Are ID-11 and D76 identical?

Max Power · Mar 15, 2005

I did a search and didn't come up with anything, so here's my question:

Although I'm dedicated to Ilford, it looks like it will be a few weeks yet until my local supplier gets his stocks of all things Ilford back up. My favourite developer for Delta-400 is ID-11 (I unfortunately cannot get DD-X). My supply of ID-11 is about depleted, but my local supplier has D76 in huge quantities.

Are ID-11 and D76 identical? Will D76 give me virtually the same results as ID-11 without too much experimentation and messing around?

Just looking for a short term solution here.

Cheers,
Kent

Ronald Moravec · Mar 15, 2005

Sure, functionally the same. Just mix and store in small one time use bottles. Never let air get to it in a half full bottle.

check Ilford`s site for times. They are slightly different than Id11 in some cases.

titrisol · Mar 15, 2005

YES, they are functionally identical.

Max Power said:
I did a search and didn't come up with anything, so here's my question:

Although I'm dedicated to Ilford, it looks like it will be a few weeks yet until my local supplier gets his stocks of all things Ilford back up. My favourite developer for Delta-400 is ID-11 (I unfortunately cannot get DD-X). My supply of ID-11 is about depleted, but my local supplier has D76 in huge quantities.

Are ID-11 and D76 identical? Will D76 give me virtually the same results as ID-11 without too much experimentation and messing around?

Just looking for a short term solution here.

Cheers,
Kent

As per published recipes are identical:
Ilford ID-11 Fine Grain Film Developer
Source : Ilford Tech. Info. Book Vol. 3 (P70.5)
Metol 2.00 g
Sodium Sulphite (anhydrous) 100.00 g
Hydroquinone 5.00 g
Borax 2.00 g
Water to 1 litre

KODAK D76
Fine grain negative deceloper
Source: kodak Elementary photographuc Chemistry 1934, p49
Water (@52ºC) 750.0 cc
Metol 2.0 g
Sodium Sulphite Anhydrous 100.0 g
Hydroquinone 5.0 g
Borax (decahydrate) 2.0 g
Water to 1 litre

Max Power · Mar 15, 2005

Titrisol and Ronald,
Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Just a casual question, though...Why would dev times be different for what is ostensibly exactly the same formula?

Kent

Christopher Colley · Mar 15, 2005

dev times are the same.

The only difference I believe there is between the two is that Ilford has not found a way to ship the powder (without caking?) in 1 single packet. Whereas Kodak seems to have that down in their d76 formula, Ilfords ID-11 comes in an 'a b' 2pouch combination, Kodak is only 1.

titrisol · Mar 15, 2005

I have always thought times were the same.

I haven;t used D76 in years but used it (in kodak or clone reincarnatios) a lot in the late 80s, early 90s.

Max Power said:
Titrisol and Ronald,
Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Just a casual question, though...Why would dev times be different for what is ostensibly exactly the same formula?

Kent

fschifano · Mar 15, 2005

Max Power said:
Titrisol and Ronald,
Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Just a casual question, though...Why would dev times be different for what is ostensibly exactly the same formula?

Kent

Simply because the development times are not published as absolute values. They are only suggested departure points. Fine tuning is up to you.

GeorgesGiralt · Mar 15, 2005

Max Power said:
Titrisol and Ronald,
Thanks very much, I appreciate it.

Just a casual question, though...Why would dev times be different for what is ostensibly exactly the same formula?

Kent

Well, look at the agitation Ilford and Kodak recomend. They are different, so this may give slightly different times.
Also, the published formulas are a bit old. So they may have changed since that time, and they may not be exactly identical now. (they may have add some Calgon, or stuff like that, or changed some things to reduce costs.)
But you won't be far from home using D76 with the same agitation sheme and dilution you use with ID11.
Have a nice day !

Max Power · Mar 15, 2005

Actually, I just checked the dev times on the Ilford pdf chart and the times are in fact the same across the board.

