Bad ID-11 Batch?

[Athiril]

Batch num is 94D098

Part A is a fair bit darker than it normally is, brown with some black particulates by the look, and the resulting mix is a bit dark.

Have several boxes of the same batch, they all seem to be in the same condition unlike other batches.

Was wondering if this is contamination, or simply aged, etc?




Now I've got a box of decades old Elon and Hydroquinone in a similar appearance that are both decades old, and the bags werent sealed as they were partly used. This is much newer and sealed in a much better bag, and it's in every box with the same batch code, hence my concern.


Pic of Part A, normally it's white:

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Actually doesn't look bad. I would suggest running a test roll through a batch of the ID-11 if for no other reason than to calm your doubts. When elon and hydroquinone are bad they look like coffee grounds. A light tan, gray or purple is nothing to worry about.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Athiril,

We have no QC's outstanding on this batch of ID11 ( or any other ) if you have a concern, far better return it to where you bought it and ask for a replacemnet and it will be returned to us via our distributor.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited :

 

[brian steinberger]

Just had this happen to me today. Curious as to what happened with your bad batch... I'm hesitant to use mine for any film, it's a peach color. This is the first time ever I've mixed up ID-11 and it's not clear.

 

[HTF III]

As an aside, and not to steal the thread--how long will a jar of Elon last?

 

[Ian Grant]

As an aside, and not to steal the thread--how long will a jar of Elon last?

50+ years, I have some made in the early 1960 and it's still perfect.

Ian

 

[Circles of Confusion]

I'm having exactly the same problem, same batch number 94D098, purchased two weeks ago and came directly from Ilford Switz. (Marly). (Simon from Ilford/Harmann take note!) In twelve+ years of using this developer, I've seen only one time a few black specks in part A, which I was able to filter out. But now I have 3 packs of 5L which all look like the above photo: brown/beige/black rather than the usual white crystals. I tried mixing one pack and there are thousands of blacks stringy specks of gunk floating around inside the 5l of distilled water! The black stuff did not dissolve. Opened the next pack and the crystals look the same beige w/black again. I would never run my film through this, and I'm sending all three packs back. Instead I mixed three 1-liter packs with no issues (different batch number on the box for the 1-liter packs).

 

[brian steinberger]

94D098, same batch number as my bad two packages.

 

[HTF III]

Somehow I'm not buying a word of this thread. It's Ilford, for pete's sake. I'm just having a hard time swallowing the the English are going to let a bad product escape them. Kodak never did. Ilford isn't Kodak, but it's close. I wonder if this thread is a plant. Look at all these complaints. I just can't swallow it.

 

[R.Gould]

There have been reports on FADU, a U.K. forum, of similer problems with at least one batch of ID11, so it is not a plant, it happened,glad I use either Rodinal or D76 as I have had problems with ID11 on the one and only time I used it, it just would not mix clear, there were black bits in it and I threw the mixed batch away without using it,

 

[Circles of Confusion]

HTF III: You're joking, aren't you?

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

Batch 94D048 was manufactured in July 2012 : Number of complaints against this entire batch is 2 ( one of which is Australia, see above, one of which is GB ).

Previous to that the only QC's in the last 2 years recorded against ID11 were 2 complaints worldwide against Batch 76C manufactured in 2011.

As an FYI all our own routine QC testing ( not technical service or other areas ) uses ID11 and we mix on a daily basis so we are very aware of the products actual QC performance.

I have spoken to tech service, we do get some actual powder colour variation but its small, the usual colour once mixed as everyone knows is a light straw colour, all APUGGERS will know if it was dark brown that would be a warning sign.

Black specs would lead us to the assumption of ( 2 probable causes ) some type of contamination or a discoloured chemical constituent. Tech service state that at low levels it would be 'highly unlikely' to affect the quality of the product or its performance once mixed or the deposits to embed in the film, but they would recommend NOT to use it if the level of black specs were 'obvious'.

No on-site samples of Batch 94D048 exhibit any discolouration or black specs.

So, as always, the definitive QC statement applies as with all ILFORD Photo products, if you have a complaint or a concern contact our Technical Service +44 (0) 1565 65 00 00 : They will always ask for the batch number and we will usually ask for the return of the product for testing. You would receive a written outcome on a QC registered with us.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Athiril]

It is in every packet of this batch number we've been through thus far. It wasn't obvious in the dry powder, just that it was darker than usual, but on inspection the mixed developer had black particles at different levels.

