Ilford Microphen/ID-68, origins and replenishment?

[blmoyer]

Hello all,

Frequent lurker, very rarely post. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone knows when the Ilford ID-68 formula was first published, and if Ilford recommended top up or bleed replenishment for it? Given that it is a PQ developer, I'm guessing at top up. I've recently started using it as my every day developer and it seems to work marvelously with my preferred films.

Also, does anyone know when Microphen was introduced with some certainty? The earliest references I have to it are from the UK during the summer months of 1955, while advertisements and article mentions in the US were occurring with some regularity by early to mid 1956. I think it is safe to say it was introduced some time in late 1954 or early to mid 1955, but if anyone has a firmer date I'd love to hear it.

It's my understanding ID-68 and Microphen are one and the same, save for some slight change in buffering.

Regards,
Ben

 

[Paul Howell]

My only refence is John Carroll's update of Photographic Facts and Formulas by Wall and Jordan, ID68 is described as a low contrast borax fine grain developer, does not seem to me be similar to Microphen.

 

[john_s]

Some info on Ian Grant's web site:
http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devPQ-ID11.htm

and some history here:
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

 

[pentaxuser]

Certainly John Finch in his D76 type developers Part 3 video says that developing times are the same as Microphen and in Ian Grant's link he uses the word "similar"

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

Commercially packaged Microphen differs slightly to ID-68 because Pt A contains a small amount of Sodium Metabisulhite as an anti oxidant, but that breaks down to Sodium Sulphite when in solution with Pt B, there's a corresponding adjustment in the buffering. Once in solution they are identical.

ID-68/Microphen came from the research into Autophe, photofinishing developtheerthe Axford-Kendal photofinishing developer a PQ variant of ID-11/D76. Unlike ID-11/D76 which collapses as Bromdes etc build up Autophen could be replenishedeither on a top up basis or a bleed basis almost indefinitely. It was noticed during research that PQ variants of ID-11 gave slightly greater film speed and it was also known that a slight reduction oin the Sodium Sulphite level also had an effect on film speed so Ilford formulated ID-68/Microphen as a fine grain slight speed increasing developer it's better for push processing tahn ID-11. Introduced around 1960.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

My only refence is John Carroll's update of Photographic Facts and Formulas by Wall and Jordan, ID68 is described as a low contrast borax fine grain developer, does not seem to me be similar to Microphen.

The formula for ID-68/Microphen was incorrect in many US books and was in fact the formula for Autophen Ilford's PQ variant of ID-11/D76. It was just one of the vast number of mistakes made in The Photo Lab Index. Unfortunately those mistakes were then continued in many other US publications.

Ian

 

[Paul Howell]

Ok, thanks, I can see how the mistake was passed on.

 

[flavio81]

Commercially packaged Microphen differs slightly to ID-68 because Pt A contains a small amount of Sodium Metabisulhite as an anti oxidant, but that breaks down to Sodium Sulphite when in solution with Pt B, there's a corresponding adjustment in the buffering. Once in solution they are identical.

ID-68/Microphen came from the research into Autophe, photofinishing developtheerthe Axford-Kendal photofinishing developer a PQ variant of ID-11/D76. Unlike ID-11/D76 which collapses as Bromdes etc build up Autophen could be replenishedeither on a top up basis or a bleed basis almost indefinitely. It was noticed during research that PQ variants of ID-11 gave slightly greater film speed and it was also known that a slight reduction oin the Sodium Sulphite level also had an effect on film speed so Ilford formulated ID-68/Microphen as a fine grain slight speed increasing developer it's better for push processing tahn ID-11. Introduced around 1960.

Ian

Thanks for this info, much appreciated.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi blmoyer,
In case you have not tried it, Microphen works very well at 1+2: it's a strong developer.
Stock is fine for a 2-3 stop push with ISO400 film.
My current standard for street is 2TMY @ 1000 in Microphen 1+2 at 21C.
That allows me to keep a fix f/11.5 in 35mm, which is great for zone focusing with a 35 outdoors.
I use 1/500 for hazy sun and direct sun, 1/250 for bright overcast, 1/125 for normal overcast and 1/60 for lowish overcast.
For indoors and artificial light, I prefer to meter, or even use AE with compensation depending on scene's values.
I use 13 minutes for my modern condenser enlarger. Gentle inversions.
Possibly 15 minutes for softer light enlargers.
I carry a tiny OlyRC as a second camera for the very few cases a sunny street scene requires really open shadows, with a short D-76 1+2 21C development, as that can't be done @1000.
Have a nice weekend.

