Ilford Microphen/ID-68, origins and replenishment?

[pentaxuser]

aparat, thanks, for that very comprehensive explanation and my apologies for not spotting it was ID68 and not Microphen that your curves were for. My only excuse is that some of the thread is about Microphen and other parts are about ID68 and my attention was pre-occupied with Microphen

I was going to say that it's a pity that there isn't one standard for contrast be that CI or GBar but maybe that might not help as much in any practical sense as would seem to the case at first examination

pentaxuser

 

[Ian Grant]

In terms of B&W film sales Kodak have lagged behind Ilford for many decades by quite a considerable percentage of the market share , and Foma has been the second largest manufacturer for at least 15 years, I'm not sure when they overtook Kodak. So Ilford can afford to recommend times for their films developed in competitor's developer.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

aparat, thanks, for that very comprehensive explanation and my apologies for not spotting it was ID68 and not Microphen that your curves were for. My only excuse is that some of the thread is about Microphen and other parts are about ID68 and my attention was pre-occupied with Microphen

I was going to say that it's a pity that there isn't one standard for contrast be that CI or GBar but maybe that might not help as much in any practical sense as would seem to the case at first examination

pentaxuser

Microphen is ID-68 they are inter-changeable.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

In terms of B&W film sales Kodak have lagged behind Kodak for many decades by quite a considerable percentage of the market share , and Foma has been the second largest manufacturer for at least 15 years, I'm not sure when they overtook Kodak. So Ilford can afford to recommend times for their films developed in competitor's developer.

Ian

Methinks you mean "In terms of B&W film sales Kodak have lagged behind Ilford".

 

[Ian Grant]

Methinks you mean "In terms of B&W film sales Kodak have lagged behind Ilford".

I did, I reworded it and slipped up. On an Ilford factory tour around 14/15 years ago we were given the figures, things changed when Kodak restructured their sales disbanding their own distributions companies and out-sourcing. Here in the UK Sangers who had successfully been importing Kodak Express minilabs got the contract all the Kodak sales staff were made redundant, and Sangers went bankrupt within a year. Now distribution is good run by ex-Kodak employees.

I'd moved to Turkey 2006 and found it impossible to get Tmax films or any other Kodak B&W films, I just stocked up on visits home, but it was the same when I visited Chile & Peru that really opened my eyes, almost no Kodak B&W films. The Kodak distributors had concentrated exclusively on the more lucrative colour minilab market.

I've said this many times, Ilford films were available everywhere, and in quantity within 24 hours, but I was surprised to find plenty of Foma film, it was the same once back in Turkey.

Ian

 

[pentaxuser]

Microphen is ID-68 they are inter-changeable.

Ian

Thanks, Ian. That too was probably obvious if I had looked properly

pentaxuser

 

[Alain Deloc]

No Microphen can only be replenished by its Replenisher. If it was possible to replenish with itself it would be uneconomic anyway.

Ian

I found this PDF browsing on web. It's a scan of an Ilford document from 1977 giving the developing times for Microphen and also the replenishment rates for Microphen replenisher. I have to admit that the mixture of measuring units it's a bit confusing, but in the end it seems that 1 roll of film would need about 8ml of replenisher. I think this gives accurate values for Microphen or ID-68 replenishment rate for those who are mixing their own developers from scratch. I am attaching also the screenshot for the quoted paragraph from below and the website source :
https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/Ilford_Microphen_D_R_Oct77.pdf

REPLENISHMENT
Replenishers replace the chemicals used up during development, so that the solution volume, activity and development times can be maintained. When topping-up, add replenisher to the solution when its volume has decreased by 5% or when about 1.4 square metres (16 square feet) of sensitised material has been processed in each 5 litres (1.1 gallons) of solution. This replenishment rate is approximately 170 ml per square metre or 16 ml per square foot (20 rollfilms are equal to 1 square metre or 10 square feet). Slight adjustments to replenisher rate and/or dilution may be necessary if the average density alters excessively, and the rate of replenishment exceeds the carry-over volume.

 

[Alain Deloc]

Hi there,

I mixed some Microphen/ID68 formula (the one with 85gr. of sulfite) few months ago. I also mixed a replenisher. Since then I am constantly replenish my working solution with 8 ml after each roll developed. However, I am noticing that the density of my negatives has decreased, if I am looking at the control numbers. How is that possible? Or there is a limit of how many times you can replenish this stuff? I think I have developed about 30 rolls from the beginning of the replenishment.

Thanks!

 

[Ian Grant]

I have a 1982 data sheet, that says replenish with 90ml replenisher after every 10 rolls of 120 film. Remember that films have changed significantly in recent years T-grain and similar films have a much higher Iodide content and that affects the replenishment rate.