Kent

Lee Shively · Mar 15, 2005

I've used D76 with HP5+ and PanF+ for the last 3-4 years. I do not use the times Ilford recommends currently. I'm using the same information sheet I used back in the 1970's for my processing times. Both ID-11 and D76 have the same times listed on that information sheet. According to my own personal processing procedure, Ilford's current development times produce a negative that is too dense for my tastes.

KenR · Mar 15, 2005

ID11 & D76

Anchell in the Darkroom Cookbook and the Film Developing Cookbook said that D76 may contain other ingredients to preserve freshness etc. He advised making your own from one of the many D76 formulas pushed both in his and other books and journals. I have been using the "spoon" method of making a more buffered version with more borax and some boric acid for many years. It takes only a bit longer than the prepacked stuff and I no longer worry about opening a package and finding old useless powder in the envelope.

Jon Shiu · Mar 16, 2005

Max Power said:
Actually, I just checked the dev times on the Ilford pdf chart and the times are in fact the same across the board.

Kent

the chart inside the Pan F box says 6:30 for both D76 and ID11 at 1+0 dilution; but surprisingly, the time for 1+1 dilution are 8:30 for ID11 and 10:30 for D76.
I wonder why the dilution causes such a different time?

Jon

blackmelas · Mar 16, 2005

I have the same problem. Stores in Athens have all run out of ID-11, WTFB etc. and it is unknown when they will start to restock Ilford. Hopefully soon...

(oops didn't read the last page. Ken R beat me to it) I read somewhere in the Darkroom Cookbook that the one packet D-76 is slightly different (Kodak has to add chemicals to keep the metol stable in a single packet) than the old two packet D-76 that was the same as ID-11. But I did buy the one packet D-76 and plan to try my ID-11 times and adjust from there. I'm not sure when I'll develop next to test this but I'll post something if I do.
James

Max Power · Mar 16, 2005

blackmelas said:
I have the same problem. Stores in Athens have all run out of ID-11, WTFB etc. and it is unknown when they will start to restock Ilford. Hopefully soon...

(oops didn't read the last page. Ken R beat me to it) I read somewhere in the Darkroom Cookbook that the one packet D-76 is slightly different (Kodak has to add chemicals to keep the metol stable in a single packet) than the old two packet D-76 that was the same as ID-11. But I did buy the one packet D-76 and plan to try my ID-11 times and adjust from there. I'm not sure when I'll develop next to test this but I'll post something if I do.
James

James,
That would be helpful, if only for future reference.

Cheers,
Kent

Monophoto · Mar 16, 2005

When ID11 was introduced in the 1970's, there was a review in Popular Photography in which it was stated that its formulation was identical to D76 except for the addition of a sequestering agent to prevent redeposition of metallic silver on the processed film. The article didn't identify what that additional ingredient was, but the author (Bob Schwalberg) jokingly referred to it as "a pinch of nutmeg".

I don't argue at all with Tritisol's research that shows that the formulations today are the same. What this illustrates is that manusfacturer's freely modify the design of their products while maintaining the same functional description. We, as consumers, have no way of knowing when those changes take place, or whether they are driven by performance, cost or environmental concerns. But they happen, and over time they often result in subtle changes in the way the products work.

The other message here is that Popular Photography used to contain articles that addressed interesting technical issues in photography as well as portfolios and articles on creativity. The change from that to a crass vehicie for shilling products wasn't so subtle. It came about at the time of the collapse of the other major photo magazine of the 1970's, Modern Photography. When Modern failed, the publisher of Popular replaced his editorial staff with the same people who led the demise of Modern. Within three months, Popular was a different magazine.

Nick Zentena · Mar 16, 2005

All I'm going to say is D76-H and forget what the big boys are nice enough to supply.

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 16, 2005

Monophoto said:
When ID11 was introduced in the 1970's, there was a review in Popular Photography in which it was stated that its formulation was identical to D76 except for the addition of a sequestering agent to prevent redeposition of metallic silver on the processed film. The article didn't identify what that additional ingredient was, but the author (Bob Schwalberg) jokingly referred to it as "a pinch of nutmeg".

