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

Product Information

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.

Ilfosol 3 – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint In Semi-Stand Development (SSD), the approach is the same with one minor variation. Going with the Ilfosol 3 example above, I would do 2 x 30 minutes and stir 10 seconds initially and 10 seconds before the second 30-minute time slot. Nothing else changes. Why break it down into two slots instead of just letting it stand for 30 minutes? Depending on the chemistry I am using, I may want to enhance the effect of that chemistry slightly. So, the second stir at the midpoint works harder to produce the desired effect. Grain is much more pronounced, esp in the zone II & III shadows and there's a "kludgy", muddy look to the image - which suits the subject in this case. This grain is less pronounced through the tonal range, but it's visible, and nowhere near as clean as the DD-X shot. I may well sacrifice a couple of rolls of P3200 to compare.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? 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. After an exhausting afternoon scrolling through years' worth of posts on various forums, I'm just about to slash my wrists.

If you’ve looked at developing times on the Massive Dev Chart, you’ll have certainly noticed there is a developer called Ilfotec DD. DD is actually the same developer as DD-X, though it is formulated for use in labs where it’s possible to replenish the developer after each use.

Paper

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

The solvent action in DD-X is fairly low compared to developers like HC-110, D-76, and ID-11, which can cause a noticeable reduction in image sharpness.I’ve developed hundreds of rolls of film over the last couple of years, and DD-X has been by far my favorite developer for most of that time. The results that this solution gets are second to none with faster films, which is one of the major reasons why I almost always keep a bottle of it on my shelf to this day. 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.