Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,298   Online: 912
      
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 28
  1. #1
    FrankB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Northwest UK
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,147
    Images
    24

    Ilford Ilfotec DD-X vs Rodinal

    I use Ilfotec DD-X for all my B&W film processing and am very happy with what I get back. However, having seen the number of people using Rodinal in other threads here I'm starting to wonder on what I am missing out.

    So, if you have actually used both Rodinal and DD-X I'd be very interested in hearing your views on the similarities and differences between the two.

    Thanks in advance,

    Frank

  2. #2
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    I find little difference in results between the two products, however the use of Rodinal at 1:50 allows me greater leeway on the longer developing time, and Rodinal seems to have a better shelf life.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  3. #3
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    DD-X and Rodinal are 2 completely different developers.
    I like Rodinal a lot, but DD-X seems to work better with faster films (and Ilford Deltas)

    It wouldn;t hurt if you gave Rodinal a shot, is cheap enough and lasts for years so you can use it infrequently.
    I love Rodinal with Agfa APX100, FP4 and just developed a couple of HP5 rolls in it.
    Mama took my APX away.....

  4. #4
    scootermm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    1,867
    Images
    235
    I have both Rodinal and DDX on the darkroom shelf right now. so I think I can honestly answer this one.
    Ive found I get alot better results with the DDX when I develope Delta 3200 in it. Especially when pushed to 5000 or 6400. (wonderfully contrasty grainy negatives if you havent tried it- fits concert photography great)
    I get some amazing results with the rodinal on almost all of my standard films PanF (35mm and 120) FP4 (35mm, 120, 4x5) Hp5 (35mm, 120, 4x5)
    I prefer the rodinal over the DDX for these films but use the DDX over the rodinal for the faster films (neopan 1600 and delta 3200)
    The fact that rodinal is economical is jsut an added bonus (especially with the photoformulary selling it a liter size so inexpensively)

    hope that helps.

    PS one of my favorite combinations is PanF in rodinal 1:50. (Im trying out the PMK Pryo 1:1:100 vs Rodinal 1:50 with PanF tonite so I will post what my findings are)

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    Rodinal and DD-X are now the only 2 film developers I use and as has already been said they are very different.

    For films 100asa and below I like Rodinal (1+50) for the look it gives with those films. Fine sharp salt and pepper grain, sharp pictures and beautiful contrast. So for me that means using Ilford Pan F @ 50; FP4+ @ 100 and Delta 100 @ 100.

    At 200asa and above then I use DD-X (1+4) with HP5+ @ 200-1600; Delta 400 @ 400 and Delta 3200 @3200.

    That said if you want really large grain then you could try a faster film with Rodinal.

    My advice would be if you use slower films then give Rodinal a try, after all it's cheap enough to experiment with. But be warned once I tried it with Pan F and FP4+ I was hooked

  6. #6
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    I *still* say that the idea of a *increased* physical grain size with Rodinal is nothing more than a myth. Rodinal is a decidedly "clean" developer; the grain itself is more clearly defined - and there is a HIGH degree of acutance. I've been using Rodinal 1:50 with Agfapan 400 regularly: I really *LIKE* the look of the - not "large" - but sharply defined grain.

    Amazing, in a way, that there are so many who will not even try Rodinal with fast films ... one thing is sure - there is very little probability of an explosion ....
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  7. #7
    david b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    None of your business
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,034
    Images
    30
    APX 100 and Rodinal 1+50 is a hard to beat combo. Absolutely wonderful stuff.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,042
    I tried Rodinal with a roll of Agfa Pan 25 (not APX) that expired in 01/00 the other day and it came out beautiful.

    Ed - Fair enough if I'll try most things so if I have time I'll shoot a roll of HP5+ tomorrow (Friday) and develop it in Rodinal 1+50 to see how it comes out

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    New Zealand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,410
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    I *still* say that the idea of a *increased* physical grain size with Rodinal is nothing more than a myth. Rodinal is a decidedly "clean" developer; the grain itself is more clearly defined - and there is a HIGH degree of acutance. I've been using Rodinal 1:50 with Agfapan 400 regularly: I really *LIKE* the look of the - not "large" - but sharply defined grain.

    Amazing, in a way, that there are so many who will not even try Rodinal with fast films ... one thing is sure - there is very little probability of an explosion ....
    Agreed - sharply defined grain with Rodinal (i.e. not grain desolving). Definately appealing on the fine-grained films. I would suggest this is the main difference with DD-X. But although I had DDX on the shelf, i'm not qualified to make the comment Frank sorry .

  10. #10
    Eric Rose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    4,267
    Images
    73
    HC110 dil B is another good winner. I use both Rodinal and HC110 depending on what I want the final image to look like. Each has it's own flavor which can be used to artistic advantage. To only use one developer, unless you are doing the alt process stuff, is short changing your ability to fully express yourself.

    So as you can see it's not just a matter of N or N-1 etc. it's that and what developer to use too. It's all part of the previsualization.
    www.ericrose.com
    yourbaddog.com

    "civility is not a sign of weakness" JFK

    "The Dude abides" - the Dude

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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