Ilford Film Developers.

lhalcong · Jul 22, 2015

Let me start by stating that I work on 35mm format. I believe this is an important point to my question. I have been using Kodak D76 and Kodak TMAX Dev. as my only film developers since I started processing B&W myself. I have my times and processes fairly down in terms of knowledge. But, I have never tried another developer. I am at a point where I am curious to explore further. I looked a the Ilford brand to begin exploration to my surprise; they have about 11 different types of developers. For the most part, I can read the basic differences of one and the other on their website. And of course there is endless information on the forum. I read that ID-11 is similar to D76 , then I am intrigued to read Ilfotec DD-X is best for Delta line of films. I am a good friend of fine grain where is almost imperceptible on people's skin. For that reason I favor low speed films such as TMAX 100 . For Nature though I have a hard time ruling out Tri-X. Having said that it is impractical both financially and time-wise to try them all in all the different ways and films available. But what is a good advise you can give me for further exploration. ?

Tom Kershaw · Jul 22, 2015

D-76 or ID-11 is fine, as is XTOL. You won't gain much from switching to another developer. T-max developer or DD-X may give a "stronger" or higher contrast negative but this is not always helpful when printing depending on your intentions.

Tom

flavio81 · Jul 22, 2015

lhalcong said:
Let me start by stating that I work on 35mm format. I believe this is an important point to my question. I have been using Kodak D76 and Kodak TMAX Dev. as my only film developers since I started processing B&W myself. I have my times and processes fairly down in terms of knowledge. But, I have never tried another developer. I am at a point where I am curious to explore further. I looked a the Ilford brand to begin exploration to my surprise; they have about 11 different types of developers. For the most part, I can read the basic differences of one and the other on their website. And of course there is endless information on the forum. I read that ID-11 is similar to D76 , then I am intrigued to read Ilfotec DD-X is best for Delta line of films. I am a good friend of fine grain where is almost imperceptible on people's skin. For that reason I favor low speed films such as TMAX 100 . For Nature though I have a hard time ruling out Tri-X. Having said that it is impractical both financially and time-wise to try them all in all the different ways and films available. But what is a good advise you can give me for further exploration. ?

ID11 is more or less the same as D76

I can tell you that I had great experience with Ilford Microphen for pushing films. It is an excellent developer and you must try HP5 at 1600 in microphen, at least in medium format. Excellent image quality!

In any case, if you like fine grain and are using 35mm format, i would say that Ilford Delta 100, with your typical D76/ID11, will give you really really fine grain AND great tonality. I like it more than 100TMX.

If you want to use Tri-X at full speed and don't want to see any grain, go to medium format! It's the easiest way. Tri-X at 6x6 format looks a bit less grainy than Delta 100 at 35mm (which is to say "almost no grain"), and with slightly better resolution and sharpness.

Tom Kershaw · Jul 22, 2015

I'd be cautious about comparing 35mm with medium format. The extra square inches make life disproportionately easier in my experience.

Tom

Paul Howell · Jul 22, 2015

Welcome,

You will find that Ilford and Kodak have many developers that have much in common. For fine grain you can try Extol, Foma version is Excel, or Legacy Pro Eco Pro another version of Extol. I don't think Ilford makes a version of Extol. Old school is ,Microdol X, no longer available under the Kodak brand but you can find it as Legacy Pro Mic-X another is still on the market as is Ilford Perceptol. Further outside the box is Ethol UFG, I have not used Ethol in a couple of decades and was somewhat surprised that is still being made. Adox Atomal is also very fine gain. You can try a staining developer like PMK, or Pyrocat.

MattKing · Jul 22, 2015

lhalcong said:
Let me start by stating that I work on 35mm format. I believe this is an important point to my question. I have been using Kodak D76 and Kodak TMAX Dev. as my only film developers since I started processing B&W myself. I have my times and processes fairly down in terms of knowledge. But, I have never tried another developer. I am at a point where I am curious to explore further. I looked a the Ilford brand to begin exploration to my surprise; they have about 11 different types of developers. For the most part, I can read the basic differences of one and the other on their website. And of course there is endless information on the forum. I read that ID-11 is similar to D76 , then I am intrigued to read Ilfotec DD-X is best for Delta line of films. I am a good friend of fine grain where is almost imperceptible on people's skin. For that reason I favor low speed films such as TMAX 100 . For Nature though I have a hard time ruling out Tri-X. Having said that it is impractical both financially and time-wise to try them all in all the different ways and films available. But what is a good advise you can give me for further exploration. ?

Try T-Max RS, in a replenishment regime.

Or X-Tol in a replenishment regime.

Or ID-11 in a replenishment regime, using the instructions available through the Ilford website.

Replenishment does change the behaviour of developers for the better (IMHO), and the convenience and economy of the replenishment approach is great.