Ian

 

[Alain Deloc]

Thanks for the answer, @Ian Grant

I have a 1982 data sheet, that says replenish with 90ml replenisher after every 10 rolls of 120 film

I think it's 9ml , not 90ml You mentioned this 9ml value at the beginning of the thread. I used 8ml only because I followed that piece of scanned Ilford spec found on the internet. I am attaching the file. Actually, after doing the math, it should be 8.5ml

Remember that films have changed significantly in recent years T-grain and similar films have a much higher Iodide content and that affects the replenishment rate.

Hmm, that's something I didn't think about. You are probably right. I will over-replenish it with some extra 30ml. Another explanation could be the age of the replenisher? I mixed it in April.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think it's 9ml , not 90ml You mentioned this 9ml value at the beginning of the thread. I used 8ml only because I followed that piece of scanned Ilford spec found on the internet. I am attaching the file. Actually, after doing the math, it should be 8.5ml

No the full datasheet says 90ml after every 10 rolls of 120 film, which is equivalent to 9ml per film.

Increasing the replenishment will quickly change the balance of the developer. When Ilford formulated Autophen, essentially a PQ version of D76/ID-11 for photo-finishing, they analysed the used developer to allow them to formulate a replenisher that replace what had been used in the development process. Microphen was spin off from this research.

Ideally if you increased replenishment to say 30ml per film you would need the 9ml replenisher and the rest fresh ID-68, that would balance the working solution. I'd do that by re-formulating the replenisher.

You need to look at the Xtol replenishment volumes which are around 30-40ml per film.

Ian

 

[Alain Deloc]

Great, thanks for clarification. I was thinking to add 30 or 40ml of replenisher in the working solution only to bring back the developer to a proper strength (because now it shows thin control numbers). After bringing back the proper strength, I was thinking to maybe increase the replenishmet rate to 15ml per roll? It's just a thought.

I'd do that by re-formulating the replenisher.

I am afraid I am not that skilled in order to change the formula

 

[Craig]

You need to look at the Xtol replenishment volumes which are around 30-40ml per film.

The Xtol datasheet says 70ml of replenishment per 135-36.

 

[Alain Deloc]

Does anyone know what should be the target pH of ID-68 developer? Microphen developer's datasheet gives a range for the stock solution pH between 8.67 – 8.93. Should I use this range for ID-68 as well?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Does anyone know what should be the target pH of ID-68 developer? Microphen developer's datasheet gives a range for the stock solution pH between 8.67 – 8.93. Should I use this range for ID-68 as well?

It's borate buffered. What do you think it should be?

 

[john_s]

You could play around with the numbers for the replenishers for Autophen at Ian Grant's web site:

http://www.lostlabours.co.uk/photography/formulae/developers/devPQ-ID11.htm

I always wondered why the stated pH for Autophen was higher than the published pH for Microphen even though it contains less borax and more boric acid than Microphen. Anyway if the recommended replenisher for your ID-68 is inadequate to maintain activity, I'd suggest checking the pH: should the replenished ID-68 be the same pH as fresh ID-68? My guess is that it should be at least is high, maybe a touch higher to take account of increased bromide levels in the used, replenished developer. I think increasing the amount of ID-68 replenisher a bit would be a good start.

 

[john_s]

Thinking about replenishers, a proper replenisher should do at least two things: bring up to the correct level the developing agents (usually two agents, one of which might deteriorate faster than the other) and maintain the pH, so replenishers are more alkaline than the developer. In the case particularly of bleed replenishment, some used developer is discarded and so the buildup of unwanted products is reduced.

In addition, the replenisher might be designed to counteract the buildup of halides in the used developer, so maybe it could be designed to over compensate developing agents and/or pH. Just a guess.

 

[john_s]

Xtol it's self replenishing. I don't want to design anything, I was just curious if anyone used this clone as replenisher.

The usual formulation of a replenisher is that it has more developing agent(s) and is more alkaline. One way of looking at XTol being "self replenishing" is that replenished XTol is weaker than fresh, so the relationship holds: replenisher stronger than the replenished developer.

The general consensus is that Microphen is ID-68. There are some variations to aid packaging, shelf life of powders etc but reputedly not to change its characteristics.

 

[Alain Deloc]

The usual formulation of a replenisher is that it has more developing agent(s) and is more alkaline. One way of looking at XTol being "self replenishing" is that replenished XTol is weaker than fresh, so the relationship holds: replenisher stronger than the replenished developer.

The general consensus is that Microphen is ID-68. There are some variations to aid packaging, shelf life of powders etc but reputedly not to change its characteristics.

Sorry, I answered on the wrong thread where I was asking if Xtol clone can be used as self replenisher. I saw your previous comment and I mistakenly thought it's on the Xtol/Mytol thread. I already deleted it. Regarding ID-68, I already mixed it, it was just a question about pH, I will reduce it to 8.7 as it's 9.0 at the moment.