 

[Alain Deloc]

Commercially packaged Microphen differs slightly to ID-68 because Pt A contains a small amount of Sodium Metabisulhite as an anti oxidant, but that breaks down to Sodium Sulphite when in solution with Pt B, there's a corresponding adjustment in the buffering. Once in solution they are identical.

ID-68/Microphen came from the research into Autophe, photofinishing developtheerthe Axford-Kendal photofinishing developer a PQ variant of ID-11/D76. Unlike ID-11/D76 which collapses as Bromdes etc build up Autophen could be replenishedeither on a top up basis or a bleed basis almost indefinitely. It was noticed during research that PQ variants of ID-11 gave slightly greater film speed and it was also known that a slight reduction oin the Sodium Sulphite level also had an effect on film speed so Ilford formulated ID-68/Microphen as a fine grain slight speed increasing developer it's better for push processing tahn ID-11. Introduced around 1960.

Ian

Very valuable info! Thanks! I have one question, maybe you know the answer.. What is the replenishment amount by top up method for ID-68 after a 36 exp. roll?

 

[relistan]

Very valuable info! Thanks! I have one question, maybe you know the answer.. What is the replenishment amount by top up method for ID-68 after a 36 exp. roll?

Hopefully someone else knows the whole answer, but part of the answer seems to be on Ian's web site linked above, which contains the formula for the replenisher. http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devPQ-ID11.htm

 

[Ian Grant]

Very valuable info! Thanks! I have one question, maybe you know the answer.. What is the replenishment amount by top up method for ID-68 after a 36 exp. roll?

My 1982 Microphen data sheet suggests 9ml of Replenisher for every 120 film or equivalent, which is a 36ex 35mm film, 4 sheets of 5x4 or one sheet of 10x8.

In practice I never replenished after every film, instead marking a label on the bottle to indicate how many films had been process, scoring through when replenished, usually after 4 or 5 films.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

My 1982 Microphen data sheet suggests 9ml of Replenisher for every 120 film or equivalent, which is a 36ex 35mm film, 4 sheets of 5x4 or one sheet of 10x8.

In practice I never replenished after every film, instead marking a label on the bottle to indicate how many films had been process, scoring through when replenished, usually after 4 or 5 films.

Ian

Ian does this replenishment regime still apply to today's Ilford commercial Microphen? I may have read what you've said wrongly but at 9ml for every 4 films that makes it incredibly economical with a litre packet covering about 110 films

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Alain Deloc]

My 1982 Microphen data sheet suggests 9ml of Replenisher for every 120 film or equivalent, which is a 36ex 35mm film, 4 sheets of 5x4 or one sheet of 10x8.

In practice I never replenished after every film, instead marking a label on the bottle to indicate how many films had been process, scoring through when replenished, usually after 4 or 5 films.

Ian

Thanks for you answer!
Yes, usually after 4 films I start to feel that it needs some time compensation So, 36ml every 4 rolls sounds very decent and economical in the same time. I was thinking to some sort of 70ml or maybe 100ml per film, considering the amount of replenisher which people are using for Xtol. I had Xtol as reference because it's a phenidone developer, no other reason.

 

[john_s]

Ian does this replenishment regime still apply to today's Ilford commercial Microphen? I may have read what you've said wrongly but at 9ml for every 4 films that makes it incredibly economical with a litre packet covering about 110 films

Thanks

pentaxuser

I think that Ian's recommendation of 9mL per film is for the ID-68 Replenisher. Your reference to a "1 L packet" leads me to think that you are thinking of replenishing with the commercially available Microphen. The ID-68 Replenisher is quite a bit stronger than the base developer (more of both developing agents, more alkaline).

 

[Ian Grant]

Correct John, Ilford no longer make and sell Microphen replenisher, but it's easy to mix ID-68 and Replenisher.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks, John and Ian. I suspected the answer was going to be as you have both stated. A pity but as you say Ian its pretty good if you are into home mixing

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

Correct John, Ilford no longer make and sell Microphen replenisher, but it's easy to mix ID-68 and Replenisher.

Ian

Just curious, Ian, how does Autophen compare to ID-68 as a film developer. Is one better than the other for the average darkroom/film shooter? Both seem awful close in makeup to me.