Xmas · Jul 22, 2015

lhalcong said:
Let me start by stating that I work on 35mm format. I believe this is an important point to my question. I have been using Kodak D76 and Kodak TMAX Dev. as my only film developers since I started processing B&W myself. I have my times and processes fairly down in terms of knowledge. But, I have never tried another developer. I am at a point where I am curious to explore further. I looked a the Ilford brand to begin exploration to my surprise; they have about 11 different types of developers. For the most part, I can read the basic differences of one and the other on their website. And of course there is endless information on the forum. I read that ID-11 is similar to D76 , then I am intrigued to read Ilfotec DD-X is best for Delta line of films. I am a good friend of fine grain where is almost imperceptible on people's skin. For that reason I favor low speed films such as TMAX 100 . For Nature though I have a hard time ruling out Tri-X. Having said that it is impractical both financially and time-wise to try them all in all the different ways and films available. But what is a good advise you can give me for further exploration. ?

Waste of time

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devD76_variants.htm

ID11 and D76 are the same chemicals...

TMAX and microphen difficult to tell apart in 20x16...

The film choice is the critical thing

TMAX or delta for fine grain
Fomapan 400 for golf balls

Various in between...

Gerald C Koch · Jul 22, 2015

While developers can be put in different classes, ie general purpose, acutance, fine grain, speed increasing, etc there is nothing particularly magical about any of them. What you ultimately decide on really isn't important. What you do need is a familiarity with a single developer where you always know what results you will obtain. Developers are merely tools. Concentrate on the final product the print.

BetterSense · Jul 22, 2015

Do not change developers. Work on your photography. Chasing magic bullets is just avoiding the hard questions.

John Bragg · Jul 23, 2015

Try new developers by all means, but bear in mind that any differences in the final result may be very subtle and you will likely have worse results until you get your time, exposure index and other parameters dialled in properly. A simple move to ID-11 from D76 will be essentially no change, but if you try Perceptol, you will have finer grain and good sharpness, but working speed of the film will be cut. My suggestion for you would be to try Ilfotec HC which is analogous to Kodak HC-110. There is great scope for experimentation with varying the dilution of these highly concentrated developers and also they are useful as compensating developers when highly diluted. It is the swiss army knife of developer and can be used for literally everything. A little goes a very long way and they keep forever. Good luck with your search !

RalphLambrecht · Jul 23, 2015

lhalcong said:
Let me start by stating that I work on 35mm format. I believe this is an important point to my question. I have been using Kodak D76 and Kodak TMAX Dev. as my only film developers since I started processing B&W myself. I have my times and processes fairly down in terms of knowledge. But, I have never tried another developer. I am at a point where I am curious to explore further. I looked a the Ilford brand to begin exploration to my surprise; they have about 11 different types of developers. For the most part, I can read the basic differences of one and the other on their website. And of course there is endless information on the forum. I read that ID-11 is similar to D76 , then I am intrigued to read Ilfotec DD-X is best for Delta line of films. I am a good friend of fine grain where is almost imperceptible on people's skin. For that reason I favor low speed films such as TMAX 100 . For Nature though I have a hard time ruling out Tri-X. Having said that it is impractical both financially and time-wise to try them all in all the different ways and films available. But what is a good advise you can give me for further exploration. ?

You are much better off, sticking to one deve;oper and D76 or ID11 are both good choices for that.The negative characteristic is mainly in the film not the developer!

flavio81 · Jul 23, 2015

Gerald C Koch said:
While developers can be put in different classes, ie general purpose, acutance, fine grain, speed increasing, etc there is nothing particularly magical about any of them. What you ultimately decide on really isn't important. What you do need is a familiarity with a single developer where you always know what results you will obtain. Developers are merely tools. Concentrate on the final product the print.

This is really good advice.

In general, simplifying, you have (a) fast speed and (b) fine grain. A change of developer will make you get more "a" in detriment of "b" and viceversa. The "standard" is ID11 or D76, which are considered to have standard values of (a) and (b), the combination of both giving a "high standard of quality". By changing developers you change these qualities. For example Microphen would give you more "a" and less "b". Perceptol, more "b" and less "a".

At the end the FILM choice will have more impact in the "a" and "b" qualities (as well as having different spectral sensitivities -- which change image much more), so, back to Gerald's and Ralph Lambrecht's advice, better concentrate on knowing well the use of one developer and do everything around it. And rejoice, since modern films are as good as ever. Even "old" films like FP4 or Tri-X are better than what they were decades ago. And IMO Tmax 100, Delta 100 and Acros 100 are exceptionally good films.

Paul Howell · Jul 23, 2015

flavio81 said:
This is really good advice.

In general, simplifying, you have (a) fast speed and (b) fine grain. A change of developer will make you get more "a" in detriment of "b" and viceversa. The "standard" is ID11 or D76, which are considered to have standard values of (a) and (b), the combination of both giving a "high standard of quality". By changing developers you change these qualities. For example Microphen would give you more "a" and less "b". Perceptol, more "b" and less "a".

