Timings and Dilutions for Ilfotec DDX

K

Kingsman

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
No
Trying to find a definitive set of timings for Ilfotec DDX at 'other than' 1+4 dilution is driving me nuts...
After an exhausting afternoon scrolling through years' worth of posts on various forums, I'm just about to slash my wrists.
I'm getting timings which vary between 13 minutes and 20.30 minutes, which is obviously a fairly vast gulf and not really much help...
It's also not helped by all the American forum users insisting on using Farenheit instead of Celcius and intermingling their terms for time conversions between 'x1.4' and 'add 175%' ... I'm a maths-biff at the best of times, so keeping this all straight in my head is a challenge anyway...
There seems to be some consensus on Delta 400 and Delta 3200 especially when pushed, but almost nothing regarding Delta 100 at box speed...

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)...
But even then, I'd rather go with 1+6 to start with anyway - because I'm awkward like that...

I know the definitive answer is 'test it yourself' but Delta 100 is bloody expensive compared to Fomapan and DDX isn't cheap either compared to HC110...
The other issue is that I didn't actually want to use 1+9 as my ratio, but 1+6.5, due to the minimum solution requirement per film, and the probability/possibility that the characteristics of the developer change at weaker dilutions, which further complicates matters...

If anyone has any experience using DDX with Delta 100 and has developed at other than the suggested 10.30mins at 1+4 @ 20C, I'd be interested to hear their thoughts.
 
I tend to use either the Massive Dev Chart app although I think that only has 1+4 and 1+9 or the manufacturers recommendations on the basis that the experienced expert chemists that formulated the film and process probably know more about it than I do.
 
The Ilford data sheet only talks about dilution of 1:4, but recommends re-use of stock for greater economy. I understand that's not a help in your quest to use 1:6.5, but it shows Ilford's thinking to be against greater dilution, possibly because they see this as a flagship product for best possible results? https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ILFOTEC-DDX-AUG19.pdf
ILFOTEC DD-X is supplied as a liquid concentrate diluted 1+4 for one-shot use when the highest image quality is
required. However, for greater economy it can be reused but image quality will be reduced slightly
Click to expand...
 
I've always used 1:4 dilution as per the Ilford data sheet on their website, and the timings and temperatures are there too.
 
Asha said:
Contact ilford!
Click to expand...
Gee, if only I and about a dozen others asking the same question on various forums had thought of that... :rolleyes:
Asked and (not) answered. They apparently prefer everyone uses it at 1+4.
 
Peter B said:
The Ilford data sheet only talks about dilution of 1:4, but recommends re-use of stock for greater economy. I understand that's not a help in your quest to use 1:6.5, but it shows Ilford's thinking to be against greater dilution, possibly because they see this as a flagship product for best possible results? https://www.ilfordphoto.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ILFOTEC-DDX-AUG19.pdf
Click to expand...
If it can be used more than once and replenished then your theory on maintaining top quality makes no sense. That could only be achieved by using it as a 1-shot solution - the variations introduced by prior usage mitigates against it.
 
Last edited:
Kingsman said:
Gee, if only I and about a dozen others asking the same question on various forums had thought of that... :rolleyes:
Asked and (not) answered. They apparently prefer everyone uses it at 1+4.
Click to expand...
If you contacted ilford in a similar manner to how you have responded to the replies offered in this thread , I am not surprised that you have received no response!!
 
You have options,

1. Use 1+ 4 solution

2. Experiment and work out the times for yourself.

3. Change developer to one that offers solutions and times that suit you.

If none of the above are suitable then the only option left is …….

..to give up!:ROFLMAO:
 
I find the whole approach pretty strange, DDX is designed to give high quality negatives, yes it is expensive but you get what you pay for. It seems odd to go for the best developer and then mess with it which will presumably move away from the optimum. Why not just use a more economical developer, HC110, Rodinal, etc.
 
Asha said:
If you contacted ilford in a similar manner to how you have responded to the replies offered in this thread , I am not surprised that you have received no response!!
Click to expand...
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...

sirch said:
I find the whole approach pretty strange, DDX is designed to give high quality negatives, yes it is expensive but you get what you pay for. It seems odd to go for the best developer and then mess with it which will presumably move away from the optimum. Why not just use a more economical developer, HC110, Rodinal, etc.
Click to expand...
Well, I've used Rodinal and HC110 and ID-11 - as you know Rodinal and HC110 act differently to developers like ID-11, D-76, Microphen etc. - and now I want to compare those results to DDX at various dilutions without wasting too much film... If I have a reasonable starting point that others have successfully used, maybe I'll waste less film than if I just guess... if that's OK with you?

Obviously no-one here has an answer as they'd have responded by now.

Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental - for those who are actually interested, 12.30 @ 1+6.5 has been used with what appear to be good results (as much as you can tell from a scanned image on a computer monitor, anyway)... the shorter time apparently doesn't change the acutance characteristics which it will do at greater dilutions.
 
This is how it works in f and c: a question is asked, many people answer, some of the answers veer away from the question, nobody minds, we embrace the irrelevancies as they often lead to other interesting avenues, we try not to be rude to others.
 
Kingsman said:
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...


