New Ilford Film Development Chart

[mshchem]

Updated October 2019 film development chart for Ilford films only lists Ilford developers. Here I was all excited to try the new Ortho Plus in 120 only to find I need an Ilford 906 safelight filter, (no Kodak equivalent listed, I was planning on using a #2, no pun intended ), and one of a half a dozen Ilford developers.

I'm a XTOL guy. Would it have killed Harman to publish XTOL and D76 times?

Kodak has published times for Ilford films, not sure if it's got this new Ortho listed.

Just curious, where would one find an Ilford safelight filter in North America?

Amazed

 

[MattKing]

A 906 filter is the same as either a Kodak 1A filter (slow orthochromatic materials) or, much more likely, a Kodak 2 filter (fast orthochromatic materials.
https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file/605/product/614/ and http://wwwru.kodak.com/RU/ru/professional/support/techPubs/ti0845/ti0845.shtml
I'm sure the ID-11 times will be fine for D-76.
And you could always send an enquiry to Harman using the Contact form on the Ilford site to see if they have done any X-Tol testing

 

[mshchem]

Or I can just keep shooting TMY and TMX in 120, and I have Ilford sheet film times for XTOL. I'm probably not a Ortho plus customer anyway. No big deal, just bugs me.

 

[Pieter12]

The Massive Development Chart shows times for Rodinal, but not D76 or XTOL (for sheet film, I assume the same as roll).

 

[mshchem]

Yes, I guess I can figure it out. ID-11 is apparently the same formula as D-76. I've got so much film in my freezer that I've stockpiled in the last 3 or 4 years, I have enough to shoot for at least a year. It just bugs me that a company makes the claim that you should only use their own chemicals.
I would be lost without Ilford products. I'm really interested in the new rc paper, the current MGIV is amazing in my experience.

 

[Randy Stewart]

There are a number of silly errors in the Massive Development Chart, so test before using if you value your images. This situation seems to devolve from the publisher's use of data contributed from unreliable sources. Their policy is to not independently verify their published data, and they present it on a "use at your own risk" basis. They data seems to randomly differ from film and chemistry makers own tested and published data, so I guess that they mean what they say in the fine print. The popularity and common referral to the MDC seems to be more based on the related app which allows its use on smartphones. I'm not satisfied that enabling use of a smartphone as a process timer justifies blind usage of the MDC.

 

[Pieter12]

I use Rodinal pretty much exclusively. If you go to the Adox site, the link they provide for Rodinal times is to the Massive Development Chart. Maybe they supplied the info?

 

[Ariston]

There are a number of silly errors in the Massive Development Chart, so test before using if you value your images. This situation seems to devolve from the publisher's use of data contributed from unreliable sources. Their policy is to not independently verify their published data, and they present it on a "use at your own risk" basis. They data seems to randomly differ from film and chemistry makers own tested and published data, so I guess that they mean what they say in the fine print. The popularity and common referral to the MDC seems to be more based on the related app which allows its use on smartphones. I'm not satisfied that enabling use of a smartphone as a process timer justifies blind usage of the MDC.

They have wildly different times... for the same film speed in the same developer on the same chart. It's annoying.

 

[warden]

Updated October 2019 film development chart for Ilford films only lists Ilford developers. Here I was all excited to try the new Ortho Plus in 120 only to find I need an Ilford 906 safelight filter, (no Kodak equivalent listed, I was planning on using a #2, no pun intended ), and one of a half a dozen Ilford developers.

I'm a XTOL guy. Would it have killed Harman to publish XTOL and D76 times?

Kodak has published times for Ilford films, not sure if it's got this new Ortho listed.

Just curious, where would one find an Ilford safelight filter in North America?

Amazed

That's a pet peeve of mine as well. It shouldn't be that hard to make recommendations for the most popular developers, even if you don't manufacture them. Ilford's DDX technical data sheet offers times for Kodak films, so why can't they be consistent across the product line and offer advice for their films with Kodak developers?

Manufacturers give us these holes to plug with experimentation and Massive Dev Chart, but it's not necessary for them to do so.

 

[Nodda Duma]

The 906 is equivalent to a Kodak #2 filter.

 

[John Galt]

Updated October 2019 film development chart for Ilford films only lists Ilford developers. Here I was all excited to try the new Ortho Plus in 120 only to find I need an Ilford 906 safelight filter, (no Kodak equivalent listed, I was planning on using a #2, no pun intended ), and one of a half a dozen Ilford developers.

mshchem, at first I was concerned that I needed another safelight filter because I want to try this new Ilford film as well . . . . then I realized that I load my 120 film onto the development reels in total darkness, so not an issue with me. I use a Kodak OC filter while processing prints. Why would you need a 1A or 1 Kodak or equivalent filter for processing this film unless you do not load your reels/tanks in total darkness??

 

[M Carter]

I've used ortho plus 4x5 with my regular printing safe lights - which are the same cheap LEDs that many of us are using now.
I've found the ortho plus to be much more safelight sensitive than ortho-litho film, so I turn off all but one safe light and keep it dsitant from the tray (I was developing by inspection to make some masks though). I did a fair amount of testing for fog and found I could keep the film clear by being a little more conservative with safelights.

 

[MattKing]

mshchem, at first I was concerned that I needed another safelight filter because I want to try this new Ilford film as well . . . . then I realized that I load my 120 film onto the development reels in total darkness, so not an issue with me. I use a Kodak OC filter while processing prints. Why would you need a 1A or 1 Kodak or equivalent filter for processing this film unless you do not load your reels/tanks in total darkness??

The ortho film doesn't require total darkness. It can be handled/processed in the light, provided that the light comes from an appropriate (Ilford 906 or Kodak No. 2) red safelight.

 

[MattKing]

I've used ortho plus 4x5 with my regular printing safe lights - which are the same cheap LEDs that many of us are using now.
I've found the ortho plus to be much more safelight sensitive than ortho-litho film, so I turn off all but one safe light and keep it dsitant from the tray.

There is a decent chance that this results from the relatively high speed of ortho plus.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

What's the big deal about not having the right safelight? If my safelight isn't compatible, I'll just load in the dark like I have been for years. My biggest worry is when are we ever going to see this new film here????

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I use XTOL in a Jobo and it works very well for many films, although I've not had much luck with Delta 400 or Delta 3200. It may be that aside from a desire to sell ILFORD brand developer, they would like to make a suggestion that has the best chance of reliable results from a technical support point of view? However, I have noticed in the past that ILFORD has given differing times for D-76 and ID-11 which doesn't make much sense as they are virtually the same product.

 

[mshchem]

mshchem, at first I was concerned that I needed another safelight filter because I want to try this new Ilford film as well . . . . then I realized that I load my 120 film onto the development reels in total darkness, so not an issue with me. I use a Kodak OC filter while processing prints. Why would you need a 1A or 1 Kodak or equivalent filter for processing this film unless you do not load your reels/tanks in total darkness??

I load in the dark. When I started using a Jobo about 6 years back in my late 50's I had a heck of a time. I have peripheral neuropathy, hands don't feel things. At one point I couldn't even pick up a dime. So I use IR goggles. Works great. Even with the goggles it can be a challenge. I can still use sheet film hangers blind, and load Paterson reels, Hewes 35mm. I don't even try anymore, the IR glasses are just another old age adaption, it's actually fun. I don't think I will fiddle with Ortho right away, but I have a box of the new Multigrade RC. Now I need to finish my chores so I can get into the darkroom.
Best Regards Mike

 

[mshchem]

I use XTOL in a Jobo and it works very well for many films, although I've not had much luck with Delta 400 or Delta 3200. It may be that aside from a desire to sell ILFORD brand developer, they would like to make a suggestion that has the best chance of reliable results from a technical support point of view? However, I have noticed in the past that ILFORD has given differing times for D-76 and ID-11 which doesn't make much sense as they are virtually the same product.

I've been using XTOL for 20 years, last 5 with Jobo. I love the stuff. 80% of what I do is on Kodak 120 T grain films. Ilford sheet film develops up in XTOL nicely, Kodak has development times published.

 

[MattKing]

Maybe the times for non-Ilford developers are on their "to do" list.
And as for different recommendations for ID-11 and D76, like as not that arises from different choices with respect to targeted contrast.

 

[pentaxuser]

[QUOTE="mshchem, post: 2222595, member: 23192"

I'm a XTOL guy. Would it have killed Harman to publish XTOL and D76 times?

