Ilford Universal Film Developer

[Pentode]

Hi all,

In late 1994 I started developing my own film in my apartment kitchen. I went to B&H to buy some D-76 and the salesman suggested, as I was just starting out, that I use a liquid developer. He recommended Ilford Universal Film Developer. I used it for a couple of years, and was pleased with the results.

Later I moved apartments and it became a hassle to develop at home and, later still, I stopped shooting altogether. Over the last several months, I have started shooting again and I intend to develop at home again.

In my long absence, that developer has disappeared from the market (along with many others). Since I'm basically starting over again, I have absolutely no qualms about starting with a new developer but I am a little curious about the developer I used to use.

For those of you who have been doing this since the early 90s or longer, what happened to Ilford Universal Film Developer? Did it get replaced with another product? Dropped altogether? When did it go away?
Also, what, if any, currently available developer is similar?

All this is out of idle curiosity; I'm not on a mad mission to try to recreate the exact results I got over 20 years ago. I just wonder what it was I was using as I know so little about it.

Thanks for any light someone can shed-
Ethan

 

[pdeeh]

did you try googling for it?

http://www.ilfordphoto.com/products/product.asp?n=39

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Perhaps this is what you are looking for.

Ilford Universal Developer

Ilford markets this formula under the tradename Ilford PQ Universal. This
developer is suitable for films and papers.

Distilled water (50°C) …………………………………………… 750 ml
Sodium sulfite (anhy) ……………………………………………… 110 g
DTPA Na5, 37% ……………………………………………………………… 2.7 ml
Hydroquinone ……………………………………………………………………… 31.0 g
Potassium carbonate …………………………………………………… 100 g
Phenidone ……………………………………………………………………………… 1.28 g
Potassium bromide ………………………………………………………… 5.0 g
Sodium hydroxide‡ ………………………………………………………… 2.0 g
Distilled water to make ………………………………………… 1.0 l

For contact papers: dilute 1+4. Where a blue-black tone is desired add 0.05grams of benzotriazole to the solution.
For bromide papers: Dilute 1+9.

Ilford FP4 Plus, HP5 Plus, Delta 100 Professional and Ortho Copy Plus sheet films can all be developed in tray or tank. Ilford PQ Universal is not recommended for general purpose 35mm or roll films. For tray development of films, dilute 1+9 and for tank development, dilute 1+19. A dilution of 1+19 is recommended for pictorial contrast.

Capacity when diluted 1+9 is 40 8x10 fiber based prints or 70 to 80 8x10 resin coated prints per liter.

Another possibility would be Ilford ID-36. A MQ developer similar to D-72.

 

[Pentode]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

Yes, pdeeh, I Googled it but I question whether this is the same stuff. My 1993 copy of the Amphoto Guide shows that the Ilford Universal Paper Developer was on the market at the same time as the film developer I'm referring to. At that time, neither of them had the PQ moniker. I am assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the current Ilford PQ Universal that is easily Googled evolved from the paper developer and not the film developer. I suppose they could have been the same stuff, but it seems odd that Ilford would bother to package it in two separate bottles, one stating "for all black and white films" and the other stating "for all black and white papers". Google turned up no references that I could find on either of those old, 90s-era developers.

Thank you for the formula, Gerald. Do you have reason to believe that this formula - the current Ilford PQ Universal - is, in fact, the Ilford Universal Film Developer that Ilford was marketing specifically for film in the 90s? As I mention above, It seems more likely that it would be the Ilford Universal Paper Developer that was available at the same time, since the PQ seems to be targeting the paper market and suggests that it's "not recommended for general purpose or roll films",no? My old Amphoto Guide lists the stuff I was using specifically as a general purpose, one-shot film developer. I'm not suggesting either of you is wrong, I just don't understand why Ilford would have bothered marketing two separate developers if they were the same. That's not to say they didn't do just that, improbable or otherwise!

My old, dusty pile of notes turned up no data sheet on it, but my notes on small tank developing FP4 show I was using a 1:9 dilution for 12 minutes - much stronger than the 1:19 suggested for PQ. I wasn't experienced enough back then to experiment much, so I can only assume I got that dilution off the back of the bottle.

As I said in my OP, this is all just idle curiosity. I have no burning need to replace my beloved Ilford Universal or anything, just wondering where it went since it was easy to use and provided good, workable results and what modern formula it might have been similar to.

-E

 

[pentaxuser]

An e-mail to what is still called Harman Technology but owned by Pemberstone might be your best bet. I have a feeling that your suspicions that your old developer and the current llford PQ are not the same are correct for the reasons you give.

Ian Grant has a lot of knowledge on U.K. photographic companies of the era you mention and he may know more but I feel an e-mail to Harman is still worthwhile

pentaxuser

 

[Pentode]

Thanks, Pentaxuser. That might be what I end up doing.

 

[Ian Grant]

Ian Grant has a lot of knowledge on U.K. photographic companies of the era you mention and he may know more but I feel an e-mail to Harman is still worthwhile

pentaxuser

And this Era

I used PQ Universal for film development in the 70's and 80's mostly for LF negatives but I tested it with 35mm FP4, very fine grained clean (low base fog), sharp, negatives with excellent tonal range. Probably 1+19 dilution but also 1+29 - that was M&B's recommendation for Suprol a very close equivalent there was aa speed loss compared to ID-11/D76.One issue with developers like this is they need to be fresh for film development. I was using around 5 litres concentrate PQ Universal a week so always quite fresh but it deteriorates over months, not enough to affect prints but enough to affect films unless you are running test strips.

The OP is better off using a dedicated film developer.

Ian

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Back in the late 90's, I developed HP5 sheet film in Ilford Universal Developer. Diluted 1+49. Very nice results.

 

[Pentode]

I used PQ Universal for film development in the 70's and 80's mostly for LF negatives but I tested it with 35mm FP4, very fine grained clean (low base fog), sharp, negatives with excellent tonal range. Probably 1+19 dilution but also 1+29 - that was M&B's recommendation for Suprol a very close equivalent there was aa speed loss compared to ID-11/D76.

Thanks, Ian. But is PQ the same stuff as the Ilford Universal Film Developer from the early 90s? I'm pretty sure that stuff was formulated for film - it said so on the bottle. The bottles did not say PQ anywhere at that time.

OP is better off using a dedicated film developer.

And I plan to. All this is just academic. Back when I was using this mystery Ilford liquid I was also using D-76 and ID-11 from time to time, and that's what I plan to return to using now.

 

[Pentode]

I just inquired at Harman/Ilford Photo USA. Let's see what they say!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Thank you for the formula, Gerald. Do you have reason to believe that this formula - the current Ilford PQ Universal - is, in fact, the Ilford Universal Film Developer that Ilford was marketing specifically for film in the 90s? As I mention above, It seems more likely that it would be the Ilford Universal Paper Developer that was available at the same time, since the PQ seems to be targeting the paper market and suggests that it's "not recommended for general purpose or roll films",no? My old Amphoto Guide lists the stuff I was using specifically as a general purpose, one-shot film developer. I'm not suggesting either of you is wrong, I just don't understand why Ilford would have bothered marketing two separate developers if they were the same. That's not to say they didn't do just that, improbable or otherwise!

When the term "universal" appears in a developer name it usually means that it is intended for both film and paper. Kodak D-72 was originally intended as a universal developer and some people still use it that way. Dilutions commonly range from 1+3 to 1+9. As a rule of thumb development times @20F follow the dilution. That is 1+4 = 5 min, 1+5 = 6 min, ... Diluted 1+9 D-72 probably makes a good acutance developer similar to the Beutler formula. Information about D-72 for film is from PE.

The formula is from the Dignan Newsletter which was popular a few decades ago. The universal formulations that I have seen are all fairly consistent in composition. They usually use sodium carbonate as the alkali, have similar MQ or PQ ratios, ... So I cannot say whether either of my suggestions is what you are looking for but either should be close.

 

[flavio81]

In my long absence, that developer has disappeared from the market (along with many others). Since I'm basically starting over again, I have absolutely no qualms about starting with a new developer but I am a little curious about the developer I used to use.

For what it's worth, Foma makes the "Foma Universal" developer which is for the same purposes and perhaps, perhaps, has a very very similar formulation. At least, it is a PQ developer (phenidone - hydroquinone).

 

[Pentode]

@Gerald C Koch - Interesting. Thanks!

@flavio81 - I only recently started shooting Foma's film and haven't investigated their chemistry at all. It might well be worth a look.

 

[Ian Grant]

Thanks, Ian. But is PQ the same stuff as the Ilford Universal Film Developer from the early 90s? I'm pretty sure that stuff was formulated for film - it said so on the bottle. The bottles did not say PQ anywhere at that time.

And I plan to. All this is just academic. Back when I was using this mystery Ilford liquid I was also using D-76 and ID-11 from time to time, and that's what I plan to return to using now.

