In Semi-Stand Development (SSD), the approach is the same with one minor variation. Going with the Ilfosol 3 example above, I would do 2 x 30 minutes and stir 10 seconds initially and 10 seconds before the second 30-minute time slot. Nothing else changes. Why break it down into two slots instead of just letting it stand for 30 minutes? Depending on the chemistry I am using, I may want to enhance the effect of that chemistry slightly. So, the second stir at the midpoint works harder to produce the desired effect. 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... 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... Ilfotec DD-X is the best developer for developing B&W film that is ISO 400 and above. This liquid-concentrate developer enhances shadow details, and creates images with rich tonality, making it one of the top options for pushing film without creating overly-grainy images. 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.

Like I said though, I am not versed in the particulars of how developers work, if you are, please let me know in the comments if dilution does make a difference in the amount of grain you get in your images. Each person coming up with the recipe for SD has their preferred time. So, for example, in the case of Ilfosol 3, while developing Ilford Delta 100, where one would normally use 1+9 for 5 minutes – 33 ml + 267 ml water while following normal developing instructions, the same film could be developed by using 1 + 50 for 60 minutes – 6ml + 294 ml water in SD. Note that when developing 120, I always use 500 ml total, including the chemistry. The 500 ml also develops 2x35mm rolls. So, I use 6 ml + 494 ml water. You would pour the chemistry into the developing tank, stir for 20 seconds, and then leave it alone for 60 minutes. Again, that is my recipe. You can Google ‘Ilfosol 3 stand developing recipe’ to see what others have discovered. The net result of doing SD is that instead of using 33ml for each roll, I can use 6ml and get 5-10x (depending on how many 35mm and 120 rolls I am developing) more rolls per bottle of Ilfosol 3. Ilford Multigrade 1+4, 1 minute resin coated (RC), 2.5 minutes fibre based (FB). Multigrade developer gives a slightly warm tone compared to Ilford PQU (also at 1+4), which I also occasionally use. Both can be used at 1+9 using longer development times to achieve the same result. Paper

I spent the latter part of 2018 and all of 2019 with Rodinal, and I made the descision to spend 2020 with HC-110, but to be honest, after my first few rolls, I found it delivered far superior results to Rodinal for the films I shot and the look I liked. HP5 in Rodinal looks terrible to my eye so it's not included here. Most scanners tend to struggle with high density highlights. and they respond badly to high actuance, as edge effects are accentuated by digital processing.

Rodinal – 6 ml + 494 ml water or 10 ml + 990 ml water – 30+30 (minutes) with 10-second stir at the start and midpoint 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. The last downside is that DD-X is not an environmentally-friendly chemical. Like most developers, DD-X made from the phenols dimezone and hydroquinone, which come from the petrochemical industry. It’s not safe to place in a septic tank and is known to be toxic to aquatic life downstream.You can't replenish a diluted developer-- something that is both good and bad. This depends on the developer used as some replenish well (aka get "ripened) others gain no such benefit and some really just ought to be disposed of after development.

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... Nikon F5 – AF Nikkor 35mm 1:2D – Adox HR-50 @ ASA-50 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:30 @ 20C Nikon F5 – AF Nikkor 35mm 1:2D – Adox HR-50 @ ASA-50 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:30 @ 20C Nikon F5 – AF Nikkor 35mm 1:2D – Adox HR-50 @ ASA-50 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:30 @ 20C Nikon F5 – AF Nikkor 35mm 1:2D – Adox HR-50 @ ASA-50 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 7:30 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20C Rolleiflex 2.8F – Carl Zeiss Planar 80mm 1:2.8 – Ilford Delta 400 @ ASA-200 – Ilford Ilfotec DD-X (1+4) 6:00 @ 20CAs you can see from the above DDX recipe, my cost per roll goes down with SSD. Now, I use 15 ml per roll or 25 ml per two rolls (or 12.5 ml per roll). I get 1,000ml / 25 = 80 rolls if I develop two at a time or 1,000 / 25 = 66 rolls if I develop one at a time compared to using 60ml per roll in normal development. This makes DDX quite affordable to use regularly. Dilution tends to allow the highlight development to exhaust in between agitations, an effect which will be enhanced by increasing the time in between agitations (what is known as "stand" and "semi-stand" development). Such increases in time can also lead to muddling of consistent tones in an image due to the buildup of byproducts from the development process (such as "bromides", etc.), and this problem is worse with some developers yet essentially non-existent with others. However, the dilution alone along with consistent 5 second agitations at one minute intervals will generally still tend to improve shadow detail and highlight separation because of the dilution of the developers.

Perhaps the best part about using DD-X, is that it gives users the maximum amount of tonality on their negatives. That means that the negatives will look relatively flat when compared to other developers like Rodinal or pyro-based developers. But in return, you’ll get negatives that can be edited to create the desired level of contrast. Pyro - 5 ml + 995 ml water - 15+15 with 30 seconds stir or inversions at the start and the end of the first 15 minutes. If you are using 500 ml for developing only one roll of either 35mm or 120, you still need to use a minimum of 5 ml (not 2.5 ml) of 510 Pyro. 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 solvent action in DD-X is fairly low compared to developers like HC-110, D-76, and ID-11, which can cause a noticeable reduction in image sharpness. Trying to find a definitive set of timings for Ilfotec DDX at 'other than' 1+4 dilution is driving me nuts...

I really like DD-X and plan on continuing to use it, but I can't offer much in the way of reasoning as to why it's better than anything else given that it's all I've ever used since I began home-developing in the spring. I have used Rodinal (in the form of Adox Adonal) on one roll of Fomapan 100, and I wasn't unhappy with the results, but I still prefer the way DD-X works on the same film. For everything else DD-X has produced results I'm very happy with - just as nice as the lab results I've had in XTol - and it's handled everything I've thrown at it with aplomb, including pushing HP5+ on and two stops (I also plan on shooting a roll at 3200asa at some point to see how that fares). is a "normal" ISO range for me at this time of year. It's often gloomy, and I walk in the woodland with "lighter" camera combos which usually means no more than f/2.8 to rely on. Certainly, the developer is not hampering my capability as a photographer as I perhaps suspected. It must be something else It is more expensive on a roll-for-roll costing, but I've also found that it's cheaper to buy a bottle than the more economical developers. It's a false economy, but sometimes it works for the wallet that way. But film developers all perform a little bit different. Some of them can make dramatic changes in the look of your images. DD-X is one of the most common, and most expensive developers on the market.