Times for Ilford films and DDX at 1:9

[bryan_attewell]

Hi

 

As a Newbie here I have posted this question on another forum, apologies for

double posting, but this appears to be the most relevant location for my

question.

 

I have seen some very low grain images from negatives developed in Ilford DDX

but have been put off from using it as it is relatively expensive. I have been

advised to use it at 1:9 rather than 1:4 dilution, which does make it a whole

lot more viable. Problem is Ilford does not publish development times for 1:9.

 

Searching the Net I have seen differing advice to increase the development

time by 50% and by 70%, but I suspect that the answer is more complex,

depending upon the film being used.

 

A quick look at the recommended times for the similar Microphen between stock

and 1:1 indicates that as you increase the film speed you appear to need to

increase the percentage increase in time when diluting, while there is also a

difference between the conventional films and the Deltas.

 

Panf EI 50 - 1.33x, Delta100 EI 100 - 1.54x, FP4 EI 125 - 1.25x (this one

bucks the trend, checked the figures!, FP4 EI 200 - 1.56x, HP5 EI 400 - 1.85x,

Delta400 EI 400 - 1.77x, Delta400 EI 800 - 1.82x, HP5 EI 800 - 1.88x

 

Has anybody got any recommendations based upon actual experience?

 

If anyone at Ilford is looking in, could you please publish the figures for

1:9, you might encourage more people to buy DDX

[evan_goulet]

<a href="http://digitaltruth.com/devchart.html">Digital Truth</a> as a starting point.

[kirbylee]

Funny you should post this today. Just last night, I found myself short of DD-X and scrambled to Digital Truth for 1:9 times (instead of 1:4 as I typically use). I recall seeing HP5+ (ISO 400) = 15.75 min at 68F. I adjusted that for temperature (18.5 min at 66F) and negs turned out fine upon cursory review. Will inspect and print them later this week, but hope that helps provide at least a starting point for HP5+.

[bryan_attewell]

Thanks Gentlemen. I have an FP4 to brew and will try 12:30 at EI125 and 20 degC

[leicaglow]

The other thing is that DD-X tends to overdevelop most films I put through it, so you may not be too far off anyway if you've exposed at ISO 200 instead of 100.

[rafael_franco]

I just found this

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/buze/

 

You may whant to e-mail this guy for some advice.

 

Thanks

 

Rafael

[michael_p6]

Hi I'm flick/buze :D

 

I did quite a few films in DDX 1+9, I had seen somewhere that you had to add 70% time from 1+4, so I experimented with that and found it more or less spot on. Here are my current times; note that the 20C are noted, but I haven't used them (I dev at 24C).

 

The time for Delta 100 is new, and I shot only with one camera : the film was a bit too contrasty /but/ it's possibly the shutter on my Iskra that is a bit slow. I'll have to try with another camera to really confirm the time.

 

Film ISO 20c 24c

 

Delta 400 400 13:30 9:15

 

Tri-X 400 13:30 10:10

 

TMax 100 100 11:55 8:30

 

Delta 100 100 20:25 15:15

 

HP5 400 15:15 11:54

[bryan_attewell]

Hi Buze, we know each other from elsewhere!

 

Thanks for posting your list of times.

 

I have now developed an FP4+ using the 1.25X multiplier from my calculations above above which are scaled from Microphen at stock and 1:1 and I am pleased with the outcome in terms of contrast and detail, although it is a bit more grainy than I had hoped. Will post some images on the MFF.

 

I think that if you apply a 1.7 x multiplier to the slower films they will be overcooked, although, as you have clearly demonstrated, it looks great for Delta400.

 

My times are now as follows (but the only one that I have actually tried is FP4 - so beware!) at 20degC. Ilford recommended agitation.

 

PanF EI50 10:40

 

Delta 100 EI100 18:28

 

FP4 EI 125 12:30

 

Delta 400 EI400 14:9

 

HP5+ EI400 16:37

 

I think that you may have developed the Delta 100 a tad too long at 20:25, hence the contrasty results.

 

Best wishes

[rafael_franco]

Buze and Bryan,

 

Thanks for posting your times. I'm a big fan of Delta 400. How would you say it compares between 1+4 and 1+9?

 

Thanks

 

Rafael

[bryan_attewell]

Buze is the expert on Delta400, I have yet to try that film with DDX.

 

Acording to an ancient Ilford technical datasheet in my possession (relating to HP5) "Dilute development gives further increased acutance. It is particularly suitable for subjects with a long tonal scale - shadows and highlights are retained, while the negatives are sufficiently contrasty..." I believe that it also increases the grain a little bit, but if you have seen Buze's images you will know that is not too significant.

 

Of course 1:9 costs one half of 1:4 and DDX is not cheap!

[michael_p6]

Delta 400 /maybe/ has a bit more grain at 1+9, but quite frankly I haven't noticed any differences, even a 4800dpi. Delta 400 is very smooth to start with from what I have seen.

 

The only difference I noticed is when I tried to agitate less (1:30 instead of 1:00) now /that/ pushes the grain considerably it seems, I came back to 1:00 immediately :D