Jump to content

Grain with DD-X


Recommended Posts

I'm in the second week of my processing career (!) and,so far, I've tried a couple of

different combinations of films/developers (what fun!) This is what I think I learned: HP5

and D-76. Very nice, though I probably deved a bit too long and got blacks a little too

black. TMax in TMax. Great! But touchy. The slightest error in time on the long side and

the whites are washed out. Do you agree? HP5 and TMax. Yuck! But it may be me. HP5 and

DD-X. Very nice tonality range, but more grainy than I'm used to with this film. Same thing

with FP4.

 

So, my question is this: does DD-X bring out more grain in "classic" films like HP5 and

FP5, or is it me? I have to add that the times and the agitation, in terms of tonality range,

seem okay. Would you recommend using DD-X more with the Delta line of films?

 

Another newbie question: do you use "pre-soak" (or what is it called?) What benefits do

you get? What do you do it with?

 

Thanks for your help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Another newbie question: do you use "pre-soak" (or what is it called?)"

 

As far as I know, presoaking should be done when the dev. times are short, like when using dev. at full strentgh.

 

It also helps to get rid of a darkish dye which is present on some negatives. But does it really matter it's remove by presoaking, I could not say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A comment on something else...you mention that you left HP5 in D76 too long, thus getting blacks that were "too black." The "blackness" of shadows has nothing to do with development - it has to do with exposure. If you don't have enough shadow detail, you need to increase exposure.

 

allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually when we start out, we overdevelop. Most (not all) manufacturers' dev times give a neg that I and many others find a bit (or a lot) too contrasty. But it does depend on the subject, of course. Also, we sometimes give it another minute "just to be sure". More development leads to more grain.

 

DD-X is recommended for full negative speed, and is somewhat like Microphen which does give a little more grain especially if you overdevelop. I have found developing less and agitating gently to help. A little more exposure also helps if you're trying to minimize grain caused by unnecessary development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm unfamiliar with DD-X, so I won't comment about it. About pre-soaking, I have definite opinions. When you have reasonably long development times, say around 10 minutes or so, it's not necessary. In fact, it's probably never necessary for what most home workers do. Having said that, I find that there are circumstances where a pre-soak is helpful. If the room is too cold, a pre-soak with water at or slightly above processing temperature warms up the tank. A cold tank will drop the temperature of your developer significantly and this will affect development. If you are accustomed to using very short development times, a presoak might also be helpful by compensating a bit for the fill and drain time, though I can't really say for sure on this. With development times of 10 minutes or greater, I've noticed no differences between films done with or without presoak.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ilford's PDF on their photochemistries indicate that DD-X provides slightly less speed enhancement than Microphen but slightly finer grain. I've never tried DD-X but I'll take their word for it.

 

I've used Microphen extensively, both for push processing and normal processing of "correctly" exposed film. I always expect to see more grain with pushed film and and continually satisfied with Microphen because it doesn't exaggerate grain to an unacceptable level.

 

I *don't* care for it, tho', with HP5+ exposed at or near its true speed. I was really surprised to see how grainy the negs were. However Microphen has become my standard developer (at least while it remains available) for TMX at EI 100. TMX is already virtually grainless so if Microphen adds any grain it's negligible. And it offers many advantages over D-76 and other developers I've tried with TMX.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all. Very good food for thought. Just for the sake of it, here is a picture on HP5

developed in DDX, straight from the scanner (Nikon 4000) at around 4500x2500/300 dpi,

dust and all, no retouching. If it can be seen on a Web posting, do you feel this is normal

HP5 grain compared to, say, what you usually see from HP5 on the Web? I don't know if it

can be distinguished under theses conditions. Just trying things. The rectangular shape in

the middle is a grey card. Oh, and please, don't mind the picture in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are seeing grain as a result of scanning traditional film. DDX and HP5 result in very fine grained negatives, the picture you show seems rodinal-like

 

I think you shoul dmake comparisons based on prints in the traditional

darkroom.

 

Also research some of the alternatives to scan real BW negatives, such as disabbling ICE and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Pablo, I have found that HP5+ in DDX (my usual) comes out v grainy scanned at 1600 DPI, but smooth at 3200 DPI on my CanoScan 9900F. It must be some interaction between the scanner and the grain at lower resolution. I scan at 3200 DPI which gives me an approx 4500x3000 file, then I downsample that to 3000x2000 which is a convenient size to work with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've used DD-X with HP5+ quite a bit, and also a good amount with

Xtol. I find that while Xtol seems to be slightly finer grained than

DD-X, DD-X seems a lot sharper to me. What i'm describing as sharper

is probably accutance though, and this would make sense as Xtol is a

solvent developer. I haven't used D76 on HP5+, but with Tri-X I feel

DD-X is finer grained than D76.

<P>

Overall I like DD-X the best of all the developers I've tried, with

Xtol coming in second. If you're going to continue experimenting I'd

recommend giving Xtol a try.

<P>

As far as DD-X with "classic" vs "new-tech" films I think that DD-X

does wonderfully with both, but most of the popular developers will

give wonderful results with the classic films, while I really only

like the "new-tech" films in DD-X, Xtol, and HC110.

<P>

Also, if you are only going to be scanning than you will probably

want to use a solvent developer like Xtol to reduce the grain.

Scanners don't really seem to like B&W films with their hard-edged

silver specks, but solvent developers mildly compensate for this, at

least with my scanner. I would very much recommend getting any B&W

printed optically though, the results are worlds better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DD-X is an exceptional developer but has some quirks just like anything else. In my experience I have found that DDX produces amazing negatives for films like HP5+, FP4+, 400TX and Delta 100/400. I find that the key is to dilute at 1:8 and adjuste your development for a gamma of .5 to .55.

 

For example, for 400TX rate the film at EI-250 to EI-320 and process ibn DDX at 1:8 for 8 minutes at 70F. The resulting negative will be fine grained and have lovely easily printable highlights and shadows.

 

Good luck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...