Ilford Developers - DD-X vs ID-11 vs Microphen

I've just processed my first 2 rolls of films at home. Great

results! I used DD-X to process Pan F+ and FP4+.

 

I also bought a package of ID-11. I wonder what the differences

between DD-X, ID-11 and Microphen for the variou Ilford films I use -

Pan F+, FP4+, HP Plus, etc.

 

Is it worth experimenting different developers? I think DD-X is

more expensive but easier to mix.

 

Thank you.

I use Ilford Delta films for almost everything I shoot, and usually develop in DD-X, which I consider the best developer for Delta, with least grain, nice speed boost and great sharpness. ID-11 diluted at 1:3 is a great compensation developer for very contrasty negatives, but the results are less smooth and sharp and the development takes much longer (around 20 minutes for Delta 400). On the other hand, for classical, low-speed emulsions ID-11 might be a more fitting choice than DD-X. FP4+ in stock ID-11 can be quite beautiful, if you watch the contrast.

 

I have here in front of me a 12x16-inch fiber print of my wife breastfeeding our two-week old son, I can see every eye-lash, the texture of the skin and structure of irises, the tonality is beautiful, there are deep blacks and sparkling whites on the picture, no grain to speak of at 20 inches and all this taken with a humbly hand-held 35-mm camera with a manual focus lens on Delta 400@320 developed in DD-X for 8 minutes with low agitation and printed in a darkroom that cost less than an advanced-amateur Epson printer. It's pity that film is dead. I wonder if it knows? :)

I haven't used Microphen (I think Lex is a fan this developer) but I have used ID11 and DD-X. My experience is that DD-X is a really excellent developer except in the area of fine grain -- it's not as fine as ID11. With FP4 it's hard to tell the difference between DD-X and ID11 but with HP5 it's very easy to tell the difference -- ID11 looks much nicer to me because the grain is finer and smoother. However, last week I pushed some HP5 to 1600 in DD-X and the results were surprisingly good, so if you decide to push HP5 then DD-X seems like a good option. If you like FP4, you can rate it at 125 in DD-X and it looks very good.

 

This photo was taken with HP5 rated at 1600 and developed in DD-X for the time recommended by Ilford. There's not much shadow detail but this sort of thing is all about atmosphere!<div></div>

Hi,

You've hit on a great monochrome film combination. DD-X is good, and gives a speed

boost to most Ilford films. Delta 400 is magical in it. ID-11 is a good general purpose

economical developer. Using it 1:1 is worth a try. Microphen is pretty much a powder

version of DD-X. Great for push processing.

 

Some non-Ilford developers worth noting are AGFA Rodinal for ISO 25-125 speed films,

and Clayton F-76+, which gives results similar to DD-X at less cost.

My favorite Ilford film+developers are:<p/>

Pan F and AGFA Rodinal 1:50<p/>

Delta 400@800 in Ilford DD-X<p/>

Ilford HP-5+ and ID-11 diluted 1:1<div></div>

Forgot to note that "Worldly Troubles" was 35mm Delta 400 shot at 800 and developed in

DD-X. Tungsten studio spots were the light source.

Keep shooting Ilford!

DD x is nice, but expensive and you never know how old it is when you buy it. Does a good job with Delta 400 as do Xtol 1:1 and ID11 undiluted. 1:1 ID 11 does not work well with Delta 400 in my opinion. Too much grain. It seemed to work with the original Delta 400 just fine at 1:1.

 

Ilford`s site gives their recommendations. Use the one for oveall best quality. They give one for liquid and one for powder.

 

http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/Delta400.pdf.

 

It is on page 2 of the pdf file. DDX and Undiluted ID11.

Ilford DD-X works well with Delta 100/400. For FP4+ I prefer using Rodinal or ID-11/D-76. Perceptol works great with FP4+, but takes longer to develop and is getting harder to find. If you manage to find Perceptol, buy it! You won't be dissapointed. Dev times for all Ilford chemicals can be found at their website.

 

Cheers!

I use Microphen and ID-11 quite frequently and would say that with HP5, you will notice the greatest difference between the two. With FP4 and Pan F, you may notice more grain and sharpness with Microphen, but not much. With the more versatile HP5, you will notice almost endless possibilities with these two developers at varios dilutions, temperatures and agitation techniques. Microphen is a speed increasing developer when exposed at box speed (ie. with HP5, shooting at 500 will produce good density), however it will only increase speed when exposed at box speed, not when being pushed. For this reason, I prefer Microphen for Pan F as many shoot it at 25 anyway. But back to HP5. Pushing this film is where grain structure can get interesting. For me, HP5 at 800 looks really good in Microphen, but that is as far as I go. The grain is definitely there, and it is beautiful in the right light. At 1600, I use ID-11. For me, in a fairly even lighting, this can be an incredible combination. The grain is sharp, sharp, sharp, and the subtle shadow areas can be breathtaking.

ID-11 is one of the older standard film developers and is essentially the same as D-76. The formulations have varied slightly over the decades but not enough to make any significant difference for most of us. I used to use this stuff pretty often but don't anymore. The stock solution needs to be fairly fresh (less than six months) to be consistent and I occasionally have long breaks between film development sessions. (I prefer to spend time printing rather than developing film.)

 

Microphen is an outstanding speed enhancing developer. I use it a lot for push processing. It's also an excellent standard developer for TMX, which can sometimes be a difficult film to develop with consistency. Microphen seems to aid in consistency, develops TMX to a true 100 and helps tame the film's contrast characteristics.

 

I've never used DD-X. Some folks compare it to Microphen altho' Ilford's information states that the two are not chemically identical.

If you've used D-76, then you'll have a pretty good idea as to how ID-11 behaves.

 

DD-X produces very good film speed, and is very forgiving of overdevelopment (especially when pushing). I've used it with a bunch of 400 speed films and it does a fantastic job with Tri-X shot at EI 800 and pushed 1 stop in that it shows very little grain penalty for extended development. It seems to have a pretty good shelf life, too.

 

I haven't really used Microphen but its allegedly capable of slightly better film speed than DD-X and is grainier.

Try Kodak XTOL.I use it,1:1, for Ilford Delta films & FP4 with good results.I am concerned that XTOL will not be around for much longer so I may have to try the DDX route.

I have found mixing powder developers a chore I'd rather avoid, and occasionally it doesn't all dissolve. ID-11 is a little cheaper than DD-X, but the hassle isn't worth it. With DD-X you get slightly more grain but better speed (about 2/3 stop more shadow detail). It also keeps longer than mixed ID-11.

 

IMHO the convenience of a liquid outweighs the cost difference. You could, if you wish, try DD-X at 1+6 or 1+8 dilution, previously recommended on this forum - add 20% or 50% respectively to the time for 1+4.