Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,466   Posts: 1,570,715   Online: 993
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    110
    I recently switched to Ilford DDX and I'm quite happy with it. Although it's a bit more pricey than say Rodinal. I tested a quick roll of Fomapan 100 in DDX and it looked good.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Viseu, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    16
    Thanks for all your replies.

    I am slightly bent towards HC-110 (faster films) and Rodinal (slower ones). But I am still open to suggestions.
    Probably is better to do that than use one developer for all films. The only issue with DD-X is the price. It is expensive if we compare it against others developers.

    The Ilford HC is the same as Kodak HC-110?

  3. #13
    schroeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    101
    Images
    21
    Get familiar with the pyro developers and it will be a fun journey.

  4. #14
    Kevin Caulfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,103
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    52
    I've been using Paterson FX39 for years and I love it. It is said to have a short life, but in practive I've found it to last reasonably well.

  5. #15
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,060
    Images
    1
    I just re-read teh OP. Noticed that you're using mainly Fomapan..If I remember correctly, Fomapan is one of the few films that does not work well in HC-110. I don't really know why. I really, like Foma 200 in D-23 (homemade) or D-76 (1+1). It also seems like it has potential to look nice in ID-68 but, I've still got some work to iron out this combo.

    D-23 is relatively inexpensive to use and easy to mix up yourself.

  6. #16
    23mjm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Rocklin, California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    450
    Images
    9
    I have used DD-X a lot and really like it--a little expensive but all together not bad. I keep it round 6-months and throw it out if I have any left.

    I shoot PanF, Delta 100, Delta 400, and some Acros. I have also found that i can shoot Delta 100 @200 develope it in DD-X and it looks just like a roll processed shot and developed at 100!!!! Same grain and tone?? Try it.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Woking, Surrey, UK
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    475
    Images
    27
    Ilford only supply times for DD-X at 1+4 dilution, but it can be used 1+9 to reduce the cost. Not sure what effect this will have on the results. I have heard suggestions of adding 50% to the 1+4 time as a starting point.

    I converted to DD-X earlier this year for HP5+ and am very happy with it compared to the results with LC-29, particularly for keeping grain under control at higher speeds. For FP4+ I use Rodinal semi-stand.

    Ian

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,989
    Images
    1
    XTOL can last, I'm currently using some that was mixed around 5mths ago. I usually use it quicker but went away for 3mths. I agree with the others regarding the Ilford trio.. DD-X good but expensive, Ilfosol goes off too quick and LC29 good compromise but more suited to low speed films although I do use it for HP5. I always have some LC29 around. Rodinal's keeping qualities are legendary, but no idea how the clones go. Not my developer of choice but at high dilutions (1:100), acceptable.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Viseu, Portugal
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    16
    Hi again. I have been absent and I read just now the answers. Thanks again.

    So, the HC-110 would be a bad choice to use with Foma films? That seems to put it out off the race. I use mainly Fomapan nowadays. DD-X seems the best substitute right now.

    As anyone had any experience with Aculux 3 and Fomadon LQN? Will Rollei, Spur or Adox be good alternatives?

    Sorry all the questions but the problem with other chemicals than the ones I have mentioned is that it will not be easy to find them in Portugal.
    I am quite confined to Ilford, Kodak, Foma and Agfa. It is possible to find also Aculux, Rollei, Adox (Calbe?) and Spur developers.

    Nuno.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,656
    Images
    5
    Good Morning, Nuno,

    For what it's worth, I normally use HC-110B to process Foma 200. I find it quite satisfactory.

    Konical

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin