ID-11 Mixing

dynachrome · Jan 7, 2024

Earlier today I mixed up two batches of ID-11. The first batch was an ancient 1 Quart box with a code of 06E0831. I mixed it with distilled water at approximately the right temperature. The Part A powder was a reddish brown. I dropped in a small piece of old exposed TMX and it turned black pretty quickly but I dumped the developer out anyway.

Next, I mixed up a 1 Liter batch, also with distilled water and also at approximately the right temperature. The box code is 84E082. It would have been purchased before we moved to our current house in 2005. The Part A powder was tge sane reddish brown color as the earlier and much older batch. I dropped in the piece of TMX and it turned black right away. This time I decided to keep the stuff for later testing.

The odd thing is that I have a large supply of 1 Quart packages of Microphen and every time I mix up a package, it works perfectly. I did notice that the Part A packages of the old Microphen have plastic bags for both Parts A and B. Both batches of ID-11 that I mixed up today had Part B in a plastic bag but Part A in a paper and foil bag. Somewhere I have some very old boxes of Agfa Atomal. When I tried to mix up a batch, it was dead as a door nail. Both parts A and B were in paper and foil packets.

I ordered some more ID-11 and I still have some of the more recent stuff lying around. If I can test my second batch later today, I will have some idea of what happened.

Rudeofus · Jan 8, 2024

None of these developers were ever designed or rated to last for decades, so you are basically on your own. Even if powder developers are said to "last forever", they will show signs of deterioration if they get moist. Since oxidized Hydroquinone takes on a very strong color, even a small percentage of oxidized HQ will render the whole powder dark brown. While HQ deterioration is very visible, wet/moist alkalis will also attract aerial Carbon Dioxide, which can lower developer pH to the point of inactivity.

Don_ih · Jan 8, 2024

I had a supply of ID11 to mix 600 ml - packed in boxes with the old Ilford logo. No idea how old they were, but both chem packs were in plastic. There was no discolouration of either pack. So if yours is discoloured, I'd assume it's not fit to use.

pentaxuser · Jan 8, 2024

Try some of your developer out on a film leader to see what happens. You have nothing to lose

pentaxuser

brian steinberger · Jan 8, 2024

Just curious where you ordered your ID-11, if you’re in the US. I can’t find it anywhere. I emailed Ilford and they said it would be available again in March.

retina_restoration · Jan 8, 2024

brian steinberger said:
Just curious where you ordered your ID-11, if you’re in the US. I can’t find it anywhere. I emailed Ilford and they said it would be available again in March.

Brian, ID-11 is considered to be functionally identical to D-76, so you could source D-76 from any of the US suppliers and you'd see no difference. The two developers are interchangeable.

That said, Blue Moon Camera currently has 1 liter packages of ID-11 in stock.

eli griggs · Jan 8, 2024

Invest in your own set of basic developer chemicals plus anti-fog agents and mix your own D-76, or ID-11, etc.

It'll not have preservatives in it as the pre-packeged Kodak/Ilford developers have and you can tweak developers for your own needs, for example, try the A.A. developer(s) with a "pinch" of Amadol in it for a darkroom day and see how you like it.

IMO, it's worth the money spent and the raw chemicals, properly sealed and stored, will last for years.

Don_ih · Jan 8, 2024

pentaxuser said:
Try some of your developer out on a film leader to see what happens

The problem with that tactic is it doesn't tell you anything about how good the developer is at tonality. Pretty much any near-dead developer will turn a film leader black in a reasonable time.

pentaxuser · Jan 9, 2024

Don_ih said:
The problem with that tactic is it doesn't tell you anything about how good the developer is at tonality. Pretty much any near-dead developer will turn a film leader black in a reasonable time.

Hmm...I felt I had some reasonable success with such a test when I tried out the perfidious Xtol that might have been past its best or even dead, Jim, dead as Dr McCoy used to say in Star Trek . I used Kodak's time as a gauge

pentaxuser

Don_ih · Jan 9, 2024

pentaxuser said:
I felt I had some reasonable success with such a test when I tried out the perfidious Xtol

The issue with testing using a fully-exposed film leader, particularly in a developer with more than one developing agent, is it won't tell you if one of those developing agents is dead. A fully-exposed leader develops too quickly in even half-dead developer - way faster than the brightest normal highlight in normally exposed film will.

dynachrome · Jan 9, 2024

I ran two test strips. The first was with the newer but still old ID-11. The second was with fresh L-76. The two strips did not look very different. Why? The Tri-X expired in 2017 and was stored indifferently. It must have been made about nine years ago and seems to have picked up some fog. A supply of fresh Tri-X arrived today from B&H. Tomorrow I will do two test strips. The first will be in the L-76 and the second in the old but newly mixed Microphen. Separately I received an order from Freestyle today with ADOX D-76, some D-76 clone and some fresh Ilford Delta 400. When my supply of packaged developers runs out, which will take a while, I might just make up D-23.

