feli Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Hello- How similar are Ilford DD-X and XTOL? Is their relationship similar to the many flavors of D76 from various manufacturers? Thanks, Feli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majid Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 They aren't. XTOL is based on ascorbic acid (vitamin C). DD-X is based on phenidone and hydroquinone, like T-Max developer. <p> Check <a href="http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/xtol/">this page</a> for more details on XTOL and XTOL alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johndc Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 XTOL does not contain any Hydroquinone. My understanding is that DD-X is much closer to Microphen than XTOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverhalide1949 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 I have just started to use DDX after using XTOL for several years. In general I prefer the results I get with XTOL when using 35mm Delta 400 & 4X5 FP4 over the results I have gotten with DDX and these films/formats. After I finish the present bottle of DDX, I am going back to XTOL. This is purely subjective. You need to do your own tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_reese2 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 For an Ilford developer with a Vitamin C derivative developing agent, try Ilfosol S. Patterson FX-50 is a liquid form of XTOL, but I found it to have too short a shelf life after opening. I fell for Covington's statement that folks were going to DD-X after bad experiences with XTOL. Well, I'm back to XTOL and maybe for good. Why use a 1926 era developer (D-76) when there have been so many advances made . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_porter1 Posted March 7, 2004 Share Posted March 7, 2004 Both are excellent developers that are very similar, in my experience, in terms of grain, sharpness and shadow detail. I prefer Xtol with faster films, but DD-X is obviously easier to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mostly sports Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 Probably similar in results if not in chemistry. I've A & B 'd rolls of Delta 3200 in both developers from the same event, and can't really point to a difference. I have had Xtol "failure," (very very thin negatives) after losing track of the shelf life of working solution. (It takes a long time to work through a five liter packet, especially if you favor 1:2 dilutions.) So for the amount I process, the ease of DD-X is worth the small expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now