ID-11: I take back every bad thing I ever said.

rubyfalls · Mar 4, 2014

So, I got a new-to-me lens and shot a bunch of test rolls last weekend. Since I wasn't invested in the negatives, I decided to use up all my non-DDX developer -- some perceptol, some ilfosol 3, and some ID-11 stock that I mixed last July. YES. Last July. And it has been sitting in a half-full bottle since.

Anyhow, reaffirmed my admiration of perceptol (on delta 100 - what's not to love) and my intense dislike of ilfosol 3 (on anything - I really don't like this developer). But the giant shocker was the roll of tri-x I developed in the junky ID-11. GLORIOUS. I am stunned. I'd written ID-11 off months ago. Clearly, I need to revisit that. I will post some scans tomorrow.

So lesson learned. Keep an open mind. Also? Remember there is a learning curve.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ian Grant · Mar 4, 2014

D76/ID-11 is a very good developer, while I moved on in the mid 80's to Rodinal & Xtol and finally Pyrocat HD I'd still be able touse it to get great results.

Ian

cliveh · Mar 4, 2014

As ID11 is virtually the same as D76 it should work like this. Others will correct me if wrong but I think it has a slight difference in formulation, or perhaps exactly the same!

rubyfalls · Mar 4, 2014

Cliveh- I've heard the same thing. I've been a staunch fan of DDX and have hated on ID11 for a while. Perhaps I was too arrogant. And (hopefully) my skills have improved over the last 6 months. But I will definitely not shy away from using ID11 on tri-x again. I'm frankly stunned. Maybe it was just the subject matter or maybe the new lens, but I will happily eat my words.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cjbecker · Mar 4, 2014

I think we all can agree, the old standards are old standards for a reason. Once you accept that these developers (id11, d76), though they are plain jane, simply work, you can use them to there full potential.

NB23 · Mar 4, 2014

cjbecker said:
I think we all can agree, the old standards are old standards for a reason. Once you accept that these developers (id11, d76), though they are plain jane, simply work, you can use them to there full potential.

"Plain jane" is nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned, there's such thing. Ddx, tmax, xtol, rodinal: its all plain jane. The exotic that one gains by going to rodinal stand or whatever other development regime is purely psychological.
D76 is a timeless great.

gone · Mar 4, 2014

ID-11 is essentially the same as D76 from everything I've read. I'm amazed that yours was still good. My D76 gets weird after 3-4 weeks! I've tried everything. Distilled water only, glass bottles w/ marbles, gas in the bottle before I cap it, you name it. That's all I get, and then I start getting more grain, and it is not predictable at all. Now I use TD-16 and we'll see how that works for the longer storage. I do agree that the developers we're discussing are just fantastic for Tri-X.

brian steinberger · Mar 4, 2014

ID-11 is my main developer. Has been for years. I prefer it 1:1 but lately have been trying it out 1:2 on Tri-x and FP4. Great stuff! And if you think Rodinal with FP4 is sharp, ID-11 1:3 is just as sharp. It's a very versatile developer.

brian steinberger · Mar 4, 2014

momus said:
ID-11 is essentially the same as D76 from everything I've read. I'm amazed that yours was still good. My D76 gets weird after 3-4 weeks! I've tried everything. Distilled water only, glass bottles w/ marbles, gas in the bottle before I cap it, you name it. That's all I get, and then I start getting more grain, and it is not predictable at all.

Maybe you should try ID-11.

MattKing · Mar 5, 2014

The main difference between ID-11 and D-76 is that Kodak uses a proprietary sequestering agent in D-76 that is unavailable to Ilford. That is the reason that a new packet of ID-11 consists of two separate packets of powder, whereas D-76 is just one packet.

momus is the only person I have ever heard of having that sort of problem with D-76. I'll echo Brian - he should try ID-11.

Steve Smith · Mar 5, 2014

Apart from some exotic developers (Rodinal, Pyro, etc.) I think you can make more variation in camera than you can by choice of developer.

I like Ilford DD-X but recently bought some D76 because it was cheap. I can't see any difference.

Steve.

cliveh · Mar 5, 2014

MattKing said:
The main difference between ID-11 and D-76 is that Kodak uses a proprietary sequestering agent in D-76 that is unavailable to Ilford. That is the reason that a new packet of ID-11 consists of two separate packets of powder, whereas D-76 is just one packet.

momus is the only person I have ever heard of having that sort of problem with D-76. I'll echo Brian - he should try ID-11.

