DD-X: intergalactical champion
I'm a D76, HC-110, T-MAX developers fan. I even like Ilfosol for slow speed films. Rodinal, only sometimes but not anymore.
Ever since I've started reprinting my whole collection on fb papers with the highest procedure standards as possible, and within my skills, i've come to the conclusion that rodinal is good only for slow films and not to be used whenever there's HC110 or especially some D-76 around.
I haven't used X-TOL enough but I was blown away whenever I've used it.
Yes, D-76 with Tri-X is legendary. But tonight I realized how much better DD-X is. I'm absolutely blown away. Each and every aspect is superior: contrast, speed, flexibility for printing.
The difference jumps at me. It's THAT obvious.
DD-X is more expensive? Comes out 50 cents more expensive per roll? If you care about the results, it's the best 50 cents you'll ever spend.
Now about XTOL...
How long will the bottle stay good for once opened? I'm a stand-developing Rodinal nut and from a cursory search, DD-X seems like a good alternative. The only problem is I'm shooting a low volume of film and still have not finished a 500ml bottle of Rodinal I opened 4 months ago.
If it's like other Ilford liquids, it will last a heck of a lot longer if you immediately pour it into a better bottle. I lost half a bottle of Warmtone paper developer to the crappy air seals their lids make once the foil is removed. I now pour it into two 16 ounce brown bottles (the usual darkroom ones, nothing heroic) and squeeze all the air out before re-capping and I've kept it for nearly over a year and a half with no problems.
Doesn't mean DD-X will do as well of course, but I'd be careful with the bottle before blaming the developer for poor shelf life.
I recently found a new professional lab and they used DD-X. I was blown away by the results, so I'm gonna try it myself as well.
The official leaflet says:
"Storage ILFOTEC DD-X
24 months in full tightly capped bottles.
6 months in half full tightly capped bottles."
For fact sheet, see: http://www.macodirect.de/ilford-ilfo...ml?language=en
Bert from Holland
"Have fun and catch that light beam!"
Bert from Holland
my blog: http://thetoadmen.blogspot.nl
my Linkedin pinhole group: http://tinyurl.com/pinholegroup
* I'm an analogue enthusiast, trying not to fall into the digital abyss.
* My favorite cameras: Mamiya C330f, Nikon S2, Hasselblad SWC, Leica SL, Leica M7, Russian FKD 18x24, Bronica SQ-B and RF645, Rolleiflex T, Nikon F4s, Olympus Pen FT, Agfa Clack and my pinhole cameras.
I've always liked T-Max and T-Max RS which are supposed to be similar. I may give it a try.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
'Intergalatical Champion' may be a little 'spurious' to claim in our advertising....
But.... where there is a will there is a way !
Cracking dev though I have to say... but I would say that would'nt I.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited ( Terrestrial Division, Mobberley, CHESHIRE. UK ).
Always dilute 1+4, or 1+9 is also ok? Single shot?
No doubt the 1+9 fans will reply anyway but it is worth doing a search here on APUG. There have been a number of threads. I think that the MDC(Massive Development Chart) lists times for 1+9.
Originally Posted by darkosaric
1+9 is certainly more economical. The key question is does it produce as good negs as 1+4. You may get varying answers and in the end can only try it yourself to find out. There is little or nothing to lose because my understanding is that 1+9 produces at least OK negs which will be very printable even if you decided that 1+4 is marginally better.
If it really is like T-Max developers...some people like 1+9 but I didn't care for it. 1+6 is nice though and still more economical than 1+4. I ended up using 1+5 for no other reason than I could use Kodak's times for 1+4 and get results I liked. Basically I tweaked the dilution instead of the time, because I was lazy that way.