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

[Juan Valdenebro]

First I thought both developers had slightly different amounts of developer and/or other relevant chemicals in each formula, but it seems even buffering differences alone can produce different development times, of course depending on film, dilution and EI.
I don't have sheets and I don't have both developers at hand right now, but it would be easy to check @800 1+1, same time with both developers.
In the meantime, I trust Ilford times both for D-76 and for ID-11, if I ever use the English powder again.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I always try not to comment on subjects I have no experience with, but with D-76 and ID-11 I have used both. However, it was way back in the early 80's. I was taking a class at a Jr. College and our film was good old Tri-X with D-76 as the developer. We printed on Ilford Ilfobrom grade 2 with a condenser light source. One day I ran out of D-76 so headed off to the camera/photo supply store where the school had us signed up, only to find out there was no D-76 left on the shelf. I then went across town to another store, and they only carried ID-11. The clerk told me it was the same as D-76, so I thought, what the heck and bought it. All I can say is that I liked my prints from the ID-11 better, and it seemed easier to get a good print. With D-76 I would have to burn the sky in more often. You must understand that I knew very little about the Zone system or exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights back then. I only took the readings my old Miranda 35 slr gave me. I understand now that that camera had its meter cell in the mirror system and took bottom weighted readings, which gave good shadow exposure. I knew nothing about developing for the highlights back then. So, I came away with liking ID-11 better, simply because I was much dumber back then, I guess.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hello John,
Your comment seems to imply more contrasty negatives with D-76. That agrees with Ilford's different times for both developers: shorter times for D-76 in common dilutions.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Hello John,
Your comment seems to imply more contrasty negatives with D-76. That agrees with Ilford's different times for both developers: shorter times for D-76 in common dilutions.

Yes, I guess that's what I'm saying from what I remember from back then. I just didn't know why at the time. I haven't used either since then, but I'm certainly sure I could play with developing times or dilutions to get them to turn in the same or very close to the same results.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Sure, both of them can be used well.

 

[faberryman]

I don't know why you would want to use both D76 and ID11. Is there something that ID11 does that is different than D76, other than have a different developing time for the same film? If not, just use one of them. The winner is not the guy with the most developers on the shelf when he dies.

I also don't know why you would like to use D76 times for ID11. Ilford tells you to use different times. Believe them. Or test.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Dear faberryman,
I don't understand why you care about what I do.
Is it because I'm satisfied with my life and my photography?
I've clearly exposed my reasons, but as you require extra explanation, here it is:
I want to be able to use ID-11 to get the same CI I get with D-76, in case I can't buy D-76.
I know I can do it without testing for ID-11.
If you prefer testing for D-76 and then for ID-11, go for it.

 

[faberryman]

Dear faberryman,
I don't understand why you care about what I do.
Is it because I'm satisfied with my life and my photography?
I've clearly exposed my reasons, but as you require extra explanation, here it is:
I want to be able to use ID-11 to get the same CI I get with D-76, in case I can't buy D-76.
I know I can do it without testing for ID-11.
If you prefer testing for D-76 and then for ID-11, go for it.

I am interested in why people do the things they do. Sometimes it causes me think about things I might not otherwise have thought about. It is a method for learning from others.

How do you hope to determine how to achieve the same CI with D76 and ID11 without testing?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

We disagree.
I'm confident my D-76 times are enough if Ilford times for ID-11 are as right as their times for D-76.
I won't test for ID-11.
If you haven't done serious testing for D-76, I understand why you think testing for ID-11 would be your only way to use ID-11 with precision.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it yet; but you either need to standardize on 76 freshly mixed, or after it's had time to reach pH equilibrium about a week later. And the results will differ. Special buffered versions of 76 also exist, to alleviate that issue. So we're really talking about a category of developers with specific minor but pertinent differences, even in terms of starting usage. This kind of problem has been known for a long long time. When in doubt, test first.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't know why you would want to use both D76 and ID11. Is there something that ID11 does that is different than D76, other than have a different developing time for the same film? If not, just use one of them. The winner is not the guy with the most developers on the shelf when he dies.

I also don't know why you would like to use D76 times for ID11. Ilford tells you to use different times. Believe them. Or test.

I see zero learning attitude in your words.
But you're right: it's good if you learn.

 

[faberryman]

We disagree.
I'm confident my D-76 times are enough if Ilford times for ID-11 are as right as their times for D-76.
I won't test for ID-11.
If you haven't done serious testing for D-76, I understand why you think testing for ID-11 would be your only way to use ID-11 with precision.

Since you avoided the question I'll ask again:

How do you hope to determine how to achieve the same CI with D76 and ID11 without testing?

The other question which presents itself is if you already know how to do it without testing, why did you start the thread in the first place?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it yet; but you either need to standardize on 76 freshly mixed, or after it's had time to reach pH equilibrium about a week later. And the results will differ. Special buffered versions of 76 also exist, to alleviate that issue. So we're really talking about a category of developers with specific minor but pertinent differences, even in terms of starting usage. This kind of problem has been known for a long long time.

Hello Drew,
I have not seen those changes.
While cursing my career in Photography in Spain, with one of my teachers we did that test: no changes affecting wet printing if Kodak's buffered D-76 is kept in glass bottles without air.
There are changes if it's stored in other types of containers, or if there's air, or if it isn't Kodak's buffered D-76.
What's your opinion? Unprecise times by Ilford, or both developers work differently?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Since you avoided the question I'll ask again:

How do you hope to determine how to achieve the same CI with D76 and ID11 without testing?