I found no base fog, contrast, density, grain or sharpness differences after the black stuff was filtered out vs 'normal' ID-11 and D-76.

Inspection was made on a loupe and light table, densitometer, and also flextight scans.

I have not tried processing with it unfiltered (nor do I plan to try to).

 

[Circles of Confusion]

Of the three 5L packs that I opened that looked like this, I mixed one. It was definitely darker than the usual ginger-ale color, but moreover the huge quantity and different size of the black particles would have made it very difficult to filter out, so I also have no intention of running my film through this. I returned the three packs yesterday, as Ilford Switz. immediately agreed to exchange them.

I have a fourth pack with the same batch number which looks ok...the crystals in part A are white at least instead of wheat-bran looking, 'though it does have a few black specks.

As I noted before, the 1-liter packs I bought at the same time have no issues whatsoever.

To Simon at Ilford: if it helps in narrowing the origin of the problem, in addition to the 94D098 on the box, the number printed on the Part A sachet was 89A187.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Try Kodak D-76.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Buy some chems and a scale and small glass bottles. Make D76. Almost the same. Elon or metol will last forever if you keep air out, so you put the large pack in small bottles with a wide mouth. Then cut a plastic spoon down to remove what you need, then reseal.

A digi postage scale for $5 is all you need for all except sulfate. Any cheap scale is sufficient for that.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

A digi postage scale for $5 is all you need for all except sulfate.

I'm sure you meant to type sulfite (sulphite).

 

[Athiril]

The 100g/L Sodium Sulfite recipe is similar, not the same, the grain is finer, and less sharp than stock commercial D-76 from my experience.

 

[HTF III]

I contend that you could put a teaspoon full of sand in your developing tank when you pour in the developer and it would make no difference. I also contend that Eastman Kodak Co quite possibly has historically the highest quality control of any company since the Industrial Revolution began. Ilford can't be far behind. I still say the developer would have worked fine. Hell, even Kodak D-76, Dektol, Fixer had black specks at the bottom of a mix. I never once had it show up anywhere in the finished work.Be glad these few companies even make this stuff any more. If you bang them over the head because it isn't perfect, they'll quit making it. Some things are just not worth the guff the customers give you.

 

[arzon]

I have a box of 94D098 and yes, bag A is light-brownish in color. After mixing, the stock solution looks like piss. I wonder if this is usable.

 

[kevs]

I have a box of 94D098 and yes, bag A is light-brownish in color. After mixing, the stock solution looks like piss. I wonder if this is usable.

Hi Arzon,

Freshly-mixed ID-11 always "looks like piss" so it should be perfectly useable. I've used ID-11 when it has darkened by oxygen exposure to a golden brown colour and still had good results. To get a rough idea you can cut off a small strip of 35mm leader, fog it and drop it into a receptacle containing the developed you want to test. If it turns black within the time stated on the developer chart it should be good to go. The only way you'll know for sure is to develop an unimportant film with it and see what happens.

Cheers,
kevs

 

[Martin Aislabie]

I have had some darker than expected ID11 in a 5L pack

However, I did a leader development test v some other ID11 which was the regular pale straw and everything was fine.

So I used it as usual and again everything was fine.

I cannot tell the difference between my slightly darker than usual ID11 negatives and some pale straw ID11 negs

YMMV

Martin

 

[MartinP]

It is probably wise to always filter any processing chemical made up from powder before using it. For over thirty years I've been using a funnel with a small piece of pharmaceutical grade cotton-wool stuffed down the spout . . . not the same piece, obviously

Even on clean looking liquid there are almost always specks to see in the cotton-wool plug before it gets thrown away.

 

[arzon]

kevs:
You are right, I just did some tests and the developer is usable.

 

[Dennis S]

I just mixed up a batch of ID-11 and my filter funnel plugged up once during the final transfer into the final container. Bits of black specks that seem to not dissolve. I checked the batch # and it was the 94D098. Nothing can be done after it is mixed. Definitely will be watching this tread. Will post the outcome.