1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Ilford DD-X vs. LC29?

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by mattie, Sep 2, 2004.

  1. mattie

    mattie Well-Known Member

    Hi all

    I've previously used DD-X for pretty much all of my B&W developing (mostly delta) with the occasional use of Ilfosol S for HP5 and FP4. I've decided to try LC29, is it suitable for all Ilford films? I've read the Ilford datasheets which suggests that Delta 3200 really needs DD-X, however will I lose some quality if I use LC29 instead of DD-X on Delta 100 and 400? I was under the impression that DD-X was designed with Delta films in mind, and that DD-X is finer grain ('better') than LC29 which is in turn finer grain than Ilfosol S, are these fair conclusions to draw?

    I prefer only having the one bottle of dev, and LC29 is quite a bit cheaper than DD-X, especially when you can mix at lower concentrations and can refresh it, unlike Ilfosol S.

    If anyone has any comments or advice on Ilford chemicals and film, I'd be pleased to hear from them

    Cheers

    Matt

    p.s. anyone have any news on the state of Ilford as a going concern?
     
  2. Wilko

    Wilko Well-Known Member

    I use DDX at the moment on a 'one shot' basis, which is excellent for FP4 and HP5 as well as Delta films. I've also used it on Delta 3200 and whilst the grain is fine, I found the negs look a bit thin and are quite tricky to scan at the recommended dev time of 91/2 mins. DDX also works well with Kodak high speed infra red, although dev times are a bit of a guess. I've never tried LC29, but I'm well pleased with DDX. I've tried ID11, TMax, Perceptol, Microphen and Rodinal too, but don't really do enough B&W to warrant 2 developers on the go. If there was a second one though, I'd choose Rodinal.

    Graham NRIPN
     
  3. mattie

    mattie Well-Known Member

    Hi Graham

    I used to use DD-X a lot, but it's just working out a bit too expensive at present - I pay £10.99 per litre, which makes up 5 litres, whereas Ilfosol S is £2.50 and LC29 £5.20 for the same mixed quantity.

    If the quality of LC29 isn't up with/close to DD-X I'll probably switch back, but it takes me ages to get a 'feel' for a film/dev combination (I used to find jessops films/devs OK until I tried a few larger prints), in which time I'll probably have wasted quite a few films if things don't work out.

    Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

    Cheers
    Matt
     
  4. Wilko

    Wilko Well-Known Member

    From what you read, DDX is supposed to be the developer for fine grain prints with Delta 3200 (a combination also strongly recommended by Will Cheung, formerly editor of Practical Photography). I also quite like its grainy negs when used with some other developers, but of course it depends on what you're requirements are. Delta 3200 certainly works fairly well with any of the developers I mentioned earlier.

    Graham NRIPN
     
  5. taxor

    taxor Well-Known Member

    Matt,
    I have used LC29 in the past and found it to be a good all round developer. It has a long life formulation which may be an advantage if you're only an occasional processor. Rodinal is an excellent formula but because of its acutance enhancing proprties, you may find it accentuates grain. I've pretty much always used Ilford ID11 (I think LC29 was meant to be the liquid equivalent). I've found that dilute or "one-shot" development works best for me. I've used Delta 3.2K, but only in Microphen. I got good results, but found that it was better to rate it at 1600ISO. Regards TAXOR
     

Share This Page