I don't remember any Ilford developer being sold as just "Ilford Universal FilmDeveloper" except PQ Universal which was first released in the 1950's, it's the commercial version of ID62 itself a PQ version of the older MQ developer ID-2. I have an old 1960 Ilford Formulae publication and at that point Ilford recommended PQ Univerasl as a film (120 & sheet film) and print developer at a Dilution of 1+9 or 1+19.

The formula Gerald Koch posted is identical to one I have from an Ilford Patent.

I don't know what the Ilfosol, Ilfotec etc bottles said in the 90's the packaging and manufatcurer (sub-contracted) has chanfed but one of them might have been lalbeled "Universal Film Developer" below their name.

Ian

 

[Pentode]

Interesting stuff. I hunted Google Images for a picture of the old bottle, but it's like the product has been erased from history! If I get a chance, I'll scan the page from the Amphoto Guide.
The guide, published 1993, lists Ilford's film developers at the time as ID-11 Plus, Ilfotec HC, Microphen, Perceptol and Universal.
For paper developers, they list Bromophen, Multigrade and Universal. I can't say with any certainty that the guide's list is a complete account of what Ilford had on the market at that time.
It states that the paper version of Universal is phenidone based and suggests 1:9 dilution. It doesn't name any chemistry for the film version and suggests 1:9 or 1:14 at higher temperatures.

I have an email out to Harman/Ilford so maybe they can shed some light on it. What you're suggesting sounds believable but still wouldn't explain why they marketed separate film and paper "universal" developers concurrently, unless it was just a marketing strategy....

 

[haziz]

I would suggest restarting with a known entity like Xtol or D76, either stock or 1:1 one shot.

 

[Pentode]

Thanks, haziz - that's my plan. I've already done some recent souping at a public darkroom using Xtol one-shot and when I get ramped up at home I'll be sticking with D-76 or ID-11.

All this about the Ilford Universal isn't because I'm itching to use it again, it's just because I'm curious.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi all,

In late 1994 I started developing my own film in my apartment kitchen. I went to B&H to buy some D-76 and the salesman suggested, as I was just starting out, that I use a liquid developer. He recommended Ilford Universal Film Developer. I used it for a couple of years, and was pleased with the results.

Later I moved apartments and it became a hassle to develop at home and, later still, I stopped shooting altogether. Over the last several months, I have started shooting again and I intend to develop at home again.

In my long absence, that developer has disappeared from the market (along with many others). Since I'm basically starting over again, I have absolutely no qualms about starting with a new developer but I am a little curious about the developer I used to use.

For those of you who have been doing this since the early 90s or longer, what happened to Ilford Universal Film Developer? Did it get replaced with another product? Dropped altogether? When did it go away?
Also, what, if any, currently available developer is similar?
I think, you eren't all that far off with your first choice.D76(Kodak)being very similar to ID1(Ilford) and both easily mixed even from bulk chemicals, I'd start with that.It is a very good allround developer;not the best in any criterion but ovrall,hard to beat!
All this is out of idle curiosity; I'm not on a mad mission to try to recreate the exact results I got over 20 years ago. I just wonder what it was I was using as I know so little about it.

Thanks for any light someone can shed-
Ethan

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Some time ago someone posted a question as to what the universal developer was in the Kodak Tri-Chem Packs. Sadly anyone at Kodak who knew has passed to the great darkroom in the sky. The OP may find the same situation with Ilford. Gone forever is the composition of Tironamine-C used in Edwal 36 (Champlin 16) and Agfa P.1347 antifoggant used in the Rodinal Wolfen formula. Sometime in the 1950's one of the photo magazines tried to track down Tironamine-C. They found someone who had worked at Edwal who remembered the name but couldn't remember what it was. There are probably many more known unknowns.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Once and for all, is Dektol simply a consumer packaging version of the same ormula of D-72, with the processing required to allow the ingredients co-exist as an all-in one powder, but otherwise the same product?

Dektol will produce the exact same results as D-72. There are a few minor differences as mentioned and in the past the MSDS listed a calcium chelating agent. However the latest MSDS does not list it.

 

[Pentode]

The OP may find the same situation with Ilford.

That's certainly a possibility. I haven't heard back from them yet.

Fortunately, there's still a good selection of B&W developers available!

 

[Ian Grant]

How does d72/Dektol behaves in a reversal process used as first and second developer?

It's going to behave like Ilford PQ Uninversal which Ilford recommend for reversal processing, you'd just need to use a similar dilution (which you could calculate from the formulae).

Ian