At the end the FILM choice will have more impact in the "a" and "b" qualities (as well as having different spectral sensitivities -- which change image much more), so, back to Gerald's and Ralph Lambrecht's advice, better concentrate on knowing well the use of one developer and do everything around it. And rejoice, since modern films are as good as ever. Even "old" films like FP4 or Tri-X are better than what they were decades ago. And IMO Tmax 100, Delta 100 and Acros 100 are exceptionally good films.

I have somewhat different approach. In general I agree that the type of film is the core of a negative. But different developers make a real difference in the grain, contrast and tone of an image. I can see a the differences in negatives I develop in Edwal 12 or DK50 compared to D76 or X-tol. If one developer did everything, all that would be on the market would be D76.

Xmas · Jul 23, 2015

PDH said:
I have somewhat different approach. In general I agree that the type of film is the core of a negative. But different developers make a real difference in the grain, contrast and tone of an image. I can see a the differences in negatives I develop in Edwal 12 or DK50 compared to D76 or X-tol. If one developer did everything, all that would be on the market would be D76.

I'd be really impressed given 30 off 20x16 from 35mm Tx you could separate the prints into three piles for three different developers, eg contrast and tone seem more than a bit speculative.

D76 can annoy my skin complaints so I use Rodinal or ID68 instead.

RobC · Jul 23, 2015

if you want soft smooth skin tones and very fine grain then Perceptol may be an option to try but it will lose you a stop or so in speed.
It all depends on the look you want. DDX will gain you a 1/3 of a stop in speed but is slightly more grainy than ID11 and is very sharp. It also gives a shorter toe with delta films than ID11 will.

There really are no shortcut magic bullets. You have to find the dev/film combo which gives you the look you want which is such a subjective thing that no one can really answer the question of which film/dev is best for you except you.

ColColt · Jul 23, 2015

Tri-X with ID-11 or HC-110 developer and you're done. I use to use ID-11 "Plus" years ago and thought it gave a better grain structure without the mushy look of D-76. If you don't mind a bit of grain, albeit, sharp grain, HC-110 Dilution B is hard to beat.

pentaxuser · Jul 24, 2015

ColColt said:
I use to use ID-11 "Plus" years ago and thought it gave a better grain structure without the mushy look of D-76.

Was ID-11 "Plus" a proprietary Ilford developer and do you know what it contained that gave a better grain structure to D-76? I wonder why Ilford changed it to plain ID-11 which presumably now gives the same grain structure to D-76?

Thanks

pentaxuser

ColColt · Jul 24, 2015

Best I recall it may have had less Sodium Sulfite in it than D-76...that's been a long time ago since I used it and it was straight from Ilford. I don't know why the name change. It's like FP-4-that's what it use to be but now they're calling it FP-4"Plus"...go figure that one.

pdeeh · Jul 24, 2015

As a matter of (my) interest, what would be examples of compounds that inhibit physical development
, Michael?

ColColt · Jul 24, 2015

Not Michael but, a restrainer would do it such as potassium bromide or Kodak's benzotriazole.

pdeeh · Jul 24, 2015

Surely restrainers retard chemical development.
(my understanding of development theory is very imperfect so I may be misunderstanding)
Michael seems to be specifically referring to physical development

pentaxuser · Jul 24, 2015

Thanks both for answers to the origins and effects of ID11 Plus

pentaxuser

pdeeh · Jul 24, 2015

Didn't expect it would be a straightforward matter, photochemistry never is, but that's an admirably helpful and succinct answer, thanks

cliveh · Jul 24, 2015

lhalcong said:
Let me start by stating that I work on 35mm format. I believe this is an important point to my question. I have been using Kodak D76 and Kodak TMAX Dev. as my only film developers since I started processing B&W myself. I have my times and processes fairly down in terms of knowledge. But, I have never tried another developer. I am at a point where I am curious to explore further. I looked a the Ilford brand to begin exploration to my surprise; they have about 11 different types of developers. For the most part, I can read the basic differences of one and the other on their website. And of course there is endless information on the forum. I read that ID-11 is similar to D76 , then I am intrigued to read Ilfotec DD-X is best for Delta line of films. I am a good friend of fine grain where is almost imperceptible on people's skin. For that reason I favor low speed films such as TMAX 100 . For Nature though I have a hard time ruling out Tri-X. Having said that it is impractical both financially and time-wise to try them all in all the different ways and films available. But what is a good advise you can give me for further exploration. ?

What do you think a change of developer will achieve?

Simon R Galley · Jul 27, 2015

Dear ColColt...

I can figure out an answer for you.

ILFORD FP4+ / HP5+ / PAN F+ replaced FP4 / HP5 / PAN F the reason why they are designated PLUS (+) is that they were COMPLETELY new emulsions and different from the films they replaced.

As to ID11 PLUS.... that was a new one on me ! someone kindly offered the explanation as it was a US only initiative, at that time all powders were manufactured at Mobberley but I had never heard of it.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Ilford Film Developers.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency