound I like as well. It sounds slightly mysterious as if it was the new and secret name of a chemical that a group of us found in a secret establishment but none of us lived to tell the tale not even Mel Gibson but when Mel goes he takes a few with him. He is like Frank Bigelow on speed

Only the sentence beginning "On a more serious note" needs to be taken seriously

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

Hehe. DD-X sounds and looks like a rock band to me. Only a black T-Shirt will do here . Also, where do you live? D76 from Ultrafine is like $6 per gallon, and Xtol is $11 for 5L on most sites, and both are great 1:1 unlike DD-X which must be used at full-strength. That's far from "getting caught up with it"

 

[Paul Howell]

I use MCM 100, I replenish it using the rate used for Harvy's D777, although expensive for the intial 1/2 gallon, not that expensive to keep a tank going. I've had my current stock solution for close to 4 years. Half gallon size works for me as as I have 1/2 gallon deep tanks for sheet film.

 

[pentaxuser]

Isn't DD-X used at 1+4? Xtol is about $18.50 at its cheapest and more expensive that that on most U.K. and yes relatively speaking Xtol is catching up with
DD-X.

To use a very old British expression a lot of analogue related prices are a "whole new ball game" over here. Now there's a phrase you don't hear very often in the SF bay area where Huey is connected with the News

pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

Yes, DD-X is 1+4 and $23 for a 1L bottle will give you only 5L of working solution and Ilford doesn't recommend diluting further.

 

[Paul Howell]

You can get Tmax developer for a little less, around $16 to 18 a bottle, seems to me that Tmax and DD X are very similair, not sure how differnt the formulars are, but developing times are in the same ball park, and the MDC does list a time for Tmax 1:9.

 

[Peter Schrager]

doesn't DDX die off if not used up??
I always liked the negatives it made but Xtol and homemade Pyrocat MC are way more convenient

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The DD-X type developers can be diluted up to 1+9 in my experience. I have a bottle of Ultrafin Plus that I use occasionally for TMY-2 when I want to rate the film at 800 EI and 1+7 works well for that application, 1+5 is fine for Delta 3200 @ 1600 as well.

 

[Bormental]

doesn't DDX die off if not used up??

The 1L bottle is only good for only 16 rolls, that's less than 2 months of shooting, so I did not have a chance to test its longevity.

 

[Paul Howell]

As you are shooting a fair amount, maybe Clayton F76, $10.00 a quart use at 1:9. I've used it the past, results are similar to D76 1:1. Legacy version of D 76 is less than $7.00 at Freestyle. If you want expensive, try Ilford Tech HC is like $64 a liter.

 

[pentaxuser]

The OP's thoughts on DD-X appear to be set in stone and to be fair he makes no pretence of it being otherwise. It is perhaps a pity that his thread says "Any thoughts" because that usually implies that he hasn't quite made his mind up but I see no signs of that and indeed to be fair he has made it clear that he has made his mind up.

So I will not insult him by trying to put forward arguments to convince him otherwise and I do agree that as has been the case for several years DD-X is beside being an excellent developer, an expensive one.

His position is that for what he gets it is not worth the money and given that he has major reservations about its quality as well then his verdict has been well and truly delivered

I leave others to raise their counterpoints to his points of contention but earnestly caution against any hope that a recantation will occur.

His feelings would appear to be visceral and there is a lot of evidence that visceral feelings cannot be changed short of major trauma occurring.

To the rest of you stalwart debaters, I wish you luck as I wave you goodbye, cheerio, here I go on my way. Yes I have changed the words of that famous song of the Lancashire lass slightly but I remain within its cheerful spirit.

N.B. Bormental, she pre-dates Huey by quite a few years


pentaxuser

 

[Bormental]

I must start some other new threads just to provoke pentaxuser to post more!

 

[mshchem]

DD-X is a ripoff. Buy the original DD in 5L bottles add a splash of starter or just use the DD-X for starting your "tank" .

Of course we still get back to the XTOL being the greatest film developer of all time

My license plates

 

[pentaxuser]

I must start some other new threads just to provoke pentaxuser to post more!

I am driven by the "Power of Love " and am certainly in the "Hip to be Square" category

pentaxuser

 

[Colin Corneau]

I am driven by the "Power of Love " and am certainly in the "Hip to be Square" category

pentaxuser

I just hope you can stick around Weather or not anyone agrees with your choice of music!

 

[subsole]

DD-X is just like the liquid version of Microphen.
Too expensive for my taste.
I do prefer stock ID-11 for 35mm, 1+1 for 400ASA medium format, 1+3 for slow medium format films.

 

[pentaxuser]

DD-X is just like the liquid version of Microphen.
Too expensive for my taste.
.

Interesting as it sounds as if you can get the same result with Microphen and you are right it is much cheaper. I have a box of Microphen which is a developer I haven't used before so I will try and compare some negatives and prints from my DD-X negatives and prints of several years ago

pentaxuser

 

[Adrian Bacon]

DD-X was my first developer when I got back into developing film at home. I liked the convenience, I generally prefer Ilford for everything for silly reasons, and the results did not disappoint (at first).

But I do not think I'll be ordering it anymore. Wanted to run my thoughts by you to see if I'm missing anything, or if my experience was atypical:

1. It is on a grainy side. ID-11 and Xtol, both diluted 1:1 and especially full-strength deliver noticeably nicer grain. It just seems uglier with DD-X, especially with Delta films which I found strange, since so many people online say that "DD-X was optimized for Delta".
   
2. HP5+ has a tendency to look flat, but especially so in DD-X. All midtones get compressed into the same narrow spectrum. People's faces look flat and grey with this combination. I tried different times, agitation and even tried diluting DD-X, but why bother if HP5 looks so much better in ID-11 with zero effort?
3. Supposedly DD-X gives you effective speed increase, but I never noticed it compared to ID-11 and Xtol. Perhaps this is more important for pushing, but I do not push.
4. It is more expensive. This wasn't a factor for 135 but I am shooting mostly medium format, and Ilford insists on 1:4 ratio, this means $2 per roll just for the developer, that's 4x of Xtol.

Anything I'm missing? I honestly do not know why I wanted to like DD-X so much, maybe because I like the sound of it?

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.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Isn't DD-X used at 1+4? Xtol is about $18.50 at its cheapest and more expensive that that on most U.K. and yes relatively speaking Xtol is catching up with
DD-X.

To use a very old British expression a lot of analogue related prices are a "whole new ball game" over here. Now there's a phrase you don't hear very often in the SF bay area where Huey is connected with the News

pentaxuser

If you replenish XTOL, you only use 70ml per roll of 120, 135-36, or 8x10. Per 5L pack (once you have a seasoned bottle) that comes out to just over 70 rolls or 8x10 sheets per package. Even at $18.50, that's ~$0.25 per roll, waaayyy less expensive than DD-X.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

DD-X is a ripoff. Buy the original DD in 5L bottles add a splash of starter or just use the DD-X for starting your "tank" .

Of course we still get back to the XTOL being the greatest film developer of all time

My license plates
View attachment 247765

That. Is. Awesome.

 

[Bormental]

If you replenish XTOL, you only use 70ml per roll of 120, 135-36, or 8x10.

The pull into replenished Xtol is strong here... My problem is that I bulk-load my own 35mm film into rolls of varying sizes, from 12 to 35, and my volume is a bit unpredictable, this makes replenishment... not effortless. Math gets in the way.

Besides, I can't use Xtol for every fim. The gap between HP5+ in ID-11 vs everything else is too huge to ignore*, so I'll be using ID-11/D76 too.

* My local lab does replenished Xtol and HP5+ looks worse in it vs ID-11 too.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

The pull into replenished Xtol is strong here... My problem is that I bulk-load my own 35mm film into rolls of varying sizes, from 12 to 35, and my volume is a bit unpredictable, because I can't use Xtol for every fim. The gap between HP5+ in ID-11 vs everything else is too huge to ignore, so I'll be using ID-11/D76 too. This makes replenishment... not effortless.

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.

 

[John Bragg]

Why not give Ilfosol 3 a go ? HP5+ looks great in it.