ID11 times different than D76?

[MattKing]

You might find it interesting to read the information in Kodak's data sheet for new T-Max 400:

"EXPOSURE
The nominal speed of KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX
400 Film is EI 400. It was determined in a manner
published in ISO standards. Because of its great latitude,
you can underexpose this film by one stop (at EI 800) and
still obtain high quality with normal development in most
developers. There will be no change in the grain in the final
print, but there will be a slight loss of shadow detail and a
reduction in printing contrast of about one-half paper
grade.
When you need very high speed, you can expose
T-MAX 400 Film at EI 1600 and increase the development
time. With the longer development time, there will be an
increase in contrast and graininess with additional loss of
shadow detail, but negatives will still produce good prints.
You can even expose this film at EI 3200 with a longer
development time. Underexposing by three stops and
using three-stop push-processing produces a further
increase in contrast and graininess, and additional loss of
shadow detail, but the results will be acceptable for some
applications.
The speed numbers for this film are expressed as
Exposure Indexes (EI). Use these exposure indexes with
meters or cameras marked for ISO⁄ASA or ISO⁄DIN speeds
in daylight or artificial light.
The developer you use to process this film affects the
exposure index. Set your camera or meter (marked for
ISO⁄ASA or ISO⁄DIN speeds) at the speed for your
developer given in the table.
.....

Under most conditions, you’ll obtain highest quality with
normal exposure at the rated exposure index and normal
development. For high-contrast scenes, you’ll obtain
highest quality if you increase exposure by one or two
stops and process the film normally.

* Pushing exposure results in slight losses of quality compared with normal
exposure and normal processing. You can also use other Kodak developers
for pushing this film; however, T-MAX Developer, T-MAX RS Developer and
Replenisher, and XTOL Developer produce higher-quality tone reproduction
(better shadow detail) under these conditions.
For high-contrast scenes, such as spotlighted performers under harsh
lighting, expose and process as indicated in the table. However, when detail
in the deep-shadow areas is important to the scene, increase exposure by 2
stops and process your film normally.

† Pushing exposure and processing by 3 stops increases contrast and
graininess and decreases shadow detail further. Expose and process a test roll
to determine if the results are acceptable for your needs."

I repeat that excerpt to help illustrate how recommendations about exposure in circumstances different than ISO testing are based on a lot of criteria that isn't as clear cut and inflexible as the ISO testing.

Some people are amazed that Kodak does not recommend an increase in development time for T-Max 400 when it is exposed at an EI of 800. They don't because their criteria for quality is best met when the development is not increased. If the quality control people at Ilford were to apply their equally respected criteria to the same question, they might very well prefer some factors over others, and recommend something slightly different.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

ID11 and D76 are very, very similar but not identical in chemical composition.

Its really very simple : Read either KODAK's recommendation or the ILFORD recommendation for the film you are using and choose which one to try, then, adjust the actual time in the future to what suits you and how you like your negatives. I think it's a pretty well known fact that development times that are given are a guide' only. Finally, I would suggest if you expose using either KODAK or ILFORD recommendations and follow the advise given regarding agitation, even those times that may differ ( only slightly ) for D76 and ID11 will give you a good 'working' negative.

The 'conspiracy' theory is, like most 'conspiracy' theories.... incorrect. Our Technical Information and KODAK's Technical Information is rather good and always the best place to start, it may not always be the same.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[RobC]

Essentially identical = different in no meaningful way.

Bollocks.

I would use the term "essentially the same" and not "essentially identical" in future. We all know what you meant but identical means not different in anyway, and that is not the case between D76 and ID11.

 

[Xmas]

You might find it interesting to read the ...

I repeat that excerpt to help illustrate how recommendations about exposure in circumstances different than ISO testing are based on a lot of criteria that isn't as clear cut and inflexible as the ISO testing.