/QUOTE]

I am an Xtol guy as well and have this afternoon asked Ilford if it plans to publish times for Ortho Plus in non Ilford developers and have mentioned Xtol by name.

Not sure I should have mentioned a Kodak developer to that Ilford dame tho'. On my drive back from General Sternwood's house in Beverley Hills I noticed the same blue Buick following me for 10 blocks before I lost him. It had Cheshire county plates and now it's a long time till daybreak with only some Java for company ........:

With due homage to Mr Chandler

pentaxuser

 

[M Carter]

What's the big deal about not having the right safelight? If my safelight isn't compatible, I'll just load in the dark like I have been for years. My biggest worry is when are we ever going to see this new film here????

With the 4x5 film, which was often used for duping and for things like masking, it allows development by inspection, which can be very handy (one you get used to the different appearance between developed and developed and fixed film anyway) when you're trying to produce something with a fairly specific density and ortho-litho won't cut it.

Other than that, safelight discussion is interesting, but a bit moot when working with roll film I'd think.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

With the 4x5 film, which was often used for duping and for things like masking, it allows development by inspection, which can be very handy (one you get used to the different appearance between developed and developed and fixed film anyway) when you're trying to produce something with a fairly specific density and ortho-litho won't cut it.

Other than that, safelight discussion is interesting, but a bit moot when working with roll film I'd think.

Right! Thank you.

 

[pentaxuser]

The other interesting thing about the new Ilford development chart for the new Ortho Plu 80 is that usually with Microphen there are times for speeds above box speed. In fact If I recall correctly I thought that Ilford itself claims that Microphen is a speed increasing developer that can usually deliver about half a stop extra. This might be a useful increase in speed in a lot of the U.K and northern Europe light conditions from now to March/April. However no mention is made of any speed other than 80. Nor is there any reduction in speed for Perceptol at stock which normally Ilford suggests a one stop decrease, nor any times for Perceptol at 1+1 or 1+3

I should say that to keep my question on one track I didn't raise these points with Ilford in my contact e-mail and I was too busy keeping my eye on the blue Buick tailing me

pentaxuser

 

[mshchem]

[QUOTE="mshchem, post: 2222595, member: 23192"

I'm a XTOL guy. Would it have killed Harman to publish XTOL and D76 times?

/QUOTE]

I am an Xtol guy as well and have this afternoon asked Ilford if it plans to publish times for Ortho Plus in non Ilford developers and have mentioned Xtol by name.

Not sure I should have mentioned a Kodak developer to that Ilford dame tho'. On my drive back from General Sternwood's house in Beverley Hills I noticed the same blue Buick following me for 10 blocks before I lost him. It had Cheshire county plates and now it's a long time till daybreak with only some Java for company ........:

With due homage to Mr Chandler

pentaxuser

Yeah, a Buick on your tail is never good!

 

[pentaxuser]

It may be just mshchem that has a particular interest in my question to Ilford that I said I would ask in #20 but I now have Ilford's response. I'd say Ilford responded quickly and clearly. I have drawn my conclusions about Ilford's intention of publishing times for non-Ilford developers but I have set out my question and Ilford's response below so each of you can draw your own conclusions

pentaxuser

My question

In most of Ilford films' processing data there are times for non Ilford developers. There are no such times for non Ilford developers for your new film, Ortho Plus. Is it Ilford's intention to eventually include times for the main non Ilford developers or will users of, say, Xtol, such as I, need to use the Massive Development Chart to which you refer as the alternative source of times for non Ilford developers?


Secondly I note that in older process instructions such as that for HP5+ you still mention the famous Ilford 5,10 and 20 inversions with the 3 separate fill and dumps but this has been dropped in the Ortho Plus instructions on washing. There it is the continuous wash with running water method.


Was this a deliberate change thus indicating that Ortho Plus needs the new washing method and the fill and dump with inversions as above should not be used?


Thanks


Ilford reply


Thanks for your email


It's a difficult one with non-Ilford developers; we are offering less support for combinations with other manufacturers products. It is difficult enough doing all the testing for our own products, without maintaining lots of others and if there are changes to product specs we might not know about it. As you point out the massive dev chart is very good at this and an excellent resource.


There is a new data sheet about to be published to include the new films, it includes the inversions wash method (attached)


Kind regards,