I don't argue at all with Tritisol's research that shows that the formulations today are the same. What this illustrates is that manusfacturer's freely modify the design of their products while maintaining the same functional description. We, as consumers, have no way of knowing when those changes take place, or whether they are driven by performance, cost or environmental concerns. But they happen, and over time they often result in subtle changes in the way the products work.

The other message here is that Popular Photography used to contain articles that addressed interesting technical issues in photography as well as portfolios and articles on creativity. The change from that to a crass vehicie for shilling products wasn't so subtle. It came about at the time of the collapse of the other major photo magazine of the 1970's, Modern Photography. When Modern failed, the publisher of Popular replaced his editorial staff with the same people who led the demise of Modern. Within three months, Popular was a different magazine.

...identical to D76 except for the addition of a sequestering agent to prevent redeposition of metallic silver on the processed film.

Ahh yes! Pixie dust. Can't see it in a mass spectrometer, but trust me, it's there.

fotophox · Mar 16, 2005

ID-68?

The Frugal Photographer site suggests ID-68, which is *functionally* identical to D76, except it is less prone to alkaline hydrolysis.

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/formulary.htm

(Scroll to the bottom or hit your 'end' key.)

Tom Hoskinson · Mar 16, 2005

fotophox said:
The Frugal Photographer site suggests ID-68, which is *functionally* identical to D76, except it is less prone to alkaline hydrolysis.

http://www.frugalphotographer.com/formulary.htm

(Scroll to the bottom or hit your 'end' key.)

In Ilford's ID-68, phenidone is used instead of metol and the borax is buffered with boric acid.

The borax buffered with boric acid approach was suggested in a parallel APUG thread.

John C Murphy · Mar 16, 2005

ID-11 and D-76 not the same in my hands

You know, this is something that has always puzzled me. I always read that ID-11 and D-76 are the same, but I've been using both developers for a while and can say with certainty that they produce slightly different results. The ID-11 gives more contrast (darker blacks) than the D-76 when you use a higher development temperature than the standard 68F/20C.

Ronald Moravec · Mar 17, 2005

Tried out Fp4 + for the first time a few weeks ago. ID 11 was 8.5 and D76 was 8.0. That is slightly different in my book.

I had D76 so I went with the 8.0 and it was perfect for focomat 1c.

Ian Grant · Mar 17, 2005

Monophoto said:
When ID11 was introduced in the 1970's,

That should read sometime in the 1930's
Its as old as D76 and exactly the same formula was also made by some other companies, each using their own nomencleture presumably standardised for the motion picture industry.

Certainly by 1942 ID-11 was readily available "supplied in tins to make 20 oz, 80 oz, 1 gallon & 3 gallons of working strenght developer".

removed account4 · Mar 17, 2005

sprint film developer is the same as d-76 and id-11 as well, except it doesn't contain metol. same time &c, it is in a liquid stock, and mixed 1:9 when used.

http://sprintsystems.com/products.html

Keith Tapscott. · Jun 11, 2005

The material safety data sheets may give a clue to this question.

The MSDS for Ilford ID11 is as follows:
Part A contains Metol and Hydroquinone.
Part B contains Sodium sulphite, Sodium Tetraborate(Borax) and Sodium Tripolyphosphate.

The MSDS for Eastman Kodak D-76 is as follows:
Sodium Sulphite, Hydroquinone, Sodium Tetraborate-Pentahydrate,
Bis(4-hydroxy-N-metylanilinium) sulphate (METOL), Boric anhydride and
Pentetic acid Pentasodium Salt. This developer is supplied as a one-part developer. D-76 is my regular developer.

glennfromwy · Jun 12, 2005

There has been reference made here to formulas published in the '30s, when D-76 and ID-11 were pretty much the same. ID-11 has stuck to the original formula pretty well over the years. D-76, however, is not exactly the same as it once was. Functionally, they are about the same. Chemically, a little different. Times given are always starting points and only testing will show what works for you.

Are ID-11 and D76 identical?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency