D76 Vs ID11

[hoffy]

Howdy,

I was always under the impression that D76 and ID11 was the same beast. That being said, I was always curious to why ID11 came in 2 parts, but D76 didn't.

Then I read this on the Ag-photo website:

Note: D76 and Ilford ID11 are thought of as being identical, however whilst they are basically the same formula, ID11 is supplied in two packages (you stirr packet A into the water first then packet B) whereas Kofak D76 is supplied as a single package and therefore requires some additives to make sure it works this way.

OK, what is the difference and do they work any differently?

Cheers

 

[2F/2F]

According to an Ilford e-mail some years ago, they are exactly the same chemical in the end, no matter how they are mixed. The e-mail may or may not have been exactly true, but that is what it said. Perhaps they are packaged in separate bags so that Ilford does not get sued, or perhaps they think it somehow improves performance to not throw everything into one big bag together. The formula for D-76, and all chemicals that I know of, calls for mixing the chemicals in the order listed. Perhaps the two bag approach is done for some reason along these lines. Perhaps bag A is the developing agents (and maybe half the sulfite), and bag B is everything else.

 

[PhotoJim]

They are not identical but they are so close that they are interchangeable. Kodak uses sequestering agents to put all the ingredients in one bag; Ilford does not. Arguably, the Ilford package is closer to the published D-76 formula because it doesn't have the additives.

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Mixing for example vitamin drugs is hard to do. May be Ilford did not want to invest to a mixing machine.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

 

[Mustafa Umut Sarac]

Another option is to have a option to change the chemical content of the developer with the help of seperate ID 11 packages.

Other thing is from vitamin drugs again , they say miexed chemicals are easier to loose their freshness.
May be Ilford wanted to improve this .

Another thing , it is possible to mix like kodak and use it at very small batches without ruining the formula.
If you want to do that with Ilford , it would be difficult.

Best ,

Mustafa Umut Sarac

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak encapsulates each chemical in an inert material to prevent premature oxidation or reduction. That and a sequestering agent are the only differences with respect to the published formula for D76.

The technology is patented, but IDK if the patent has expired. If not, then Ilford cannot use the same method.

PE

 

[hoffy]

OK, thanks for the info. I hope its as simple as just that.

 

[Ian Grant]

ID-11 & D76 where once identical, for practical purposes they are still close but Kodak spent many years researching the buffering and published a number of variations.

Current D76 contains Boric Anhydride (Boric acid) which is not in the original formulae, and ID-11 may contain an increased level of Borax (reference Developer in a Patent), the changes in buffering give increased stability in replenishment systems.

Ian

 

[cmacd123]

stability

I have heard that d76 that is just mixed from formula is subject to change in Ph and thus activity over the first few days. That is not supposed to happen with the packaged version. I already have so many variables in my life that it would take a BIG change to show up for me.

 

[Ian Grant]

I have heard that d76 that is just mixed from formula is subject to change in Ph and thus activity over the first few days. That is not supposed to happen with the packaged version. I already have so many variables in my life that it would take a BIG change to show up for me.

There's two issues, the initial change in activity over the first few hours and the long term pH stability after a few months.

The packaged products D76 & ID-11 behave no differently from the published formulae and require mixing a few hours before use. In commercial labs that was often over night, or when needed more quickly at least 2-3 hours before the first batches of film were developed.

It's the longer term stability that has been improved with the change in the buffering.

Ian

 

[Ronald Moravec]

I scratch mix D76, store in small one time use quantities in glass bottles, and it remains perfect for 6 months, month 7 shows a slight deterioration, 8 a bit more, and then gets worse at an accelerating rate.

Functionally they are interchangeable. The printed formulas were the same decades ago if you get some old books. Today ID11 has phenodone instead of metal which is toxic to some people. If you develope the metol allergy, you can not go near a darkroom ever again.

The sequestering agent alows Kodak the single mix. Personally I think it is silly.

 

[Ian Grant]

Today ID11 has phenodone instead of metal which is toxic to some people. If you develope the metol allergy, you can not go near a darkroom ever again.

The sequestering agent alows Kodak the single mix. Personally I think it is silly.

ID-11 is an MQ developer and does not contain Phenidone. Ilford did experiment with a PQ version in the 1950's and published a number of variations. However their commercial Fine Grain PQ Developers where Autophen and ID-68/Microphen.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

I scratch mix D76, store in small one time use quantities in glass bottles, and it remains perfect for 6 months, month 7 shows a slight deterioration, 8 a bit more, and then gets worse at an accelerating rate.

Functionally they are interchangeable. The printed formulas were the same decades ago if you get some old books. Today ID11 has phenodone instead of metal which is toxic to some people. If you develope the metol allergy, you can not go near a darkroom ever again.

The sequestering agent alows Kodak the single mix. Personally I think it is silly.

The sequestering agent is present to allow uniform action using different water supplies with different hardness. The thing that allows a single mix is the presence of encapsulation. The ingredients are thereby separate allowing for a single packet with separate ingredients.

