DD-X = ID-68, Accurate?

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by trooper, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. I've seen conflicting information regarding whether DD-X is the
    formula given for ID-68. Does anyone know anything about the
    accuracy of this? Any experience with both?
  2. ID-68 is a formula that Ilford published back in the 1950s. No way it's DD-X. I don't know if it performs closely. Regarding the origins of DD-X, it is allegedly a close match for a liquid PQ developer that Ilford began marketing to commercial labs sometime in the 80s.

    As a rule, Ilford doesn't publish the formulas of anything it markets. Some are known nonetheless as they are essentially EK formulas for which the formulations are known (e.g. ID-11 = D-76).

    There is, allegedly, a formula published (in Steve Anchell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" that is supposed to resemble Microphen very closely. And Microphen and DD-X are supposed to be quite similar.
  3. In The Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop there are two Ilford formulas that are similar PQ formulas, ID-68 and "Ilford Replenishing Developer" which does not have a number. They have the same ingredients but different quantities. The authors cite that the Replenishing Developer is regarded by some as being Microphen. There are two differnt replenishers too, their use depending on the method of replenishment.

    DDX is often described as being "liquid Microphen" but it it reputed to give a little less speed, higher pictorial quality, and of course is much more expensive. Its development times are generally longer than straight Microphen, but by a different factor for different films.

    With the disruption to Ilford, who knows for sure what will be available in the future? At least we Microphen users can make up something very close to Microphen if it be discontinued.

Share This Page