Ilford Delta 100 + DD-X Developer

[Ken Lee]

Does anyone have experience with this combination ?

A salesperson recommended it as an ideal combination for excellent tonality. He suggested that Ilford uses DD-X at their own processing labs, and that they consider it their best. They list this combination on their web site as their most highly recommended (in liquid formula) for best overall imaque quality. In a powder formula, they recommend ID-11. Is that better ?

I scan my 4x5 negatives and rarely enlarge past 16x20, so grain is probably not an issue. I intend to run some tests, but welcome your insights and experience - especially if is accompanied with a sample image.

I am attracted to the film for its linear density curve and less blueish spectral response.

[Gem Singer]

Hi Ken,

I have been using Ilfotec DD-X since it's introduction (see my article "Developing 4X5 Sheet Film, an Alternative Method", on the main page of this website). I previously used ID-11, 1:1 in trays.

For many years,Ilford had a film developer called Ilfotec DD, designed to be used for replenishable deep tank processing in commercial labs.(I've been told that DD stands for dip-and-dunk). Ilfotec DD-X is a similar formulation, but it is not replenishable. It is a one-shot liquid film developer, with many of the same ingriedients as Ilford's powder developer, Microphen. It has Ilford's traditional Phenodone-Hydroquinone formulation. However, it contains potassium sulfite instead of sodium sulfite. I think it shows more acutance than Microphen, but I have no way of proving that observation. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part.

I have used DD-X with HP-5+ and FP-4+. but I haven't tried it with Delta 100. It should be a great developer for that film. I'm now testing it on Fuji 100 Acros Quickloads. So far, the results look good, but I'm still testing for an exact normal developing time with my mini-dip-and-dunk developing method. I don't have a scanner, so I cannot display an image for you.

[John Cook]

I have recently run developer tests with Delta 100 in both 35mm and 4x5. My theory was that the electronic shutter and f-stops in the EOS were probably more accurate than the copal setup. I could expose more frames at perfect third-stops for a single development run and the increased enlargement from 35mm would show results more vividly.

Seeking maximum "quality" I have tested some extreme developers such as FX-1 and Calbe R09 diluted 1:100. The results so far seem to indicate that Delta 100 is extremely sharp, virtually grainless (35mm to 11x14 full frame) and without sufficient silver to react to traditional special effects like stand development.

No matter what I seem to do, I always get a nice clean, neat-and sweet, commercially-usable image every time. But nothing which excites me with some sort of wild and wonderful "special-effect".

My advice, therefore, would be to use whatever developer you like for whatever reason you like. Maybe it's cheapest. Or maybe you like the color of the package. No matter what you use, it will yield the exact same boringly-perfect result with Delta 100.

[Ken Lee]

Just a question for clarification: The 1 litre bottle is labelled "To make 5 litres". Meanwhile, the Ilford Web site suggests developing times for DD-X at a dilution of "1+4". Does that mean 1+4 from the original bottle, or 1+4 from the 5 litres of stock solution ?

Much obliged !

[Gem Singer]

Hello Ken,

Ilfotec DD-X is packaged in a 1 liter container of concentrate. This is the stock solution. 1 part stock solution + 4 parts water makes the working solution. That is, mix 200 ml stock + 800ml water to make 1 liter of working developer. The entire bottle of stock solution will make 5 liters of working solution.

[John Cook]

Ken, let us know how you make out with your test. Eugene, whose learned opinion I respect, has been after me to try this developer. While he has had excellent results with other films, I would be interested to know if DD-X will actually make a difference with 100 Delta. As I said, I can’t seem to find anything which will dramatically modify its “look”.

[Ken Lee]

Excellent - I'll let you know what I find.

[looker]

i've tried with rollfilm...

went right back to perceptol. i love panf in ddx though and fer some reason, 400 delta looks nice in it too.

[David Beal]

Ken, I use DDX with Delta 100 (which I shoot at 80, although the product literature says you can shoot between 50 and 100 with no problems). I develop in homemade BTZS tubes at 20 degrees, continuous agitation.

I agree with all the previous posters. It is virtually impossible not to get a usable, almost grainless negative from Delta 100. For my money, it is THE film for b/w portraiture. And, although I like "old" Tri-X for landscapes, if I was going to make a print the size of New Jersey, I would use Delta 100 for that, too.

Best wishes

David Beal Memories Preserved Photography, LLC www.memoriespreservedphoto.com photo@worldnetoh.com

[Ken Lee]

This is not scientific test.



Left image: Ilford Delta 100 developed in Ilford DD-X 1:4
Center image: TMAX 100 developed in D:76 1:1
Right image: TMAX 100 developed in TMAX 1:4 (Not TMAX RS)

I shot 6x6 images of a car with one of my 1950's Agfa folding cameras, shooting TMAX 100 and Delta 100. (Cheaper than buying a box of 4x5)

I metered both films at a speed of 64 rather than their rated speed of 100. The images were scanned identically and sharpened in Photoshop to exaggerate the grain a little. At the size you see, they would be around somewhere around 16 x 16 inch prints, but the grain would be less noticeable.

Here's what I conclude:

Delta 100 gives the most authentic feeling of light, with the best shadow detail, but the worst grain.

TMAX in D-76 gives beautifully fine grain, but the shadows seem to drop off precipitously.

TMAX in TMAX seems to come out somewhere inbetween.

Since I shoot mostly 4x5, I think I am going to shoot Delta 100 for a while. The biggest prints I make are only 12 x 15, a 3X enlargement, where grain will not be a factor. I have been noticing the empty shadows of TMAX for a while, and want to avoid them.

I would appreciate any insights, as long as they are accompanied by images that actually help illustrate the point.