Well, I've used Rodinal and HC110 and ID-11 - as you know Rodinal and HC110 act differently to developers like ID-11, D-76, Microphen etc. - and now I want to compare those results to DDX at various dilutions without wasting too much film... If I have a reasonable starting point that others have successfully used, maybe I'll waste less film than if I just guess... if that's OK with you?

Obviously no-one here has an answer as they'd have responded by now.

Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental - for those who are actually interested, 12.30 @ 1+6.5 has been used with what appear to be good results (as much as you can tell from a scanned image on a computer monitor, anyway)... the shorter time apparently doesn't change the acutance characteristics which it will do at greater dilutions.
Click to expand...
My appologies for not being able to offer a lot of advice in answering your queries although generally contacting the manufacturer of the product in question ( in a pleasant manner), is often seen as a good starting point.

Clearly for you this wasn’t satisfactory ( as were non of the other suggestions!), so you are quite right I have been spectacularly unhelpful, but at least I haven’t been arragant and ignorant!!!
 
Kingsman said:
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...


Well, I've used Rodinal and HC110 and ID-11 - as you know Rodinal and HC110 act differently to developers like ID-11, D-76, Microphen etc. - and now I want to compare those results to DDX at various dilutions without wasting too much film... If I have a reasonable starting point that others have successfully used, maybe I'll waste less film than if I just guess... if that's OK with you?

Obviously no-one here has an answer as they'd have responded by now.

Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental - for those who are actually interested, 12.30 @ 1+6.5 has been used with what appear to be good results (as much as you can tell from a scanned image on a computer monitor, anyway)... the shorter time apparently doesn't change the acutance characteristics which it will do at greater dilutions.
Click to expand...

Steady on, people are trying to help. Abrassive attitudes will get you nowhere. Please keep it pleasant and respectful.

Informal warning for now, next one is formal.
 
"Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental"

Clearly he can get help elsewhere so just ban him now and save us all the grief!
 
moggi1964 said:
"Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental"

Clearly he can get help elsewhere so just ban him now and save us all the grief!
Click to expand...
Tbh , following his last remarks , my original typed response was a very long way from the more diplomatic one actually posted .
Knowing I would without doubt have been offered a holiday from TP , I mulled it over for a while and decided, much against my better judgement ( as I have nigh on zero tolerance of such behavior) to give this rather arrogant gentleman à final chance before speaking my mind.

Perhaps he will, now having obtained the info he requires will take himself away from f&c , consider his behaviour ( for a mature ( note his age!) gentleman, and realise that he has been totally out of order with his feedback to our offerings of help.
I personally don’t ask for any apology. As far as I am concerned he , like anyone else , is welcome to interact with us here if he’s happy to do so in a pleasant manner….. that’s all that is asked of him.
If not then I’m more than delighted to have no more interaction with him be it on TP or elsewhere.

I do agree with @moggi1964 about a ban but given the amount of messages posted by the OP since his registration with TP, along with his attitude, I doubt it would bother him too much .

Thank you mods for intervening.

The choice now rests with the OP
 
Last edited:
moggi1964 said:
"Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental"

Clearly he can get help elsewhere so just ban him now and save us all the grief!
Click to expand...
Believe me, this has already been discussed - as per my coleagues post quoted below, the gentlemans ongoing membership is definitely on a shakey nail if he doesn't stop being such a complete cockwomble.

Dale. said:
Informal warning for now, next one is formal.
Click to expand...
:)
 
Kingsman said:
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...


Well, I've used Rodinal and HC110 and ID-11 - as you know Rodinal and HC110 act differently to developers like ID-11, D-76, Microphen etc. - and now I want to compare those results to DDX at various dilutions without wasting too much film... If I have a reasonable starting point that others have successfully used, maybe I'll waste less film than if I just guess... if that's OK with you?

Obviously no-one here has an answer as they'd have responded by now.

Thankfully, people elsewhere are more helpful and less judgemental - for those who are actually interested, 12.30 @ 1+6.5 has been used with what appear to be good results (as much as you can tell from a scanned image on a computer monitor, anyway)... the shorter time apparently doesn't change the acutance characteristics which it will do at greater dilutions.
Click to expand...
If you do not want to use too much film do clip tests. But it is clear that you do need to do real tests to satisfy your self about the quality questions.

However Developers are formulated to provide the best results for wet printing.
Scanning brings in many other considerations.
Most scanners tend to struggle with high density highlights. and they respond badly to high actuance, as edge effects are accentuated by digital processing.
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.
Films developed to a slightly lower D max, and slightly lower gamma, with an extended straight line portion to the characteristic curve, tend to make life easier for scanning. As the digit work flow is optimised with out consideration of a toe or sholder, which do not exist in digital output from sensors.

However I have successfully scanned Images that I took in the 50's using Adox R17 and processed in one shot Neofin blue, a very highly dilute Beutler type developer that gives great compensation, sharpness and high actuance. Adox R17 was a single coated high silver content thin emulsion, with massive resolution and extraordinary tonal rendition, When correctly processed. I was able to produce fine quality 3meter square bromide enlargements for store window displays, from Rollie negatives. These were able to stand up sufficiently well with others from 5x7 negatives.

Addendum: actuance can be limited by increasing agitation. The edge effect is maximised by minimum agitation. However increasing agitation also decreases compensation. As it refreshes the exhausted developer in the dark highlights.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top