Re: [Leica] OT:Ilford DD-X and HP5+

[Mark Rabiner <mrabiner@concentric.net>]

Gwpics@aol.com wrote:
> 
> This may appear to be even more off-target, but let me finish before passing
> judgement.
> 
> When Ilford Multigrade IV first came on the market I switched to it from the
> earlier MGIII, and I found that I could not print with it as it was flat and
> muddy.   I subsequently had lengthy discussions with Ilford who tried to
> blame everything but their paper.   They finally admitted that it was
> designed for punchy negatives as produced by the press boys, who accounted
> for 90% of their sales.   Since then I have been using Kodak or Agfa!
> 
> Now to the point - it would seem that Ilford have produced a developer which,
> when linked with their Delta range of films (and others) produce the punchier
> negatives that match their papers.   I have tried the combination and still
> don't like it.   I find the dev OK'ish but will return to Aculux when I have
> finished this bottle I think.
> 
> Gerry

I have been completely enamored with Ilford Multigrade IV since my first box.
For me with my Dektol and Aristo cold light heads a cleaner version of 
Multigrade III that also had split consecutive printing in mind somehow
according to what I have read and experienced. Every time I play around with
other papers it's a mistake. Kodak hasn't made a decent black and white paper in
decades and I'm sure could care less. The Multigrade warm with also has matching
emulsions in both RC and fiber is the only other paper which excites me but it
forces me to open another stop and I'm going to have to get zip aligned first.
I'm not having the same experiences with it being muddy as you Gerry. If you
think your negs are flat give' em another minute or two and check your
safelights. Everyone I know uses and loves the Ilford, they rule. Those exotic
liquid paper developers have rubbed me the wrong way, when in doubt, go back to Dektol!
Mark Rabiner