Opinions / experiences regarding DD-Xgreenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread
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.
-- Joe Miller (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 2001
DDX is a very good developer. I've used it with various films and been able to get excellent results.
Why do you want to switch?
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!
-- Henry Ambrose (email@example.com), December 21, 2001.
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.
DD-X is essentially a liquid version of Microphen.
-- John Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 2001.
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.
-- Bill Lester (email@example.com), December 21, 2001.
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.
-- Jon Porter (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 21, 2001.
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.
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.
(With HP5+, XTOL produces much finer grain than Microphen though.)
-- Ryuji Suzuki (email@example.com), December 22, 2001.
> 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.
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.
-- John Hicks (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 22, 2001.
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.
-- Tim Brown (email@example.com), December 24, 2001.