Opinions / experiences regarding DD-X

[joe_miller2]

In a recent post, Jon Porter suggested DD-X as a replacement for Xtol now that Kodak may be discontinuing the 1 liter package. I really hate switching films or developers. So before I try it and do the hated testing, would anyone be willing to share their experiences and opinions of this developer? Especially whether or not you would consider it a good replacement for Xtol.

[henry_a]

DDX is a very good developer. I've used it with various films and been

able to get excellent results.

 

<p>

 

BUT

 

<p>

 

Why do you want to switch?

 

<p>

 

A Liter of DDX (to make 5 liters working solution) and a 5 liter kit of

Xtol cost about the same. The 5 liter Xtol will, depending on dilution,

give from 5 liters (straight) to 20 liters (1:3) of working solution.

This makes no sense to me at all - that anyone would pay more more for

less utility. If you like Xtol keep using it and know that for $8.00

you have all the developer you can use for the next couple of months.

You might even shoot more film!

[john_hicks]

In my experience while DD-X is a fine developer the overall look of the photos is nothing like Xtol. Of course it depends to a great extent on what film you're using.

 

<p>

 

DD-X is essentially a liquid version of Microphen.

[William D. Lester]

It is my opinion that Xtol produces a lot finer grain than DDX is is

a lot less expensive to use. It is too bad about the 1 litre sizes as

I also preferred them to the five litre size.

[jon_porter1]

Joe, I primarily shoot T-max 100 in 35mm and 120, so that's what my

experience with Xtol and DD-X is based on. I based my comparisons of

the two developers on grain, acutance and shadow detail. To me they

look almost identical. Every developer, of course, has its own

personality with subtle nuances that distinguish it from others. Had

Kodak continued making 1 liter Xtol I would have stayed with that as

it's $9 less than DD-X locally. But mixing and storing 5 liters of

chemistry just isn't practical or convenient for me.

[ryuji_suzuki]

Jon Porter said he got nearly identical result with DD-X and XTOL

with TMX. I think TMX

is a strange film, which produces extremely fine grain in HC-110.

 

<p>

 

Incidentally, John Hicks has suggested a number of times that DD-X

is essentially a liquid version of Microphen. Microphen 1+1, 1+2 or

1+3 has been my best developer for TMX for last few years. I haven't

tried DD-X and I probably won't. But those who consider DD-X might

want to consider Microphen also.

 

<p>

 

(With HP5+, XTOL produces much finer grain than Microphen though.)

[john_hicks]

> Jon Porter said he got nearly identical result with DD-X and XTOL

with TMX. I think TMX is a strange film, which produces extremely fine grain in HC-110.

 

<p>

 

This is consistent with several findings (Otis Sprow, Richard Henry and others I've forgotten) that with slow films the developer used doesn't make a whole lot of difference. I haven't found any really significant differences in TMX in Rodinal 1:100, Rodinal 1:100 w/ascorbate, D-76H 1:3 and TFX-2. Of course there are slight differences but I think we see them because we're looking so hard for them.

[tim_brown5]

I use Xtol and Microphen, both diluted 1+2. I also get virtually

identical results with these developers and TMX. With TMY however I

get the expected speed and grain increase with Microphen.

[mostly sports]

I started using DD-X because it was Ilford's recommendation for Delta 3200. Xtol has been my default developer for many years. One time I developed a batch of Delta 3200 film in both Xtol and DD-X. I, too, couldn't tell any difference. Since then, I've discovered that DD-X is a great general purpose film developer, and the Xtol sits around a while longer. I now dilute DD-X 1:8, and increase times by 150%. I still hear of Xtol "failures," much more than with any other developer. I think Xtol is great product, but the convienence and reliability of DD-X have me wondering if shouldn't just use it for everything.