The second batch of ID-11 was poured through a coffee filter. The result was nearly clear and the filter had what looked like tiny black specs in it. Finding ID-11 now is not easy. I bought some from two different eBay sellers. One was selling all photo related items and the other was not. From one seller I bought two 1 liter boxes and from the other, two 5 liter boxes. In Europe, the 5 liter size might seem normal. In the U.S., I prefer the 1 gallon size. There are still plenty of D-76 clones available in a 1 gallon size. Anyway, testing with fresh Tri-X should answer some questions. My test strips will probably have to be shot indoors. It's been pouring here.

koraks · Jan 10, 2024

@pentaxuser the approach you suggest isn't reliable for the reason @Don_ih says. This is especially true if you only perform a visual assay of the result - i.e. note whether the leader section turns black. This does not allow for any diffentiation between properly working and compromised developer; it'll only show if a developer is totally dead, or not. Even if you perform densitometry on the developed snippet, the problem with a fully exposed section of leader film is that you're so far on the film curve that you're in a section where the relationship between exposure and silver density is basically unpredictable. A typical silver halide film curve slopes off past its shoulder; this is a section of the curve that's virtually never included in the datasheet, so you'd end up measuring densities that are impossible to interpret.

In short, your method will only show whether a developer does *something*. It doesn't show if a developer performs (more or less) to specification.

eli griggs said:
Invest in your own set of basic developer chemicals plus anti-fog agents and mix your own D-76, or ID-11, etc.

For the experimental minds among us, this is an entirely viable and sensible suggestion. It's not hard to DIY B&W developers.

retina_restoration · Jan 10, 2024

koraks said:
@pentaxuser the approach you suggest isn't reliable for the reason @Don_ih says. This is especially true if you only perform a visual assay of the result - i.e. note whether the leader section turns black. This does not allow for any diffentiation between properly working and compromised developer; it'll only show if a developer is totally dead, or not. Even if you perform densitometry on the developed snippet, the problem with a fully exposed section of leader film is that you're so far on the film curve that you're in a section where the relationship between exposure and silver density is basically unpredictable. A typical silver halide film curve slopes off past its shoulder; this is a section of the curve that's virtually never included in the datasheet, so you'd end up measuring densities that are impossible to interpret.

In short, your method will only show whether a developer does *something*. It doesn't show if a developer performs (more or less) to specification.

For the experimental minds among us, this is an entirely viable and sensible suggestion. It's not hard to DIY B&W developers.

Once upon a time I followed the "stick a piece of leader in the developer to evaluate it's viability" advice with Xtol, saw that the leader started to darken and then proceeded to develop a roll of film. What I got was unusable, thin, underdeveloped negatives. So, it became apparent immediately that this was not a useful diagnostic tool. All it shows you is that the developer still has some activity, but it doesn't tell you if it will perform as designed.

A few years ago when "Kodak" sold a sh*tload of bad chemistry, I quit buying it and obtained all the raw ingredients to make my own developers (I buy from ArtCraft, but Photographers Formulary is also excellent), and I have never looked back. It's cheaper to DIY and you never have to wonder if it's going to work properly.

pentaxuser · Jan 10, 2024

I have re-examined my responses to Don in the light of his comments and koraks post. What I have realised is that while I mentioned using the Kodak time in my test for the efficacy of Xtol in my case, I had forgotten to mention that the second half of the test is to compare the leader with a retained leader from a film that was tested the same way in fresh Xtol.

So what's my excuse? Well, all I can say is that in a previous thread on using a "leader "test I believe I had mentioned it but due to haste and/or subconsciously remembering the previous thread I had forgotten to.

Having stated that now, I think that my leader test with the above proviso is a reasonably valid test to apply. Of course in the OP's case it is not Xtol but as long as he has a leader that was tested this way in ID11 or I think any fresh developer then he has something to compare with his test of his old ID11

In previous threads on this recurring theme of testing old developers I think I have seen others mentioning the leader test as a "one-liner" statement like my original post and such one liner statements seemed to go unchallenged but of course neither Don nor koraks may have been part of such threads

I suppose what matters now is whether the leader test with my additional proviso is a valid test or whether any such leader test remains invalid for the reasons given by Don and koraks

It does matter in terms of helping or hindering those like the OP who discover old developers and are curious to see if they work so I welcome a discussion which can shed further light on this

Is there a valid test for old developers and if so can we as a forum agree on it or at least agree to what extent it may be valid and with what accompanying risks there are?

Thanks

pentaxuser

koraks · Jan 10, 2024

pentaxuser said:
the second half of the test is to compare the leader with a retained leader from a film that was tested the same way in fresh Xtol.

As suggested in my response, I'd be weary of relying even on this test since it's inconclusive given the anomalies one can expect at high densities and supposedly 'fully' exposed leaders - which in practice actually do exhibit visible variations in density depending on how long they've actually been "entirely" exposed. I learned this the hard way when setting up an experiment not too long ago.

pentaxuser said:
Is there a valid test for old developers and if so can we as a forum agree on it or at least agree to what extent it may be valid and with what accompanying risks there are?

Some straightforward sensitometry in a direct comparison with known-good developer would do. It's not very hard to set this up. Whether it's worth the hassle... I doubt it. I personally choose to just rely on freshly made chemistry since it's in my perception quicker and less prone to unanticipated variations.

pentaxuser · Jan 10, 2024

koraks said:
As suggested in my response, I'd be weary of relying even on this test since it's inconclusive given the anomalies one can expect at high densities and supposedly 'fully' exposed leaders - which in practice actually do exhibit visible variations in density depending on how long they've actually been "entirely" exposed. I learned this the hard way when setting up an experiment not too long ago.

Some straightforward sensitometry in a direct comparison with known-good developer would do. It's not very hard to set this up. Whether it's worth the hassle... I doubt it. I personally choose to just rely on freshly made chemistry since it's in my perception quicker and less prone to unanticipated variations.

So we should be advising anyone with a developer kit be unopened powder or unopened liquid that is beyond the manufacturers' recommended life of unopened developer that there are only 2 absolutely safe ways to treat such a developer

1. Dump it
2. Set up some straightforward sensitometry

Can I ask what 2 involves and what might be the percentage risk factor of a leader test depending on age of the developer in your opinion? I say your opinion as I assume there are no sources from which such percentage risk factors might be gleaned such as type of developer? Does your above suggestion hold for only the developer in question in this thread? I assume for instance that in the case of some developers such as Rodinal the risk of a leader test not being reliable might be extremely small

I am simply trying to establish the risk percentages involved or what qualifications one should give in making a statement on leader tests

If the only safe answer to give is "Don't do it" then so be it but it's a pity if this cannot be qualified in any way I just want to avoid the outcome in terms of answers to many questions which boil down to two, namely "don't do it" or "give it a try"

The OP gets answers OK in the above case but I wonder how much help it is when they boil down to YES or NO both of which are unqualified and may or may not simply reflect the risk averse nature or otherwise of the respondent

pentaxuser

Don_ih · Jan 10, 2024

@pentaxuser -- a reliable test would be to shoot 36 identical exposures at some point in time. Develop a couple of inches of those exposures in known good developer. Then you will have a point of comparison for testing developer. You just grab a couple of inches of your exposed film, develop it in the potentially bad developer, compare with your known good sample. Developing a couple of inches of film won't deplete the developer to any real degree, so it's not wasteful.

pentaxuser · Jan 11, 2024

Don_ih said:
@pentaxuser -- a reliable test would be to shoot 36 identical exposures at some point in time. Develop a couple of inches of those exposures in known good developer. Then you will have a point of comparison for testing developer. You just grab a couple of inches of your exposed film, develop it in the potentially bad developer, compare with your known good sample. Developing a couple of inches of film won't deplete the developer to any real degree, so it's not wasteful.

Thanks This sounds like what I understand a snip test to be, namely take say 2 frames, cut off those frames and develop them in the "old" developer and then see what they are like. If you cannot tell enough from the negative then scan or print it. If it looks OK to you i.e. meets your standard then you are good to go

It just seems as convenient and potentially less wasteful than using a whole 36 frame film of identical pics as a fallback test each time but OK everyone to his own test

Don_ih said:
The issue with testing using a fully-exposed film leader, particularly in a developer with more than one developing agent, is it won't tell you if one of those developing agents is dead. A fully-exposed leader develops too quickly in even half-dead developer - way faster than the brightest normal highlight in normally exposed film will.

Can you say what developing agents can be dead in a leader that turns as black as the original leader developer in a known fresh developer?

My own experience was with Xtol that had turned a pale straw colour so I compared the leader with one previously developed in the same Xtol when fresh. I use the clear filament of a tungsten bulb as the test and yes I admit I hadn't mentioned this before either. Anyway, both leaders looked identical until I held both leaders up to the filament. The glow from the leader in fresh Xtol was slightly more dull than that from the pale straw Xtol, telling me that the Xtol had lost some of its efficacy and when I did prints under an enlarger, possibly the highlights ( zones 7-8) were slightly less bright but in cases where that really mattered I believe that an extra half grade or less would have corrected it

Interestingly it was Matt King who suggested that having satisfied myself that the pale straw Xtol was OK by this test I could just increase my development time slightly next time

Thanks

pentaxuser

koraks · Jan 11, 2024

pentaxuser said:
using a whole 36 frame film of identical pics as a fallback test

Nobody suggested this...There are plenty of ways to take a small section of film and perform a test with it.

dynachrome · Jan 11, 2024

I finally ran a short test strip of fresh Tri-X through L-76. The result? The edges and spaces between the frames are much lighter than those of the previous strips. The Tri-X which expired in 2017 and which was probably made two years before that has built up some fog. All three strips are printable but the last one does not show any fog. Based on these informal tests, the second batch of ID-11 is usable if it is run through a coffee filter first. For now I will use the L-76. After I clean out some more old Grolsch bottles I will mix up a liter of ADOX D-76 and try that. At some point Grolsch slightly changed the shape of their swing top bottles so they would no longer hold 16 oz. Luckily, I have plenty of the old bottles and a supply of new (er) washers so I'm set for now.

Don_ih · Jan 11, 2024

pentaxuser said:
what developing agents can be dead

There is no reason to expect that the developing agents in a developer will degrade at the same rate. Your example, Xtol, is a Phenidone/ascorbate developer. Two agents, either can die first. Something was starting to fail in your Xtol. You determined that by comparing two fully-exposed and developed pieces of film against a light bulb. One had slightly lower density. The point of what I've been saying throughout, though, is that such a test doesn't tell you what impact that loss of activity will have on the tonality of the developed film. There is a reason for the ratio of the developing agents in the fresh developer. If one agent is dying, that ratio is no longer the same.

pentaxuser · Jan 11, 2024

koraks said:
Nobody suggested this...There are plenty of ways to take a small section of film and perform a test with it.

It would appear that Don was suggesting this ín his quote which was why I quoted it but no matter. It just seemed to me that a snip test was easier

Don_ih said:
There is no reason to expect that the developing agents in a developer will degrade at the same rate. Your example, Xtol, is a Phenidone/ascorbate developer. Two agents, either can die first. Something was starting to fail in your Xtol. You determined that by comparing two fully-exposed and developed pieces of film against a light bulb. One had slightly lower density. The point of what I've been saying throughout, though, is that such a test doesn't tell you what impact that loss of activity will have on the tonality of the developed film. There is a reason for the ratio of the developing agents in the fresh developer. If one agent is dying, that ratio is no longer the same.

Yes it is all down to examining such tonality by for instance making a print of the negative which once you've done the snip test is just another quick step

However we are essentially back to how risk averse the user is. As I said I had complete success with Xtol of a pale straw colour using a leader test

However again each to his own. If I have had success on several occasions with a leader test which I have then maybe I was just lucky but I thought it worthwhile to mention this test when someone mentions old developer

pentaxuser

Don_ih · Jan 12, 2024

pentaxuser said:
However again each to his own. If I have had success on several occasions with a leader test which I have then maybe I was just lucky but I thought it worthwhile to mention this test when someone mentions old developer

All I'm saying is that the leader test will tell you that the developer is active, but it won't necessarily tell you how effective it is.

And, yes, I did say you could shoot a roll of 36 identical exposures to cut into strips with one developed in known good developer, the rest retained to test questionable developer. It's not something I'm going to do but there were times it would've prevented me ruining a roll of film.

pentaxuser · Jan 12, 2024

Thanks Don for the reply

pentaxuser

dynachrome · Jan 12, 2024

The two 5 liter boxes of ID-11 arrived today. The code numbers on the boxes are 29A113 and 26A100. Does anyone know what dates these numbers represent?

ID-11 Mixing

dynachrome

Rudeofus

Don_ih

pentaxuser

brian steinberger

retina_restoration

eli griggs

Don_ih

pentaxuser

Don_ih

dynachrome

koraks

Moderator

retina_restoration

pentaxuser

koraks

Moderator

pentaxuser

Don_ih

pentaxuser

koraks

Moderator

dynachrome

Don_ih

pentaxuser

Don_ih

pentaxuser

dynachrome

ID-11 Mixing

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency