Bill Troop - is ID-68 similar to Microphen?

[MingMingPhoto]

Is bill still with us?

is do how can I reach him?

I'd really love to ask him about the chemical formula for microphen. is it similar enough to ID-68 that I wont notice a difference?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Is bill still with us?

is do how can I reach him?

I'd really love to ask him about the chemical formula for microphen. is it similar enough to ID-68 that I wont notice a difference?

Alternatively, talk to Ian Grant. He will most likely know the answer too and is around frequently!

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Alternatively, talk to Ian Grant. He will most likely know the answer too and is around frequently!

thank you! do you know the best way to reach him (link) I'm not to owell verse with this site actualy am I able to seearch him here?

 

[john_s]

Is bill still with us?

is do how can I reach him?

I'd really love to ask him about the chemical formula for microphen. is it similar enough to ID-68 that I wont notice a difference?

There were a couple of posts here recently about Microphen being ID-68.

Ilford Microphen/ID-68, origins and replenishment?

aparat, thanks, for that very comprehensive explanation and my apologies for not spotting it was ID68 and not Microphen that your curves were for. My only excuse is that some of the thread is about Microphen and other parts are about ID68 and my attention was pre-occupied with Microphen I was...

www.photrio.com

Home-mixed Microphen - sulfate?

Hello, I want to prepare a home-mixed Microphen as follows: Package A Sodium metabisulfite 0.65 g Hydroquinone 5.00 g Boric acid 2.80 g Phenidone 0.20 g Package B Sodium tripolyphosphate (or Calgon) 3.40 g Sodium sulfite (anh.) 100.00 g Borax 6.80 g Potassium bromide 1.00 g !!! Sodium sulfate...

www.photrio.com

(ignore the post numbers: read the whole threads)

 

[MattKing]

thank you! do you know the best way to reach him (link) I'm not to owell verse with this site actualy am I able to seearch him here?

Start a Conversation with @Ian Grant by clicking on the Inbox at the top right and then clicking the Start a Conversation link.
Or wait until he is alerted to this thread as a result of my typing @Ian Grant

 

[koraks]

@MingMingPhoto alternatively, give @Steve Anchell a prod and see if he's willing to relay your message to Bill. He's done so, on occasion: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/sodium-thiosulfate-fixer-smell-whew.179186/post-2777635 In fact, Steve might be able to answer this one as well.

I agree that in this case, it's just as sensible to ask @Ian Grant and he'll surely be around. I'll edit the thread title so it's more descriptive, too.

 

[Ian Grant]

ID-68 is effectively the same as Microphen, they are interchangeable. There is a very minor difference in Microphen for packaging, that's the inclusion of Sodium Metabisulphite in Part A, but Part B is adjusted to compensate.

Ian

 

[Sidd]

Is it possible to mention here the definitive formula for Microphen, along with instructions for use?

 

[Sidd]

My second question is - does ID-68 provide speed boost, grain reduction and PQ similar to Microphen?

 

[Ian Grant]

Is it possible to mention here the definitive formula for Microphen, along with instructions for use?

My second question is - does ID-68 provide speed boost, grain reduction and PQ similar to Microphen?

If you ant to make up Microphen then use the ID-68 formula, once in solution they are identical in use.

All commercial packaged chemistry varies very slightly from the published formulae but in practice function identically.

Ian

 

[Sidd]

Thank you Mr. Grant, I will try making ID-68 this weekend and use it within a week and share my experience.

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Thank you all so much.

now I know what the moderators do - didn't know you could adjsut posts - thank you for making it more descriptive.
btw look at this sad email I got today. But knowing I can just mix it myself makes me feel so much better

 

[MingMingPhoto]

If you ant to make up Microphen then use the ID-68 formula, once in solution they are identical in use.

All commercial packaged chemistry varies very slightly from the published formulae but in practice function identically.

Ian

one more question - I read somewhere on here that at some point many publications copied wrong information on the chemical composition of microphen. Does this include "the film developing cookbook"s info in ID-68? Or can I trust all information in that book.

 

[Ian Grant]

ID-68 is correct in the 2nd edition. and the Darkroom Cookbook.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Thank you all so much.

now I know what the moderators do - didn't know you could adjsut posts - thank you for making it more descriptive.
btw look at this sad email I got today. But knowing I can just mix it myself makes me feel so much better

All Ilford is saying on its site is that it is "out of stock" and it is saying that about ID11 as well. That seems to be quite different from "discontinued" The latter indicates a conscious action by Ilford to stop making it and if this was the case I'd expect Ilford to say so and give reasons

If I were a B&H customer I'd want to ask it exactly what "discontinued" means and who has discontinued it

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

If Mircophen is out of stock, how about using Acufine? I think the formula is very close to ID 68, I have a few cans of Acufine replenisher and just ordered a couple of can of the older version from ebay.

 

[albada]

If you ant to make up Microphen then use the ID-68 formula, once in solution they are identical in use.