Some people are amazed that Kodak does not recommend an increase in development time for T-Max 400 when it is exposed at an EI of 800. They don't because their criteria for quality is best met when the development is not increased. If the quality control people at Ilford were to apply their equally respected criteria to the same question, they might very well prefer some factors over others, and recommend something slightly different.

I'm more amazed that Kodak left off the 'copyright Eastmann' from their data sheet...

Underexposing a stop if you are metering accurately wipes out zone1 with delta films and makes for difficult printing with cubic grain film, the whole thread is a how many devine beings can danse on head of pin?

If you actually read the whole data sheet you might find that point is explicitly made can't be sure since you did not post a link?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

After looking at MSDS's for both D-76 and ID-11. The only differences appear to be that ID-11 contains a small amount of sodium tripolyphophate to chelate calcium in hard water. Curiously the Kodak product does not list any chelating substances. It does contain a small amount of boric anhydride used to coat the developing agents and protect them from reacting with either the sodium sulfite or the borax. Neither of the two chemicals is present in sufficient quantity nor are they able to disrupt the borax buffer present in the two versions. What this means is that the developing activity of the two versions will be the same.

 

[MattKing]

I'm more amazed that Kodak left off the 'copyright Eastmann' from their data sheet...

Underexposing a stop if you are metering accurately wipes out zone1 with delta films and makes for difficult printing with cubic grain film, the whole thread is a how many devine beings can danse on head of pin?

If you actually read the whole data sheet you might find that point is explicitly made can't be sure since you did not post a link?

Here is the link to the pdf of the data sheet: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=13409

Push processing improves the contrast at or near the shadows, while potentially decreasing the contrast in the highlights. So a decision to increase development involves balancing positives and negatives.

 

[Ian Grant]

After looking at MSDS's for both D-76 and ID-11. The only differences appear to be that ID-11 contains a small amount of sodium tripolyphophate to chelate calcium in hard water. Curiously the Kodak product does not list any chelating substances. It does contain a small amount of boric anhydride used to coat the developing agents and protect them from reacting with either the sodium sulfite or the borax. Neither of the two chemicals is present in sufficient quantity nor are they able to disrupt the borax buffer present in the two versions. What this means is that the developing activity of the two versions will be the same.

Not everything is listed in MSDS sheets and they can also vary for different markets/countries. One A&O Rodinal MSDS gave very precise percentages of the chemicals used.

The buffering levels are now different in ID-11 & D76, one MSDS showed D76 containing a small amout of Sodium Metaborate and it's generally accepted that the commercial formula was smething between D76 & D76d. An Ilford Patent shows ID-11 with increased Borax.

Both developers were designed for commercial deep tank/processing line use, replenished, but these days it's more common for them to be used dilute 1+1, 1+3 etc, improved buffering helps when these developers are used dilute. The consequence is there's now a slight difference in activity.

Ian

 

[Gerald C Koch]

An MSDS must list all ingredients considered to be hazardous to one's health. This can be as minor as something that causes a rash on contact. If anything companies have become more forthright in their disclosures fearing law suits in our increasingly litigious society.

 

[Ian Grant]

An MSDS must list all ingredients considered to be hazardous to one's health. This can be as minor as something that causes a rash on contact. If anything companies have become more forthright in their disclosures fearing law suits in our increasingly litigious society.

My experience is less is listed in photographic chemistry MSDS sheets in recent years.The latest Ilford MSDS sheets no longer list all components, in fact for ID-11 the major chemical component Sodium Sulphite is not mentioned at all.

The point being that comparisons of MSDS sheets for current D76 and ID-11 actually tells us nothing of the slight differences in buffering thatb affect pH and activity.

Ian

 

[Xmas]

Here is the link to the pdf of the data sheet: http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=13409

Push processing improves the contrast at or near the shadows, while potentially decreasing the contrast in the highlights. So a decision to increase development involves balancing positives and negatives.

Thanks for the link

It was copyright Eastman Kodak Company

'For high-contrast scenes, you’ll obtain
highest quality if you increase exposure by one or two
stops and process the film normally'

Is exclusive with your sympathy?