Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,968   Online: 742
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,597
    Images
    122
    I have not tried it but I think Ilford DD-X may be good for pushing HP5+. In fact, in the data sheet of developing times attached to the bottle, the lowest EI for HP5+ is 500 - no time given for 400 which is it's stated film speed.

    Are you having difficulty getting any Ilford product? I know your favourite (and mine) developer was Ilfosol and that we are waiting for the mythical Ilfosol 3 to appear. After trying LC-29 and then DD-X, DD-X has become my (new) favourite developer. The only way I can quantify is that my negatives just look right (to me) when I use DD-X.


    Steve.
    Last edited by Steve Smith; 03-03-2008 at 03:28 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    171
    With HP5+ in DDX, I have pushed it to ISO 25000 and got decent images. Thank you.

  3. #13
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,289
    Images
    301
    Ian,
    I really don't know the difference between PQ and MQ developers. I don't even know what it means. I just know what I see from the results of different developers and how they print.
    Microphen is one I have only used once; I was so wound up in trying different films and developers I tossed them all out and bought a single developer to do it all.
    I do agree that some developers seem to work better for pushing than others. So far I've had good luck with DD-X (full shadow detail at EI3200 with Delta 3200 and EI800 with Tri-X 400) and Xtol has been good too. The worst developer I've ever used to push film was Rodinal. No shadow detail at all...

    - Thomas
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

  4. #14
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,272
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Bertilsson View Post
    Ian,
    I really don't know the difference between PQ and MQ developers. I don't even know what it means. I just know what I see from the results of different developers and how they print.
    - Thomas
    Thomas, an MQ developer is Metol & Hydroquinone based, a PQ developer is Phenidone and Hyroquinone, although Ilford have switched to using another developing agent similar to Phenidone in many of their developers.

    The type of developing agents makes a significant difference to the final developer, and this can have an impact on film speeds and how good a developer is for push processing.

    Xtol and DD-X are the modern developers from Ilford and Kodak and either would be an excellent choice as a standard developer for all your films.

    Ian

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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