PDA

View Full Version : Ilford DDX vs Perceptol


Steve_F
27th August 2010, 12:51 PM
Are there any users out there with experience of Ilford's DDX. I've been using Perceptol, successfully on Delta 100 in 35mm and MF (@1:1). I would like to try and improve the acutance without the grain going up (to much). I know that ID11 is good for acutance but like I said I want to keep the grain under reasonable control.

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Steve.

Mike O'Pray
27th August 2010, 01:09 PM
DDX is still my regular dev but I do use Perceptol as well( mainly for the finer grain it gets me with HP5+ at a slight loss of speed).

I started with ID11 on a nightschool course then contined to use it when I built my one darkroom. I started to look round for another dev when I developed both P3200 and D3200 and found that the grain was intrusive even on 5x7 prints with ID11. Eventually I settled on DDX after trying Ilfosol.

By and large DDX solved all my previous problems with ID11. In fact up to 10x8 which is the biggest I do DDX gives me as good a print as a Perceptol neg except when I crop greatly so in effect the projection is much bigger than 10x8. Having said that I still find that HP5+ even at 10x8 is marginally grainier in DDX than in Perceptol and this becomes worse if its a crop.

I use Fuji Neopan 400 mostly now and find that even with a bit of cropping on a DDX neg but still doing a 10x8 print, Neopan 400 is still acceptably grainless.

I am not sure that I'd recognise accutance if it crossed the road and punched me :D: but if Rodinal is the epitomy of accutance then I can say that my romance with it was short lived. The accutance may have been great but maybe I couldn't see if for the grain!

Mike

Steve_F
27th August 2010, 01:30 PM
Mike,
thanks for the reply. Like I said I have used Perceptol successfully - for 12 years or so. Maybe I just can't 'squeeze' anymore out of it for 35mm.
Perhaps I should accept that and stick with Perceptol. I know what it does and am pleased with the results - just want that little bit more, you know.

Steve.

Alan Clark
27th August 2010, 02:52 PM
Steve,
Have you tried Perceptol at 1+3 with Delta 100? I've recently started using this combination in 35mm, and have been gobsmacked by the quality of the resultant prints. Very sharp, and no grain on an 11" wide print. And it realy tames contrast - useful for me as I prefer to take pictures when the sun is shining.
As for DDX, I used it briefly and found it fairly grainy. This was with 35mm HP5+. Grain was almost as much as with Rodinal; far more than I get with ID11. Perhaps I was doing something wrong, though I did put quite a few films through it.

Mike, I like your comment about Rodinal! I think that Rodinal's reputation as the sharpest kid on the block is a bit of an urban myth. When I took the trouble to test it against other developers, by exposing several rolls of 35mm FP4+ on the same subject, then cutting the film up and developing bits of it in different developers, I found that ID11 1+3, Perceptol 1+3, Pyrocat HD and Presycol were just as sharp but all had far less grain. I did 12 x18 inch prints to evaluate the results. Sad, I know. I'm afflicted with a curious mind!

All this applies to 35mm. In 120, which Steve also mentions using Delta 100, I would have thought grain and sharpness to be non issues. Even 120 HP5+ and TRI X in Rodinal look grain free up to a reasonable size, and very sharp in all the above developers.

Alan

Mike O'Pray
27th August 2010, 03:12 PM
Yes it's the old story. Unless you do very large prints indeed then 120 film solves most of the grain problems without necessarily resorting to very fine grain developers and some loss of speed.

Only the "magic bullet" gives you something for nothing and I am still looking for it :D:

Mike

Jon Butler
27th August 2010, 03:49 PM
The "Majic bullet" for me is Pyrocat or Prescysol & HC 110 @ 1/50 is pretty good if you don't want stain.
JON.

Dave miller
27th August 2010, 03:54 PM
The "Majic bullet" for me is Pyrocat or Prescysol & HC 110 @ 1/50 is pretty good if you don't want stain.
JON.

I must agree with Jon, I find that Prescysol does make the grain disappear.

Miha
27th August 2010, 04:16 PM
I guess everyone has his own magic bullet. Mine is TriX in Tetenal Ultrafin Plus. Full speed, fine grain: http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=388
Full frame 12x16 print. Some grain on the lamp post, no grain on the statue!

Miha

Martin Aislabie
27th August 2010, 04:34 PM
You might want to try dabbling with XTOL.

Not for me, I found the grain too mushy and low on acutance – but that is what Perceptol looks like to me too.

Just a suggestion

Martin

Steve_F
27th August 2010, 05:11 PM
Steve,
All this applies to 35mm. In 120, which Steve also mentions using Delta 100, I would have thought grain and sharpness to be non issues.

Alan

I should have made this clearer. I'm talking 35mm here. Whoops. The 120 reference was just to say I use Delta 100 in that format too.
:slap:

The 120 is great (perhaps a little 'sharper'):rolleyes:, then again there's always 5x4, it's never ending isn't it?

Steve.

Mike O'Pray
27th August 2010, 05:37 PM
I don't think there is any argument that fine grain and accutance tend to be mutually exclusive or is there?

Perhaps to help Steve, a key question for Prescysol users in 35mm would be: Given that stain hides the grain in a different way than fine grain devs such as Perceptol or even Xtol which give "mushiness", then did any of the 35mm Prescysol users find that their negs were less grainier and sharper than with their previous conventional devs?

Mike

Keith Tapscott.
27th August 2010, 05:38 PM
Are there any users out there with experience of Ilford's DDX. I've been using Perceptol, successfully on Delta 100 in 35mm and MF (@1:1). I would like to try and improve the acutance without the grain going up (to much). I know that ID11 is good for acutance but like I said I want to keep the grain under reasonable control.

Your thoughts on this would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Steve.
I've tried DD-X and it's fine, but I find D-76 1+1 gives me finer-grain and sharpness looks at least as good. Just my own subjective opinion. YMMV as they say.

Alan Clark
27th August 2010, 09:50 PM
To try to answer Mike's question all I can say is that in the test which I described in an earlier post, prints made from FP4+ developed in Prescysol EF, Pyrocat HD ( both at 1+1+100) and Perceptol at 1+3,were almost identical in every respect. If I shuffle them up, I can't tell which is which.

There is another issue which hasn't so far been discussed. Tonality. All three developers rendered the upper mid-tones quite light in tone, giving the print a bright fresh look. ID11 was nearly as good in this respect. Rodinal caused these tones to be lower in value. Semi-stand Rodinal was disappointing, lowering these tone so the print looked dull. XTOL did the same thing resulting in prints that were a bit lack-lustre. Looked at in isolation these prints were OK. But compared with Pyrocat, presycol and Perceptol 1+3 the prints which had darker looking light tones just looked dull.
We are all concerned about sharpness and grain, but when prints are viewed from an normal viewing distance, you don't really see these qualities - especially if you are over a certain age and you can't find your glasses! But you do see the tones. You can't miss them. So,in a sense, these are more important than grain and sharpness. This is borne out when you ask a non-photographer th evaluate a print. If you know any painters, ask them to evaluate your prints.
Just my threepenneth as usual!

Alan

Dave miller
28th August 2010, 06:57 AM
Good points made Alan, I sometimes think we get too hung up on "sharpness" and forget about the other important points.