Have D-76 and ID-11 given different contrast to you?

[Juan Valdenebro]

Ilford official times for HP5+ in D-76 and ID-11 show both developers work differently.

While @400, using stock solution, same development time is recommended for both developers, @400, using 1+1, ID-11 requires 18% more development time than D-76.

@800 with stock, ID-11 requires 11% more time than D-76, and @800 1+1 the difference is +23% for ID-11.

The situation for FP4+ is a totally different one, as if it depended on every film. And for PanF50+, the same times are OK for both developers.

The most extended opinion is both developers can be used with the same development times, while some users say Ilford testing is sloppy, and a few say both developers give different contrast depending on film.

I use Kodak’s D-76 mixed with distilled water, kept in amber glass bottles to the brim, and I’ve tested it doesn’t change activity in more than a year when it’s not been in contact with oxygen. I use it at least 6 hours after I mix it, and it’s behaved exactly the same way -identical contrast- for many years: never any issue.

What’s your opinion or experience? Are Ilford tests sloppy, or do both developers work differently depending on film?

 

[Paul Howell]

Good question, I have always ID11 just I would used D76 and never noticed any differences, on the other hand I don't use much ILford film. Interested to see what others have to say.

 

[cliveh]

Isn't D76 and ID11 virtually the same formulation and so development times at given temperatures should be identical.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Isn't D76 and ID11 virtually the same formulation and so development times at given temperatures should be identical.

They're close for sure, but I think they're not... Both are MQ developers, though.
I guess buffering is not the only difference: that would explain contrast/times differences.
Or who knows if even buffering alone can produce differences in contrast depending on film and dilution...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

One thing I'm sure of:
A few years ago I mixed a gallon of ID-11 (my only time in the last 15 years), and when I developed a first roll with my D-76 times, the roll came out a bit weak. As I had stored all that ID-11 in glass, I left it there (no oxygen) for a few months, using other developers... When I tried to use it again (maybe after six months) not only it gave me another weak development, but all bottles (unused stock) had a fair amount of byproducts in the bottom, so I never tried ID-11 again.
I imagine, being ID-11 packaged in two parts instead of one, it should keep at least as long as D-76, but perhaps there are small formulae differences...
If someone uses ID-11 for a year like I do with D-76, it would be good to know.

 

[ic-racer]

Those times are just suggestions. They can't know what kind of enlarger or printing paper you use.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Those times are just suggestions. They can't know what kind of enlarger or printing paper you use.

I have not imagined that...
What I have imagined is, testing should be done the same way across different films.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't use recommended times, ic...
I use mine, after calibration for wet printing.
So, what's your opinion?
Sloppy testing by Ilford, or both developers give different results?

 

[MattKing]

Ilford testing regimes use different contrast measuring methods then were previously used by Kodak.
The methods are quite similar, but they are not identical.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello Matt.
I understand you, but I'm not talking about times by Kodak, only by Ilford...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

This seems strange to me: most of the times D-76 appears stronger, but...
Talking about stock, 1+1 and 1+3, Ilford official times for HP5+ in ID-11 and D-76 are:
ID-11: 7.5 / 13 / 20
D-76: 7.5 / 11 / 22
Isn't it strange ?
Could it be Ilford testing is a collection of varying procedures and teams, possibly even from different years, instead of a more unified one?
I'm curious because I would like to be able to use my D-76 times (in several dilutions for several EIs and types of scene contrast) for ID-11 if it's ever necessary... I don't care at all about times for both developers being different... I care about times by Ilford being wrong, because that would make their chart useless for comparing developers' activity.
If we're doing low contrast scenes, who cares, but when we use all film's latitude for printing high contrst scenes, a development that's off by 23% is a problem.

 

[Steven Lee]

Wow... this is quite interesting. I never paid attention before, but yes indeed, the Ilford's own datasheet for HP5+ lists different times for ID-11 and D76. I will be following this thread.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I found this (from seven years ago):

ID11 times different than D76?

The inside of HP5 film boxes says to develop 16 minutes in ID11 but only 12:30 in D76. I thought these two developers were the same? Is Ilford trying to sabotage competing developers by giving bad instructions?

www.photrio.com

No conclusion...
"Use times as a guide only", but nothing on the real thread's subject.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Simon Galley talked about conspiracy theories being absurd: I agree.
I've read some people (other forums) say at Ilford they like to recommend wrong times for D-76 so people use ID-11 with better results.
Another idea has been money and time spent in Ilford's tests for D-76 are minimal, compared to those for ID-11... I don't think it requires a lot of time or money.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Well, Ian Grant said differences in both developers' formulae, mostly buffering, imply differences in development times.
At least that makes sense as it explains different times variations depending on dilution and film.
By now, the answer is, most of the times both developers don't work identically.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

By the way, when was the last time Kodak gave times for ID-11?
Did it happen?
There we could see a second opinion...

 

[pentaxuser]

Well, Ian Grant said differences in both developers' formulae, mostly buffering, imply differences in development times.
At least that makes sense as it explains different times variations depending on dilution and film.
By now, the answer is, most of the times both developers don't work identically.

So it looks like you have answered your own question.

pentaxuser

 

[cliveh]

Don't believe what Ilford say about D76 and what Kodak say about ID11.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

So it looks like you have answered your own question.

pentaxuser

Oh no, Ian did.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Don't believe what Ilford say about D76 and what Kodak say about ID11.

What did Kodak say about ID-11?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

cliveh:
If we did the same scene with HP5+ @800, with both developers at 1+1 using the same development time, and the ID-11 negative came with less density, you should believe what Ilford say about D-76.
I suspect they're right.

 

[MattKing]

By the way, when was the last time Kodak gave times for ID-11?
Did it happen?
There we could see a second opinion...

Never in published materials.
But I'd be willing to bet that in days of yore when the commercial labs were big customers, the sales and technical people from both Kodak and Ilford would have been very aware of similarities and differences between the two, as they pitched their respective products to potential customers who were open to discuss switching.
Kodak, of course, had the large commercial advantage of having the patent on the technology that permitted D-76 to be sold in a single container. Ilford couldn't use that technology, so ID-11 always required users to mix up stock using powder from two different containers, thus increasing mixing times.

 

[koraks]

Simon Galley talked about conspiracy theories being absurd: I agree.
I've read some people (other forums) say at Ilford they like to recommend wrong times for D-76 so people use ID-11 with better results.
Another idea has been money and time spent in Ilford's tests for D-76 are minimal, compared to those for ID-11... I don't think it requires a lot of time or money.

Or yet another possible explanation: the testing of D76 and ID11 were done at different times and/or by different lab personnel and using different standards, different versions of the same film and/or different lab methods. You could call it 'sloppy'; I'm no judge, but I see multiple ways how a virtually identical developer could come with different development times from the same film manufacturer. Which is to say that it's still inconclusive if ID11 behaves identically to D76.

Sorry: I missed this comment of yours:

Could it be Ilford testing is a collection of varying procedures and teams, possibly even from different years, instead of a more unified one?

That's what I meant

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ilford official times for HP5+ in D-76 and ID-11 show both developers work differently.

They don't. Ilford and Kodak's suggested agitation schemes for small tanks differ, and their aim densities for a given EI differ. Normalise them and you'll find that there are no meaningful differences. For the large part it's the difference between an aim CI of 0.55 and 0.6-0.62 (it's literally there in Kodak's own data).

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello Lachlan,
I think you didn't read the thread before posting.
We're talking about times by Ilford only.
No times by Kodak, no Kodak testing, no Kodak CI.
Thanks.