ID-11 Diluted 1:2 anyone?

[brian steinberger]

Ilford gives times for 1:1 and 1:3 but what about 1:2? Anyone use ID-11 at this dilution? How much percentage do you add to the 1:1 time?

I'm thinking of trying this dilution because I use a 400ml tank and worry about the 1:3 dilution using only 100ml of stock ID-11.

Are the edge effects and sharpness still noticeable over 1:1 at this dilution? Or would I be better off to just sticking with the 1:1 dilution? I'm just looking for a little more edge in sharpness.

BTW.. I plan on using this dilution with Neopan 400, my favorite film as well as Ilford FP4 and HP5

 

[johnnywalker]

I tried it a few times. I got the times (rightly or wrongly) by graphing 100% (stock), 50% (1+1) and 25% (1 +3) against the Ilford times and interpolating for the 33% (1+2). I don't recall if the film was FP4+ or HP5+, but I didn't see any noticeable difference between the 1+1 and the 1+2, but the prints were only 5X7. The interpolated times seem to be pretty reasonable though.

 

[david b]

Have you tried xtol with neopan 400 ?

 

[brian steinberger]

David, yes I've been using Neopan with Xtol 1:1 for about 3 years now. Love the combination. I just mixed up a 5 liter kit of ID-11 that I've had lying around for about a year now and figured I'd play with it. I used to use ID-11 1:3 years ago with success especially with HP5 and FP4 but that was with a 1000ml tank, doing 2 rolls of 120 at once.

Johnny, thanks for the info. I'm also kind of assuming results with 1:2 are close to 1:1, sure that's why Ilford skips right to 1:3.

I'll wait and see what others say...

 

[Ian Grant]

In the past I did exactly the same as johnnywalker to get my starting times. I used it 1+2 with FP4 and it was far better than 1+3 which I found compressed the tonal range to much, and an improvement on 1+1.

Ian

 

[brian steinberger]

Thanks Ian for that information. I think I will give it a try and see if I like it...

 

[wogster]

I tried it a few times. I got the times (rightly or wrongly) by graphing 100% (stock), 50% (1+1) and 25% (1 +3) against the Ilford times and interpolating for the 33% (1+2). I don't recall if the film was FP4+ or HP5+, but I didn't see any noticeable difference between the 1+1 and the 1+2, but the prints were only 5X7. The interpolated times seem to be pretty reasonable though.

Might be easier to take the time for 1+1 and the time for 1+3 and split the difference, should be pretty close.

 

[johnnywalker]

It's fairly close, but it's not a straight line relationship.
The times I had for HP5+ in id-ll, microphen and perceptol, were 17.45, 17.6, X; for FP4+ 14.9, 12, 18 (same order); for Delta 100 14.9, 12.4, 19.4. There are no times for Delta 400 and perceptol in HP5+ because there are no 1+3 times and an interpolation is not possible.
These times should give a reasonable place to start.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

In the past I did exactly the same as johnnywalker to get my starting times. I used it 1+2 with FP4 and it was far better than 1+3 which I found compressed the tonal range too much, and an improvement on 1+1.

Ian

I agree about the 1+3 dilution compressing the tones and making the enlargements look a bit flat. Try making DK-76 and diluting it 1+1.5 e.g; 200ml stock + 300ml of water. It yields lovely sharp negatives at the films full box speed.

 

[AlanC]

I use ID11 at 1+3 with HP5+ and don't see any tonal compresssion. I have been so impressed by the results that I use nothing else in 35mm.
Most of my photography is done in hazy to strong sun. Don't know if this has a bearing...


Alan Clark