Quote Originally Posted by B&Wpositive View Post
So DD-X has a shorter concentrate shelf life than HC?

Now, what about developing times? I hate to play with something new all of a sudden and screw it up. With HC, I always have good results developing for one EI higher than the rated EI. (I guess the push EI values are not really based on middle gray tones, but something midway between white and middle gray.) For example, if I shoot the film at 3200, I'm developing using the EI 6400 time. Always 1 EI higher in development than rated speed. If I get some DD-X and just follow this rule, would I get good results? I was hoping the negs might be similar in look to those developed with Ilfotec HC, but less contrasty/blocked-up and a bit less grainy...and thus easier to scan. (I get a lot of noise/grain and have trouble getting even a hint of shadow detail when scanning P3200 developed in Ilford HC at EI 6400.)

Does DD-X with P3200 at EI values from 1600 to 12,800 sound like a safe experiment for images that I care about considering my experience with Ilfotec HC? If it's no trouble making the conversion to DD-X from HC, and the resulting images are a half a stop better, I'd consider it a successful outcome and small risk.

Finally, what is the dilution when using DD-X? For HC, it's 1+31. And what are the development times for Kodak P3200 in DD-X like?

Thanks again.
Yes DD-X has a shorter shelf life.

Dilution for DD-X is 1+4

I'd say DD-X is a very safe experiment.

I generally use Ilford's numbers to start with. http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/...7124733149.pdf