Working with Ilford DD-X

When I began developing film at home in early 2023 I started with CineStill's DF-96 Monobath. After a few months I transitioned to Kodak's HC-110 and never looked back. Over the past two and a half years, I became very comfortable with HC-110 and a few of its many dilutions. My results were nearly always very good and on the few occasions where there were issues it was due to exposure decisions I had made in camera and not the development of the negatives. However, as I developed more film I began wondering about results other developers might return. Also, I was shooting a lot of Ilford HP-5 and FP-4 and couldn't help but notice the statements on the interior of the film boxes regarding Ilford's "recommended developer," DD-X. Eventually, I purchased a bottle. Life events do what they do and I found myself defaulting to HC-110 for the next two years. In September 2025, I finally opened the DD-X and began using it. As of this post I've developed nine rolls of film with DD-X. Both 135 and 120 in several film stocks. With about half of the bottle left I thought I'd provide a few comments on my experience of the past four months of the use of DD-X.   

DD-X is a one-shot developer mixed usually at 1+4. Given that ratio and given I usually develop rolls, as I shoot them, in a 250ml stainless steel tank, I'm using 50ml of DD-X per development session. Basic math tells me that 50ml into 1000ml results in 20 rolls of developed black and white film. Even more rolls if I develop two at a time in 450ml stainless steel (90ml DD-X versus 100ml). At current B&H pricing of $42.95 per liter, and not counting shipping or tax, that comes to about $2.15 worth of developer cost per roll. Not bad. And the truth of it is that if I were anxious about costs I wouldn't be in photography in the first place! 

Regarding the processing of negatives, I use the same procedure with DD-X that I used with HC-110. That is:

• All liquid temps to 20C.
• Pour in developer and start the timer (Massive Dev app on my iPad).
• Gentle agitation, invert and twist, for the first minute. Then gentle agitation for ten seconds every minute thereafter.
• Pour out the developer with 15 seconds left on the timer.
• When the timer buzzes, pour in the water stop bath, agitate for 15 seconds and pour out. I repeat that sequence four more times. This step takes about three minutes. After pouring out the final stop rinse,
• Pour in the fix (I use Photographer's Formulary TF-4) and start the timer.
• Gentle agitation for the first 15 seconds followed by ten-second agitation every minute afterwards. My current fix time is 5:30. Note: I snip test the fixer on a regular basis to determine clearing time, then I fix for three times that clearing time. As of this post, my seven month old fixer has seen 30 rolls of BW film - 135 and 120 both of differing film stocks. Clearing time a few weeks ago was a little over one minute. Yes, I'm fixing longer than necessary, but my negatives come out clear every time and I'm happy.
• Pour fix back into the bottle at the end of the fix time then complete the Ilford water rinse method followed by a final Photo-Flo rinse.    

Given my natural OCD I am a stickler for process when it comes to developing negatives. Agitation cycles are all identical and all timing is to the second. I've detailed the process above only to highlight that there have been no changes in the way I develop negatives using DD-X than when I used HC-110. And, my photography hasn't changed either. I shoot all types of scenes in all types of contrast and lighting and with different stocks and formats and have thrown HC-110 and DD-X at all of them. 

In the end, the small differences I've seen in my scanned negatives (I don't own a densitometer) I chalk up to the DD-X itself. So, what have I noticed?

• Predictable results regardless of film stock. On a regular basis I shoot Tri-X 400 (at 320), Kentmere 400 (at 320) and FP-4 (at box 125). I have shot a lot of HP-5 (at 320) as well as a few other film stocks but have been locked in to Tri-X in the past year. I shoot in 135 and 120. No changes, other than dev times, have been required in my negative development processes. Perfect for folks like me who shoot a few different film stocks and formats.
• Excellent scanning using the Valoi's Easy 35 or Easy 120 attached to a 1992-era Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Micro adapted to a Leica SL-2. The grain is even and well structured and scans easily. Note: having previously used flat bed scanners for years it is hard to express in words just how happy I am when using the Valoi system. 
• Less noticeable grain. Not a significant difference, but enough that I notice it when applying Clarity and when I (sometimes) apply Texture and/or Sharpening while processing the scans in Lightroom Classic. Again, subtle differences.
• Rated EI. I have routinely shot 400 speed BW film stocks at 320 and have been happy with results. However, on high contrast days shooting street when I default to metering shadows, I'm not always happy with the skies. While not blown out, I lose the tonality I prefer and I see less detail and structure in clouds. I realize 320 is only +1/3 stop over baseline but it seems to be just enough sky brightening, in those certain situations, to impact my digital post-development. My intent going forward is to shoot 400 films at box speed to see if there are any differences in final edits. 
• That said, I believe I see a bit more shadow detail with DD-X than I did with HC-110. As with grain, it is subtle, but I think there is a slight improvement in this area. And as much of my photography includes high contrast scenes having a bit more shadow detail while preserving highlights improves my final edits.
• Regarding acutance, I am a serial user of Clarity. Sometimes with a bit of Texture thrown in. Not so much Sharpening. In Lightroom I find myself using a bit less Clarity to achieve the mid-tone contrast and sharpening levels I usually work towards. Subtle, but a bit less.

Are there differences between the two developers? Yes, however I find them very subtle. That said, DD-X produces great results for me and I find it to be an excellent general developer. So far there have been no surprises, no weird results. Creativity is up to me, my camera and my lenses. The film and developer will give back what the hardware recorded with no additions.

Final thoughts: I will continue using DD-X. It has proven longevity in unopened storage (dark and cool) and remains potent four months on. HC-110, even the new formulae, is an even longer lived developer, sealed and opened. And as a highly concentrated developer, over the long term HC-110 should be less expensive per roll. However, cost isn't a driver for me. Again, nothing in photography, film or digital, is cheap. At the end of the day my math shows me I pay much, much less to develop at home than I do when sending out to the lab. And, hands down, my scans are better than any lab scans I have received. Plus, I love fully processing, chemically and digitally, my own negatives. For 2026 I plan to shoot Tri-X and FP-4 almost exclusively. Probably at box speeds. For the foreseeable future, DD-X will be my developer of first choice.