Different times from Ilford for HP5+ in ID-11 and D-76

[Steve Goldstein]

I have an undated though modern-looking Ilford PDF listing equivalents to non-Ilford processing chemicals that says D-76 is equivalent to ID-11, an assertion frequently made in posts here on Photrio and in other places. But when I was looking at the current HP5+ Technical Data Sheet, dated November 2018, on Ilford's site I noticed that most of the times given for these two developers differed. The times for EI400 in stock D-76 and ID-11 are the same, but all the times for other EI ratings and/or dilutions differ. This strikes me as odd given that Ilford themselves claim the two developers are equivalent.

I was also saddened to see that Ilford no longer list times for popular non-Ilford chemistry in the most recent (October 2019) version of their master film developing chart. This helpful information is in the August 2004 version I have taped on my darkroom wall and I always thought it was nice of them to provide it. Sadly, Kodak has never reciprocated in this regard. BTW, the differences in HP5+ times I mentioned above also exist in this 2004 document so it's not like they're new typos that have crept into the current documentation.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

For what it's worth, I develop FP4 Plus for 12 minutes and HP5 Plus for 13 minutes in Kodak D76 1+1 at 20*C. (Latest package)

There is a recent thread called New D76 which the OP finds less active than previous packets of the Kodak product and less active than Ilford ID11.
I'm not sure why that is.

 

[nostalgix]

That is indeed very interesting. I have never used ID-11, but also read almost a hundred times that those two developers are practically identical. (This is probably the main reason why I never used ID-11 because I am used to D-76.)
I just got, thanks to your post, the feeling it might be a good idea to have a look at official documentation for stuff like this. I mostly rely on the massive dev chart and then search exactly for the combination that I would like to use.

 

[nostalgix]

For what it's worth, I develop FP4 Plus for 12 minutes and HP5 Plus for 13 minutes in Kodak D76 1+1 at 20*C. (Latest package)

There is a recent thread called New D76 which the OP finds less active than previous packets of the Kodak product and less active than Ilford ID11.
I'm not sure why that is.

Probably because the licences for Kodak chemicals have been sold again. But as far as I know now a lab is back in service again that has been working for Kodak before. Maybe the "New D-76" was the version that has been made after Kodak's bankrupt a few years ago and who weren't able to create the chemicals in the quality we were used to.

 

[Milpool]

When manufacturers give instructions for chemicals from other manufacturers, I suggest taking them with a grain of salt. While the basic “original” published formulas for D-76 and later ID-11 are the same, there might be small differences (which might or might not make any practical difference), but my point is that even if they are identical, who knows how Ilford really got to their suggested times for Kodak chemicals etc. Not to mention there have been errors in those tech sheets before.

In any case the suggested HP5 times for ID-11 and D-76 don’t look wildly different to me.

Use them as guidelines and go from there.

I have an undated though modern-looking Ilford PDF listing equivalents to non-Ilford processing chemicals that says D-76 is equivalent to ID-11, an assertion frequently made in posts here on Photrio and in other places. But when I was looking at the current HP5+ Technical Data Sheet, dated November 2018, on Ilford's site I noticed that most of the times given for these two developers differed. The times for EI400 in stock D-76 and ID-11 are the same, but all the times for other EI ratings and/or dilutions differ. This strikes me as odd given that Ilford themselves claim the two developers are equivalent.

I was also saddened to see that Ilford no longer list times for popular non-Ilford chemistry in the most recent (October 2019) version of their master film developing chart. This helpful information is in the August 2004 version I have taped on my darkroom wall and I always thought it was nice of them to provide it. Sadly, Kodak has never reciprocated in this regard. BTW, the differences in HP5+ times I mentioned above also exist in this 2004 document so it's not like they're new typos that have crept into the current documentation.

 

[MattKing]

Any recommendations for developing for film exposed at non-box speed EIs involve a lot of subjective factors about the compromises involved.
These differences may simply reflect that different tests were performed by different people at different times, all collated into a single document.

 

[skahde]

Kodaks off the shelf D76 and ID11 always were equivalent but never identical during any relevant time anyone around in this forum was souping film. The product sold by Kodak for decades is closer to the buffered version of the published formula D76d and has better stability during development. ID11 is closer to the published formula D76 and a bit more temperamental, e.g. rising in activity during exhaustion through a rise in pH. They are not the same just close relatives, one working in boots and the other dancing barefoot.

 

[Angarian]

Kodaks off the shelf D76 and ID11 always were equivalent but never identical during any relevant time anyone around in this forum was souping film. The product sold by Kodak for decades is closer to the buffered version of the published formula D76d and has better stability during development. ID11 is closer to the published formula D76 and a bit more temperamental, e.g. rising in activity during exhaustion through a rise in pH. They are not the same just close relatives, one working in boots and the other dancing barefoot.

Yes, but I think the most important fact for users is that the result, the picture quality you get is indistinguishable.
So from a practicable point of view you can absolutely use both. That has been my experience over the years.

 

[cliveh]

I would suggest that any development time/temperature recommendations from any manufacturer, or alternative source, for box speed or any other speed variation should be determined by personal experimentation by the photographer. This is because other dependent printing factors are unknown to outside recommendations. For what it's worth, I'm close to Keith Tapscott, as I always develop FP4 for 12.5 minutes at 20C.

 

[skahde]

Yes, but I think the most important fact for users is that the result, the picture quality you get is indistinguishable.
So from a practicable point of view you can absolutely use both. That has been my experience over the years.

Sure, and I completely agree! But question was, why different times are given for their usage aside from undiluted stock. And this mostly accounts for their slightly but still significantly different formulation.