 

[Ian Grant]

Autophen was a commercial PQ large scale photofinishing fine grain film developer, a PQ equivalent of ID-11/D76, its formula was mistakenly said to be similar to Microphen in many US books, but in fact it was a completely different developer.

Microphen was a spin-off from the Autophen research, by reducing the Sodium Sulphite level from 100g/l to a more optimal 85g/l, plus a slight change in the PQ ratio as well as the buffering, to give a speed enhancing developer with better push processing properties.

In terms of one being better than the other Microphen is better for push processing and Autophen will give a very slight speed increase compared to ID-11/D76, and slightly finer grain than Microphen. But I'd prefer Adox Borax MQ, or Agfa 44 (Agfa Ansco 17) as they give finer grain and better shadow details compared to ID-11/D76.

Ian

 

[John Wiegerink]

Autophen was a commercial PQ large scale photofinishing fine grain film developer, a PQ equivalent of ID-11/D76, its formula was mistakenly said to be similar to Microphen in many US books, but in fact it was a completely different developer.

Microphen was a spin-off from the Autophen research, by reducing the Sodium Sulphite level from 100g/l to a more optimal 85g/l, plus a slight change in the PQ ratio as well as the buffering, to give a speed enhancing developer with better push processing properties.

In terms of one being better than the other Microphen is better for push processing and Autophen will give a very slight speed increase compared to ID-11/D76, and slightly finer grain than Microphen. But I'd prefer Adox Borax MQ, or Agfa 44 (Agfa Ansco 17) as they give finer grain and better shadow details compared to ID-11/D76.

Ian

Ian,
Thanks for clarification on the difference. I was wondering if both were pretty much the same, but one was for commercial use and one for amateur use.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian,
Thanks for clarification on the difference. I was wondering if both were pretty much the same, but one was for commercial use and one for amateur use.

Microphen was also for professional as well as amateur use, but not for very large scale D&P lines.

Ian

 

[john_s]

Ian,
Thanks for clarification on the difference. I was wondering if both were pretty much the same, but one was for commercial use and one for amateur use.

The main difference being that Autophen was apparently optimized for very long term replenishment. Being a bit less alkaline than Microphen would have aided in its long life.

It's interesting that Xtol was announced as being its own replenisher, which I'm sure appealed to people. The downside seems to be that the amount of replenishment was a fairly large 70mL per roll, rather than the 9mL as suggested for Microphen's "real" replenisher.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The main difference being that Autophen was apparently optimized for very long term replenishment. Being a bit less alkaline than Microphen would have aided in its long life.

It's interesting that Xtol was announced as being its own replenisher, which I'm sure appealed to people. The downside seems to be that the amount of replenishment was a fairly large 70mL per roll, rather than the 9mL as suggested for Microphen's "real" replenisher.

Being an Xtol-R developer user and liker, the miniscule amount for replenishment for Micrphen caught my eye. Yes, that's the first thing that struck me. 9ml is a very small amount!

 

[Ian Grant]

The main difference being that Autophen was apparently optimized for very long term replenishment. Being a bit less alkaline than Microphen would have aided in its long life.

It's interesting that Xtol was announced as being its own replenisher, which I'm sure appealed to people. The downside seems to be that the amount of replenishment was a fairly large 70mL per roll, rather than the 9mL as suggested for Microphen's "real" replenisher.

I did double-check the 9ml, Perceptol was replenished with 21ml of the then available replenisher.

Being an Xtol-R developer user and liker, the miniscule amount for replenishment for Micrphen caught my eye. Yes, that's the first thing that struck me. 9ml is a very small amount!

I think Kodak increased the volume of replenisher to 70ml in their 2008 data sheet, I'd stopped using Xtol (replenished) probably the year before. The issue was the Iodide build up with Tmax films. I seem to remember recommended replenishment was something like 30-35ml before that.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

I think Kodak increased the volume of replenisher to 70ml in their 2008 data sheet, I'd stopped using Xtol (replenished) probably the year before. The issue was the Iodide build up with Tmax films. I seem to remember recommended replenishment was something like 30-35ml before that.

The 1996 X-Tol datasheet says 70 ml: https://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf
I don't ever remember another figure for replenishing X-Tol, but I wasn't using X-Tol back then.
The recommended replenishment amount for T-Max RS is/was 45 ml per roll - perhaps that is what you were thinking of.