The other question which presents itself is if you already know how to do it without testing, why did you start the thread in the first place?

I have not avoided any question: you have not understood this thread.
If Ilford times are right, and they recommend 24% more time for ID-11 than for D-76 for a certain film, dilution and EI, testing for ID-11 is not necessary because of my D-76 times.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

faberryman, do you have an opinion on this thread's subject?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Since you avoided the question I'll ask again:

How do you hope to determine how to achieve the same CI with D76 and ID11 without testing?

The other question which presents itself is if you already know how to do it without testing, why did you start the thread in the first place?

What I asked other forum members is if they got different contrast with both developers using the same development time and temperature.
Have you?

 

[faberryman]

I have not avoided any question: you have not understood this thread.
If Ilford times are right, and they recommend 24% more time for ID-11 than for D-76 for a certain film, dilution and EI, testing for ID-11 is not necessary because of my D-76 times.

It would be a good place to start. I would develop a test roll to make sure the results match your calculations before committing anything important to the process. Sometimes things don't work out quite the way you expect. But you know best.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

It would certainly be a good place to start. I would develop a test roll to make sure the results match your calculations before committing anything important to the process. Sometimes things don't work out quite the way you expect. But you know best.

No, I don't know everything as you needed to write before, and I don't know best as you need to write again.
You came to this thread, without knowing anything about the thread's subject, and having a personal attitude against me because of things that are in your mind only: I asked for experience, and you don't have it.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Juan - I haven't had any reason to specifically try ID-11; and if I did, I'd need to run it through a whole suite of comparison tests, including how long after mixing it was actually used, and at different dilutions. At one point I did all kinds of full curve densitometer plots respective to D76 and its tweaks. But I haven't used D76 for general development purposes for a long long time. And I suspect even the sealed packets of Kodak D76 powder still on my darkroom shelf are more than 20 years old. But given the fact ID-11 purports to replicate D76, I'd certainly would pay attention to the specific time between mixing and actual usage. Perhaps there are older threads on this very topic.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thank you, Drew.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it yet; but you either need to standardize on 76 freshly mixed, or after it's had time to reach pH equilibrium about a week later. And the results will differ. Special buffered versions of 76 also exist, to alleviate that issue. So we're really talking about a category of developers with specific minor but pertinent differences, even in terms of starting usage. This kind of problem has been known for a long long time. When in doubt, test first.

Drew,
You are so right, but back in the 80's when I used both D-76 and ID-11 I never gave a thought to letting either one reach a PH equilibrium. I also don't remember our instructor mentioning it. Now I know better. Life was simpler back then.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don't use recommended times, ic...
I use mine, after calibration for wet printing.

So what's your own conclusion about development times in the two products?

 

[Arvee]

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?

I've always thought that the time differential was due to the assumption that when using D-76 agitation is 5-7 inversions/30 sec. vs ID11 agitation scheme is 4 inversions/60 sec. The difference in these agitation schemes will produce differences in highlight density. Thus, D-76, with its shorter interval time and more inversions vs ID11's longer interval time and fewer inversions, will require less developing time than ID11 to achieve the same contrast index.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Two notes from The Film Developing Cookbook:

"As sold today in the single-powder package it took Kodak 30 years to perfect, D-76 contains ingredients not specified in the original formula. These include DTPA and boric anhydride. It is believed that special manufacturing techniques are employed to make the metol dissolve before the sulfite. The sequestrant helps ensure that the developer can be used in almost any geographic area... Some D-76 experts believe these additions degrade image quality... Although Kodak D-76 and Ilford ID-11 are ostensibly the same formula there are a few differences as manufactured. Ilford sells ID-11 in two separate packages. the first contains metol, the second sulfite. ID-11 is thus probably closer to the original formula."

"A major problem with D-76 was discovered in 1929... At the pH of fresh D-76, which should be about 8.3, the hydroquinone is essentially inactive. However, upon storage over a few months, the pH of both D-76 and the replenisher formula, D-76R, can rise as high as 9, enough to activate the hydroquinone. At that point, D-76 creates higher contrast."

 

[pentaxuser]

I've always thought that the time differential was due to the assumption that when using D-76 agitation is 5-7 inversions/30 sec. vs ID11 agitation scheme is 4 inversions/60 sec. The difference in these agitation schemes will produce differences in highlight density. Thus, D-76, with its shorter interval time and more inversions vs ID11's longer interval time and fewer inversions, will require less developing time than ID11 to achieve the same contrast index.

Didn't Greg Davis do a comparison between the Ilford and Kodak agitation regimes and found no difference in the negatives?

While Kodak's regime is inversions every 30 secs and Ilford is every minute, doesn't Kodak say that its inversion period should be confined to 2-5 inversions in 5 secs v Ilford is 10 secs so overall unless you invert at twice the speed when using the Kodak regime the number of inversions works out the same?

Here's what Kodak says you do every 30 secs
."After the first 30 seconds, agitate for 5 seconds at 30-second intervals. Agitation should consist of 2 to 5 cycles, depending on the contrast you need and the type of tank."

Yes you could use 5 inversions in 5 secs and likewise by the same token you could use 10 inversions per minute for Ilford

Mind you 5 in 5 secs or 10 in 10 secs gets you close to cocktail shaker regime in say Acapulco

When I use Xtol and used both regimes my inversions were 2 inversions every 30 secs for Kodak and 4 every 10 secs for Ilford

pentaxuser