I wrote that because you said you'd try some DD-X for your next roll because the Ilfosol wasn't to your liking.
My point was that a developer change will likely serve you worse than trying a change in routine with the developer you are already using. In other words, it wasn't the fault if Ilfosol in and of itself. Every material takes trial and error to nail down, and one cannot do that by trying once and then switching to something else.
Ilfosol 3 is better with conventional films, like Tri-X, FP4+, HP5+, etc. DD-X is particularly suited for T-grained films like TMax and Ilford's Delta line.
Ah ok gotcha. The guy at the camera shop didn't seem as familiar with pairing Ilford's film & developers. Thanks.
Eh? I see 320 TXP listed everywhere I check.
Originally Posted by BetterSense
I don't believe that ISO 400 TX has ever been available in sheets.
No argument that Ilford makes great products.
I've got Arista, Foma, and Ilford paper. They can all make decent images. The Ilford has the least drydown of my choices. Saves me time and materials even though the paper is a little more.
The Ilford MGRC warmtone (in dektol) is my favorite paper for the majority of prints. They've got something special that a generic silver paper does not have. Subjective choice I know, but I like it.
So I end up using the arista mostly for contact prints and the Ilford for enlargements. The foma makes good enlargements too, but it's more work to get things right with bigger drydown.
Nothing wrong with Ilford film, but I'm using Kodak TMY2 right now and sticking to it.
Been doing the Kodak Film and Ilford Paper combination for about 23 years now. Never was a huge fan of Kodak's polycontrast papers and didn't mind when it went away.
The metric is not how much their prices have gone up. Recalling their film history, this tells us that their film used to be very cheap.
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
Compare prices today. Ilford is cheaper than Kodak for film (sorry, don't know paper off the top of my head).
5 years or so back, Ilford had really cheap prices. They were also supplying house brands (Arista, ultrafine, etc) who were selling at really low prices. Ilford had to reorganize.
There can be multiple reasons for the price increase. One just might be their interest in having a sustainable business.
Originally Posted by Ottrdaemmerung
Having developed the last 300 rolls or so of HP5+ in DD-X, with occasional abortive attempts to find a better combination, I am puzzled as to what Ottrdaemmerung might mean by "particularly suited." HP5+ and DD-X is a match made in heaven. Pleasing, well-defined grain, a curve that never ends, with both highlights and shadows recoverable all the way to the other other side of the rainbow. Delta looks nowhere near as good in DD-X.
Originally Posted by viridari
Hmmm... A bit subjective perhaps? Sure it is. That's what the forum is for, no?
Vilk, I am new to developing. If I was to tell you I am specifically going to stay with Delta 100, and HP5+ for 99% of what I am going to do, what developer would you recommend for me. Remember, I am a noob and I will more than likely stay at boxed speed on the film. Add Delta 3200 to the mix, same developer?
I would combine it with DD-X and when you want a cheaper developer alternative: Microphen or Xtol. But last two are powder developers and they have less convenience then DD-X which is a liquid concentrate.
But also Kodak HC-110 (also a liquid concentrate) would be a pretty good choice. For the rest it's a matter of taste. Some people like e.g. HP5+ and Rodinal, some people hate it (too much grain). But of course it's also depending on the film format.
Liquid ease of use: DD-X with those three films.
Originally Posted by SafetyBob