Ilfosol-3

[NB23]

Ilfosol-3 is the Dog’s Bollocks.

Simply the best.
With all films.
Excellent contrast while keeping the wee whites’ full details.

The Dog’s Bollocks, I’m telling ya’

——
According to the urban dictionnary:
In UK slang terms the "dog's bollocks" means the best. It comes from the habit of male dog's licking their testicles (bollocks) and that they must taste good as they spend so much time in this activity.
——-

 

[awty]

Thats weird means something completely different in Australia.
Ilfosal 3 is great till it goes bad, usually after about 2-3 months.
Personally think developers are the most uninteresting aspect of photography, second only to scanning.

 

[John Bragg]

Ilfosol-3 is the Dog’s Bollocks.

Simply the best.
With all films.
Excellent contrast while keeping the wee whites’ full details.

The Dog’s Bollocks, I’m telling ya’

——
According to the urban dictionnary:
In UK slang terms the "dog's bollocks" means the best. It comes from the habit of male dog's licking their testicles (bollocks) and that they must taste good as they spend so much time in this activity.
——-

I concur with your liking of Ilfosol 3. Best decanted into small air tight bottles after opening. It keeps a lot longer that way. I use 100ml Calpol bottles. Winchester brown glass and with a child proof cap. My tank takes 500ml at a time so one small bottle makes a litre of working strength, 2 tanks worth, and bottle is either full, (long shelf life up to 2 years), half full, (4 months according to Ilford) or empty. Pas de Problem.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilfosol-3 is the Dog’s Bollocks.

Simply the best.
With all films.
Excellent contrast while keeping the wee whites’ full details.

The Dog’s Bollocks, I’m telling ya’

——
According to the urban dictionnary:
In UK slang terms the "dog's bollocks" means the best. It comes from the habit of male dog's licking their testicles (bollocks) and that they must taste good as they spend so much time in this activity.
——-

Yes but is it as good as Fred Picker's miracle developer which make the blind see the lame walk etc - called HC110?

pentaxuser

 

[Hatchetman]

I would not trust it unless I literally just took the foil off the bottle top. Not worth the risk IMO.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

4 minute development time with FP4+. Lifespan in a partially filled bottle of about 2 weeks. No thanks.

XTol Replenished FTW, now and forever.

 

[NB23]

I’m in the middle of a printing marathon. About 1000 negatives to go through (absolutely no jokes). I use different films and developers, of which I have 4 Bottles of old HC-110, ilfotec-hc, Xtol, 20 bags of D76, microphen... all in stock. All are excellent.

But one thing strikes me as I’m printing: tmax100 images look so good. Excellent contrast, whites with full details, blacks are generous.

Even pan-f, in ilfosol 1:14, is gorgeous.

All developers are fine. But my ilfosol developed negatives have an extra contrast that is sometimes lacking when using other developers. It is quite a potent developer.
—-

I usually develop 10 films per session, and I wait to have 20 exposed rolls. This way, I use up a ilfosol bottle in 2 days. I don’t mess with half-empty bottles.
Even my Xtol gets used up in 2 days.

 

[John Bragg]

4 minute development time with FP4+. Lifespan in a partially filled bottle of about 2 weeks. No thanks.

XTol Replenished FTW, now and forever.

Have you had a bottle fail on you ? I thought the Ilfosol 3 was a great improvement on Ilfosol S.

 

[Paul Howell]

I tired Ilfosol and did not care the grain, at some point I may give it a go with 4X5.

 

[John Bragg]

I tired Ilfosol and did not care the grain, at some point I may give it a go with 4X5.

What film did you use Paul ? I like it with HP5+ @ ei200 but I guess it is a subjective thing.

 

[Bormental]

Personally think developers are the most uninteresting aspect of photography, second only to scanning.

True, when they work. And quite frustrating when they don't. I absolutely love DD-X for convenience and for the predictable, reliable results it gives me for any film, as long as it is not HP5+ (which I am a fan of when developed in D76 or Xtol). Drives me nuts.

 

[Paul Howell]

What film did you use Paul ? I like it with HP5+ @ ei200 but I guess it is a subjective thing.

At the time I was using TriX and Plus X, 35mm and 120, Tmax 400 in 4X5 so been a while. I currently use a Ultra Fine 100 and 400 in 35mm and 120, Foma 200 and 400 in 4X5, do not know who coats for Ultrafine, but I like it, develop in MCM 100, replenished. Reason I might try Ilfsol is that MCM is on the toxic side, not much of a issue when developing in daylight tanks, but when shooting 4X5 I use large tanks and hangers, would be a bit safer to use a less toxic developer. I brought a box of a clone Ilford ID 3, if it doesnt work out then I will try Ilsool 3.

 

[John Bragg]

At the time I was using TriX and Plus X, 35mm and 120, Tmax 400 in 4X5 so been a while. I currently use a Ultra Fine 100 and 400 in 35mm and 120, Foma 200 and 400 in 4X5, do not know who coats for Ultrafine, but I like it, develop in MCM 100, replenished. Reason I might try Ilfsol is that MCM is on the toxic side, not much of a issue when developing in daylight tanks, but when shooting 4X5 I use large tanks and hangers, would be a bit safer to use a less toxic developer. I brought a box of a clone Ilford ID 3, if it doesnt work out then I will try Ilsool 3.

I have gone to Ilfosol largely because I had used Ilfosol S years ago and just couldn't find anything like it. It was crazy sharp with Old formulation Tri-X and I wanted to see if I could replicate that look with the HP5+ that I now use exclusively. It was also much more forgiving in highlights than HC-110 or espescially D-76/ID+11. Keeping the oxygen out is the key to storage. Turns out that plastic bottles aren't that good and glass is much better. Don't leave a half bottle lying around. Decant into smaller ones.

 

[foc]

I have used Ilfosol 3 for many years (professionally) and found it a clean and easy developer to use. I use it at 1+14.
I decant into 250ml glass bottles and never had a problem with chemical going off.

More importantly, my customers haven't made any complaints and have even complimented my developing.

I have heard all the complaints about it and it's predecessor Ilfosol S (although Ilfosol S wasn't the best).

I agree with the OP although I would have phrased it differently.

 

[reddesert]

Personally think developers are the most uninteresting aspect of photography, second only to scanning.

 

[awty]

Ha ha.
Maybe I should buy another bottle of ilfosal 3, hard to get wipped up over d76.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Ilfosal 3 is great till it goes bad, usually after about 2-3 months.

I don't agree. If openend it stays good for at least 4 months. Then I finished my bottle.

Just spray a bit of butane (the gas you can get in tins to refill lighters) in the bottle after use. Butane is heavier than air and doesn't react with the developer.

 

[awty]

I don't agree. If openend it stays good for at least 4 months. Then I finished my bottle.

Just spray a bit of butane (the gas you can get in tins to refill lighters) in the bottle after use. Butane is heavier than air and doesn't react with the developer.

Good tip.
Last 2 bottles I had failed before the end. Obviously wasnt using it fast enough. It is nice on over exposed fp4, but what isnt. Liked the 4 minute developing time. Not so good on faster film. In the end it has become too expensive here and its just a developer, not going to make much difference to the end product when darkroom printing.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Good tip.
Last 2 bottles I had failed before the end. Obviously wasnt using it fast enough. It is nice on over exposed fp4, but what isnt. Liked the 4 minute developing time. Not so good on faster film. In the end it has become too expensive here and its just a developer, not going to make much difference to the end product when darkroom printing.

I liked the results I got with Ilfosol 3. But I agree that the develop times for low speed films are really short. I always used 1+14 in with FP4+ and Acros.

I used it without problems with HP5+@800 without problems, but only used it with 120 film.

 

[MattKing]

My conclusion is that your workflow dictates, or rather limits, your choice of a developer. Cannot speak for folks who wet print, I don't have that luxury. But those of us who scan prior to printing digitally, we must think about our approach to the complicated topic of sharpening.

For this reason, these discussions need to be moved into a thread in the Hybrid part of the site - this sub-forum is entirely devoted to film and darkroom.
I'll ask McDiesel to start a new thread in the Misc. Hybrid discussions sub-forum - found here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/forums/misc-hybrid-discussions.394/
I can then move all the recent posts there.
I would set up the new thread myself, but its better if the thread is identified as originating from McDiesel.

 

[McDiesel]

@MattKing oh no, I definitely do not want this to be about scanning. The topic was and still is Ilfosol 3, and since my insights are offensive to purists, and since I'm lazy, I'll just delete the post.

 

[MattKing]

The recent discussion is about how the results from using Ilfosol 3 appear when the film is scanned. So I'll set up the thread and move the recent discussion there.
What title would you like me to use - "Ilfosol 3 and how grain appears in scans"?

 

[McDiesel]

Matt, sorry just noticed your latest comment. You are incredibly kind! I feel guilty for generaating all this work for you now. The post is already gone, I'll be more careful next time.

 

[MattKing]

Matt, sorry just noticed your latest comment. You are incredibly kind! I feel guilty for generaating all this work for you now. The post is already gone, I'll be more careful next time.

I'll bring the posts back, and move them.
They are really interesting posts, just misplaced!

And now they have been moved - you can find the new thread here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/ilfosol-3-and-how-grain-appears-in-scans.191744/#post-2547277

 

[McDiesel]

Jesus Christ. With this kind of customer service I am becoming a subscriber.