Thank you Matt, I thought there was some difference.

MattKrull · Mar 5, 2014

I've been developing my Plus-X in Rodinal for the past few rolls simply because it is easier than mixing up another batch of D76. But I think my next roll will be going back in the D76. While I love the edge contrast of Rodinal, it really does lose the smooth tones I get with D76. And Plus-X has such nice smooth tones... I wish I could get LC29 around here, D76 esque, but the ease of Rodinal. I know, I could do HC110, but I always get confused by the different dilutions.

Bob Carnie · Mar 5, 2014

I switched to ID 11 about a year ago from D76 and have been very happy with the transition.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 5, 2014

Steve Smith said:
Apart from some exotic developers (Rodinal, Pyro, etc.) I think you can make more variation in camera than you can by choice of developer.

I like Ilford DD-X but recently bought some D76 because it was cheap. I can't see any difference.

Steve.

Exactly. The light is everything, and how you expose it. Of course you can also alter the results by changing how you develop the film, and with a thousand times more variation than you would see by switching developers.

1. Change dilution with ID-11/D76 and you go from smooth grain and a bit higher contrast and a little bit less shadow speed with stock developer, to incredibly sharp and more shadow detail with 1+3 (thanks to longer developing times the shadows develop more).
2. Change developing time drastically, and the differences in what a print looks like between negatives that have been developed a short time and long time will be quite significant, particularly in the highlight department.
3. Change agitation, and you will change how all of the tones between black and white look like. Agitate more for a straight line curve, and agitate less for more developed shadows (raised toe), and agitate less for a shoulder (compressed highlights).

So, for example, if you want compressed highlights but some areas of really strong thick black from your negative, you expose the film a little bit less than normal, and use a dilute developer, develop for a long time and agitate say every two minutes.

All of that is in addition to using filters and camera exposure. The variances obtainable with a single film and a single developer is mind blowing.

David Brown · Mar 5, 2014

Thomas Bertilsson said:
The variances obtainable with a single film and a single developer is mind blowing.

So, the "magic bullet" is technique ...

R.Gould · Mar 5, 2014

cliveh said:
As ID11 is virtually the same as D76 it should work like this. Others will correct me if wrong but I think it has a slight difference in formulation, or perhaps exactly the same!

d76/id11 are virtually the same developer, the main difference is d76 is one packet and id11 is two, I use D76 following the instructions/timing published by Ilford for id11 and the results are great

Ian Grant · Mar 5, 2014

R.Gould said:
d76/id11 are virtually the same developer, the main difference is d76 is one packet and id11 is two, I use D76 following the instructions/timing published by Ilford for id11 and the results are great

There's slight differences in the buffering.

Ian

Richard S. (rich815) · Mar 5, 2014

I have found over the years there are no bad developers. Like most films they are all capable of terrific results. If you have a severe dislike of a certain developer, especially one that many others like or that even certain masters used to great success, you simply do not have it dialed in yet. Sure some are going to give more grain or contrast under certain circumstances and based on that you might prefer a different developer. I joke about how they must have changed the formula for HC-110 back around 3-4 years ago because prior to that I never got results I liked. Then bam! Something happened and I got terrific, blow my socks off results on a few rolls. Since then working around certain times/temps, films and exposure techniques it's now my favorite developer of all. I guess I could have saved a lot of time by better notes and processes but I hate doing that so I had to dial it in over time and sort of through intuition as I gained more experience with it. Still like to use Rodinal and sometimes go back to D-76 because I like them both too. Vive le difference!

Axle · Mar 5, 2014

I to am not a fan of Ilfosol 3, and also had moved on from D-76/ID-11.

But recently brought back D-76 into the mix...and agree, it's a fantastic developer!

Snapshot · Mar 5, 2014

I've hopped around to various developers to get different looks/tones. However, I now use only two developers, a D-76 derivative for conventional films and FX-37 for the newer T-grained films. I'm not surprised that you've had a positive experience with ID-11, as that developer has withstood the test of time.

rubyfalls · Mar 5, 2014

So here is an example of my ID11 joy. Bear in mind I was testing a new lens, so these aren't great shots.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

rubyfalls · Mar 5, 2014

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cliveh · Mar 5, 2014

ID11 is good, but it doesn't have the je ne sais quoi of D76.

Black Dog · Mar 5, 2014

Those don't look too shabby at all!

ID-11: I take back every bad thing I ever said.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency