FP4+ in DD-X ? or other liquid?

I've searched but couldn't find much on people's results with using

Ilford's DD-X with FP4+. Myself, I've had great results with this

film in D76, then HC-110, and most recently, XTOL.

 

I dig XTOL for a few reasons. But the 5 Liter packets and the fact

that it's a powder make it inconvenient. I would like to stick with

liquid developers for convenience. I liked the contrast and grain I

got from both D76 and XTOL better than HC-110 (which wasn't bad,

either). I've been using DD-X for HP5+ lately, so I'm wondering how

it would do for FP4+.

 

Anyone have example of their favorite developer for FP4+?

 

I'm most interested in results with 120, although I still shoot 35mm

also.

 

Also, how's rodinal with FP4+?

 

Thanks everyone.

By "examples", I mean images that you'd be willing to post. Thanks.

The flowing water picture in my folder is FP4+ in FX2. You can get a liquid version from Photographers Formulary. My only caveat is that images on the web can't really show much difference between developers, if in fact there are any differences between developers ;-)

Acutol is superb with FP4.

Wow! That caught me by suprise.

Rodinal works fine. I've been trying some HC-110 lately and the grain is about the same as with Rodinal. Not bad though, the acutance is good. I've got a bottle of DD-X, but it's so damn expensive here and I like FP4+ in Rodinal, so I haven't bothered testing these two.

I've had good results with FP4+ in ID-11 @ 1:1. Pretty mundane stuff but it works. The attached example (35mm) was rated at EI 64 and souped for 9 minutes (fairly contrasty lighting so I pulled back a bit on development).<p>

 

This attachment represents a very small section of the entire frame, perhaps 1/5 or less. It's scanned from a print on Ilford MGIV RC glossy.<p>

 

Tonality is excellent, apparent sharpness is good and grain is not noticeable. I'd use this combination again for people pictures. For some subjects I might choose another developer (or, perhaps, more dilute ID-11) for greater acutance.<p>

 

I think I tried FP4+ in Rodinal once but for some reason was disappointed. It took me awhile to realize that, for me at least, FP4+ looked better when rated slower than 125. At its nominal speed I just wasn't satisfied with the tonality in print. There's one notable exception: FP4+ at EI 250 in Diafine. Very interesting combination, quite similar to the unique look of Tri-X in Diafine but with much finer grain and, perhaps, better midtone separation.<p>

 

<i>(Moderator's note: I had to break from my stated policy of never deleting or editing my own posts after the fact - other than to correct boneheaded spelling errors or typos - this time because I goofed and attached the TIF version of the photo rather than the JPEG. The comments are the same. -- Lex Jenkins)</i><div></div>

Oh, some examples of FP4+ in Diafine can be seen in my photo.net folder labeled (oddly enough), "FP4+ in Diafine".

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=319616

FG7 and FP4+ make a nice combo. Very consistent, easy to print. With my methods and equipment, the speed is about 100.

Oscar,

 

What EI do you use for the Fp4+ and what development time and concentration do you use for the Rodinal. Do you have any posts of the results.

 

thanks

Stephen,

 

Currently I use a rather conservative Rodinal 1+50 9 min. in 20 C (this is for 120-format; in 35 mm I use very little of it and often use APX100, for tray developing of sheet film I take one minute off.) I rate at 100; haven't had any problem with shadow details (in contrast to eg. PanF+ which really didn't work for me at the speed on the box.)

 

Sorry, I don't have any samples in digital form and I'm way too busy right now to start up the scanner. But it's true what they say that small jpegs aren't very good at telling differences...

Most of my B&W photos here are FP4+ in Ilfosol-S, on 120 film.