Ilford Ilfotec DD-X Black and White Film Developer 1 Litre

Product Information

If you’re the type of photographer who often pushes your film and likes having a liquid developer, DD-X is going to be one of the best developer choices. DD-X will not let you down, no matter what kind of lighting you throw at your negatives. The low solvent action and enhanced shadows make this especially useful for fast films like Ilford Delta 3200, where it will reduce the grains just enough to have a pleasing appearance without eating the grains and lowering the film’s speed. Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C It is more expensive on a roll-for-roll costing, but I've also found that it's cheaper to buy a bottle than the more economical developers. It's a false economy, but sometimes it works for the wallet that way.

After an exhausting afternoon scrolling through years' worth of posts on various forums, I'm just about to slash my wrists. You can't replenish a diluted developer-- something that is both good and bad. This depends on the developer used as some replenish well (aka get "ripened) others gain no such benefit and some really just ought to be disposed of after development. Though the compensating effect of dilute developers is welcome. A simple developer like D76 or ID11 (same) used diluted is about as good as one can get in terms of quality and as an excellent compromise between the various factors. As you can see from the above DDX recipe, my cost per roll goes down with SSD. Now, I use 15 ml per roll or 25 ml per two rolls (or 12.5 ml per roll). I get 1,000ml / 25 = 80 rolls if I develop two at a time or 1,000 / 25 = 66 rolls if I develop one at a time compared to using 60ml per roll in normal development. This makes DDX quite affordable to use regularly.

Product Specification

Pyro - 5 ml + 995 ml water - 15+15 with 30 seconds stir or inversions at the start and the end of the first 15 minutes. If you are using 500 ml for developing only one roll of either 35mm or 120, you still need to use a minimum of 5 ml (not 2.5 ml) of 510 Pyro. But film developers all perform a little bit different. Some of them can make dramatic changes in the look of your images. DD-X is one of the most common, and most expensive developers on the market. This isn't a scientific experiment because I was dumb. I put rolls of HP5 into my Olympus 35RCs and set the ISO to 800. I have 2 of these, so figured that would be a good idea. Stupidly though, I didn't think that the meters would be slightly diffferent, and the RF patch is harder to spot on one. So both focussing and metering weren't exact. Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C Minolta Maxxum 9 – Minolta Maxxum AF 28-135mm 1:4-4.5 – Ilford Delta 100 @ ASA-100 – Ilford DD-X (1+4) 10:30 @ 20C

I generally use the manufacturer’s recommendations for film and paper processing, except for film development where I find the Ilford recommended development times rather long for my way of working. Ilfotec DD-X is one of the very best film developers for pushing film. This developer is the perfect balance between solvent action (reducing the size of grains) and shadow enhancement. Like I said though, I am not versed in the particulars of how developers work, if you are, please let me know in the comments if dilution does make a difference in the amount of grain you get in your images. So, the above-described process is simply known as ‘Development’ or developing your film. In Stand Development (SD), a much smaller amount of developers is used, but the time to develop it is extended significantly. So, instead of using a less diluted chemistry (in other words, you are using more concentrated chemistry), what you are doing is that you are diluting the chemistry substantially and offsetting the dilution by extending the time the film ‘stands’ in the developer. Another way to look at stand developing is that you are not doing the inversions or twists you normally do with developing film (typically, every minute). Instead, you fill the developing tank and do an initial stir, twist, or inversion ranging from a few seconds to 30 seconds or a minute. Certainly, the developer is not hampering my capability as a photographer as I perhaps suspected. It must be something elseLearn more about how to handle film chemical waste here. This image was taken on HP5 pushed to ISO 1600, but you’d hardly be able to tell when using an incredible developer like Ilfotec DD-X. What is the difference between Infotec DD and DD-X? Ilford DDX for single roll – 15 ml + 485 ml water – 22+22 with 20-second stir at start and midpoint. is a "normal" ISO range for me at this time of year. It's often gloomy, and I walk in the woodland with "lighter" camera combos which usually means no more than f/2.8 to rely on. To start with, IMO, the DD-X isn't 3x better. It's not noticeably sharper (take my word for it because forum compression will kill these screenies) and whilst the grain is lessened, it's really only visible at 100% which as any pixel peeper will know isn't that useful. Most scanners tend to struggle with high density highlights. and they respond badly to high actuance, as edge effects are accentuated by digital processing.

Perhaps the best part about using DD-X, is that it gives users the maximum amount of tonality on their negatives. That means that the negatives will look relatively flat when compared to other developers like Rodinal or pyro-based developers. But in return, you’ll get negatives that can be edited to create the desired level of contrast. No, I only use this tone with people who waste my time by posting irrelevancies over the why's and wherefore's. It's my business as to why I want to do it. . If you don't know the answer, say so. You've been spectacularly unhelpful by the way - I can see your profile descriptor is pretty accurate... Where maximum film speed is needed I would always use Ilford Microphen powder, still the best speed enhancing developer. Paper DeveloperI'm getting timings which vary between 13 minutes and 20.30 minutes, which is obviously a fairly vast gulf and not really much help... Ilfotec DD-X is the best developer for developing B&W film that is ISO 400 and above. This liquid-concentrate developer enhances shadow details, and creates images with rich tonality, making it one of the top options for pushing film without creating overly-grainy images. So interestingly, whilst I was developing the 2 test rolls I also had a roll of HP5 shot at 1600 to do. I decided to dev it in DD-X.

It seems the rule of thumb for increasing development time is generally agreed-on at being x1.41 for a doubling of the dilution (or halving the amount of developer for a given volume), so the recommended 10.30mins at 1+4 @ 20C would be theoretically be 14.50mins at 1+9 (ish). In which case, the Massive Dev Chart seems way off with 1+9 timed at 18.30 at 20C (converted from their posted timings for 1+9 which are at 24C - sigh)...

Stop Bath

Ilfosol 3 – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint You can always add more contrast, but removing it is much harder. DD-X helped create a detailed image with rich tonality. Photo taken on Ilford HP5 with a Hasselblad 503cx and 150mm f/4 lens What are the downsides of DD-X? The last downside is that DD-X is not an environmentally-friendly chemical. Like most developers, DD-X made from the phenols dimezone and hydroquinone, which come from the petrochemical industry. It’s not safe to place in a septic tank and is known to be toxic to aquatic life downstream.