Ian, in the FDC (2nd ed.), Troop states that the Ilford Replenishing Developer is regarded by some as identical to Microphen. Here are the formulas for both, taken from the FDC pp 163-164:

Chemical	ID-68	Replenishing Dev.
Sodium sulfite	85	100
Hydroquinone	5	5
Borax	7	3
Boric acid	2	3.5
Phenidone	0.13	0.2
Potassium bromide	1	1
Water to make	1 L	1 L

.
Can you comment on these two formulas regarding how close they are to Microphen and their image quality?
Also, Troop prefers the Replenishing Dev. because its pH is lower. Do you have a preference?

Mark

 

[pentaxuser]

The same issue of "discontinued" on B&H site has appeared on a thread about ID11 Now there appears to be a change in B&H and it may not have been discontinued

I am glad that B&H is in the U.S. and not the U.K. Frankly it would be difficult for me to trust a company that changes its mind about the future of a product in about 24 hrs

As Ol' Blue Eyes sang in "High Society" in 1955: " Have you heard its in the stars, next July we collide with Mars...."

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian, in the FDC (2nd ed.), Troop states that the Ilford Replenishing Developer is regarded by some as identical to Microphen. Here are the formulas for both, taken from the FDC pp 163-164:

Chemical	ID-68	Replenishing Dev.
Sodium sulfite	85	100
Hydroquinone	5	5
Borax	7	3
Boric acid	2	3.5
Phenidone	0.13	0.2
Potassium bromide	1	1
Water to make	1 L	1 L

.
Can you comment on these two formulas regarding how close they are to Microphen and their image quality?
Also, Troop prefers the Replenishing Dev. because its pH is lower. Do you have a preference?

Mark

Mark, the Morgan & Morgan Photo Lab Index assumed that the Axford-Kendall Fine Grain PQ developer formula was Microphen, in fact it's the formula of Autophen a PQ variant of ID-11/D76. That myth persisted in other US publications.

During the mid to late 1950s there were a number of articles in the BJPabridgeded in the annual BJP Almanacs which shed light on the formulation of Autophen from a PQ version of ID-11 in the Kendal Phenidone patent. One aspect they highlighted was testing chemical exhaustion to formulate replenishers, two were devised one for topping up, the other bleed replenishment.

The advantage of a PQ version of ID-11 was it was not affected by Bromide build up so had a far greater capacity, and could be replenished for a long time, one lab years without mixing fresh..

One thing noticed was the slight speed increase of Autophen and a new developer was formulated to exploit this further, dropping thew Sulphite level by 20% helps boost film speed. as many found using Adox Borax MQ, or Agfa 44 (Agfa Ansco 17), compared to ID-11/D76.

This is from my 1960 book of Ilford Forulae. Autophen was only sold in larger sizes, it was a fixed development time for most films. If I find the book I'll scan page 7

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Found the book.

Here's the development times.

While there are no 35mm times for Autophen it was used for 35mm films by photo-finishers.

Ian

 

[MingMingPhoto]

Found the book.

View attachment 366237
Here's the development times.

View attachment 366238
While there are no 35mm times for Autophen it was used for 35mm films by photo-finishers.

Ian

what developer would you recommend for a small lab in 2024? we odn't get much black and white but right now im using rodinal but would prefer to use something more universal. I have no problem mixing chemicals myself (as of now lol) but would prefer something that has a long shelf life once mixed

 

[Lachlan Young]

what developer would you recommend for a small lab in 2024? we odn't get much black and white but right now im using rodinal but would prefer to use something more universal. I have no problem mixing chemicals myself (as of now lol) but would prefer something that has a long shelf life once mixed

As you're clearly running a single-shot system, replenishability is not a concern, quality is. D-76, Xtol/ XT-3, Ilfosol-3 all offer overall generally better balances of characteristics for average end users than Rodinal (as most will not necessarily be working with the use of Rodinal in mind). ID-68 does have some advantages over D-76, but for most users they might actually prove to either be of no great significance or possibly even a slight problem - and DD/ DD-X are essentially aimed at being liquid Microphen. What sort of quantities of B&W film are you dealing with at any given time?

 

[Ian Grant]

I agree with Lachlan, I would not uste ID-68/Microphen except for push processing. I would actually use Xttol but replenished something I did for commercial work from Xtol's release in the late 1980s until around 2007. I had one 2.5 litre bottle of working solution and another with fresh Xtol for replenishment. I would add I used replenishment first at school around 1968, never had a problem. That's the most economical way of working.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

I think most labs are using Xtol, it is inexpensive, I think around $16.00 for 5 liters, easy to replenish, and like D76, HC 110 a fine general propose developer.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

In addition to being relatively inexpensive, Xtol does seem to improve as it ages; that is, the quality of the results on any given emulsion is better with a replenished system. Grain, sharpness, highlight tonal separation, shadow detail, it is my personal opinion that all the solvent/replating action going on maximizes any emulsion. I ran a very stable Xtol replenished system for years, T-Max 100 at 32 with a slight pull was the cat's meow Panatomic-X replicant that was remarkable for the super bright wedding dresses at the beach.