PE

 

[Bijesh]

In India, D-76 used to come in two parts. I'm not sure how it is packaged now or if it's even available there now. In US, I've always seen it in one pack.

 

[mopar_guy]

Photographer's Formulary has their own version of D-76. They call it TD-16 and the powders come in two separate packets.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I'm just starting out and want to use Delta 100 and ID-11.I've read D-76 keeps very well.Is it the same for ID-11?

 

[PhotoJim]

I'm just starting out and want to use Delta 100 and ID-11.I've read D-76 keeps very well.Is it the same for ID-11?

They keep identically. They work indistinguishably.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Thanks.

 

[Esskie]

Hi there,
Hoffy's question is one I'd been wondering about myself after hearing the same, that ID11 & D76 are the same, so much obliged to Hoffy for asking it and to everyone who answered

Also new to processing my own film after getting back into film photography, I was totally bewildered at first regarding chems. I'd always been used to having my Kodak 110 Instamatic film done at the chemist.

Advice I was given initially from one source was to avoid powder chems in favour of liquid brands......
the reasoning being that powder developers aren't as strong thus require longer developing times?, they go off sooner than liquid developers? and are simpler to deal with?

Now I'm not so sure?, a) they're cheaper , b) once the stock solution is made up the dilution process is the same as liquid developers anyway

I'm on the verge of ordering a pack of D76 right now to give it a try, my most commonly used films are Kodak T-Max 100 & 400, Ilford FP4, Delta Pro 100 & 400
Ilford actually recommend a stock ID11 for best overall image quality with FP4 Plus or Ilfosol-S liquid......I am keen to try T-Max developer

Thanks again, Andy

 

[Ian Grant]

The most economic developers you can use are ID-11/D76 and Xtol replenished, but they aren't particularly economic used full strength or 1+1.

However you may well be better using Ilfosol or DDX as a these will be more economic in the short term.

Welcome to APUG BTW

Ian

 

[Anscojohn]

The sequestering agent is present to allow uniform action using different water supplies with different hardness. The thing that allows a single mix is the presence of encapsulation. The ingredients are thereby separate allowing for a single packet with separate ingredients.

PE

******
I "heard" that the EK powders are encapsulated so each chemical dissolves in the proper mixing order according to formula list. Urban (darkroom) myth??

And ye olde lab ratz what taught me allaz say to mix the '76 a day before yaneedit.

 

[Photo Engineer]

John;

There is encapsulation for protection. IDK if it also controls the time at which individual items go into solution. You would have to look at the patent(s) for that information and I don't have the numbers, nor do I remember all of the inventors. I can suggest J. Surash, but that is the only name that comes to mind to help the search.

Mixing a day ahead is useful. I do and I don't depending on my needs.

PE

 

[Esskie]

I read the same thing Anscojohn,
as mentioned already, with being new to self processing my own film a lot of pdf documents have been getting downloaded & printed out......mainly time charts etc but a few product nfo charts too

Thanks for the welcome Ian,
that's exactly what I require mate, chems that are economic to use as although I don't do many atm the number of rolls shot & processed will increase as I get more into it. Quality is definitely a major factor for consideration all the same.

If I can obtain good sharp exposures with good contrast and the next to no grain (unless intended) using a powder developer over a liquid one costing twice as much then the initial mixing is nothing...certainly not the hassle some seem to suggest?

That said, I don't make a living from my photography with only my own standards to meet.

Can I ask, from a n00b's P.O.V what you guys think of the 'stick with one brand' debate opposed to trying different types and possibly complicating things?

 

[Ian Grant]

Stick with one or two films (fast/slow) and one developer until you have experience. In the UK using all Ilford makes sense because that's whats available easily.

Ian

 

[Anon Ymous]

Welcome Andy.

...If I can obtain good sharp exposures with good contrast and the next to no grain (unless intended) using a powder developer over a liquid one costing twice as much then the initial mixing is nothing...certainly not the hassle some seem to suggest?

It's not really about the initial mixing, it's easy to do. From my point of view, it's about being accurate about the developer's temperature (that's critical, trust me). If it's a highly concentrated one like Rodinal, Kodak HC110/Ilfotec HC, then the developer's temperature doesn't matter. You see, you mix something like 1 part of concentrate to 25, or 50 parts of water, so you only need to mix water at the correct temperature. If you have a stock solution that you use undiluted, or dilute 1+1, things can get a bit harder. It's not tough, just a bit more challenge for a beginner. BTW, a concentrated developer may cost twice as much as a powdered one, but they can be very economical, plus many of them have exceptional shelf life once opened, something that isn't usually true for powder developers once mixed.

Can I ask, from a n00b's P.O.V what you guys think of the 'stick with one brand' debate opposed to trying different types and possibly complicating things?

I wouldn't say "stick to one brand", but stick to 2 films and 1 developer. Don't switch from developer to developer and from film to film, unless you get a fair amount of experience. Keep things simple and you will be rewarded, you'll get a better grip of how things work, the variables involved etc...