Newbie Processing Times Help Needed

[Lyrrad]

Hi

After asking this forum for help I have decided to use Ilford ID-11 with Kodak T-Max 400.

Of course I am now faced with processing times, and I don't know what to go for.

Ilford state ID-11 (1+1) @ 20 deg for 10 minutes, yet Kodak state D-76 (1+1) @ 20deg for 12.5 minutes. I am using 120mm film with 2 rolls being processed at the same time.

Of course my common sense says go with the 10 minutes, but following a recent thread started by me, i am of the belief that d-76 and ID-11 are pretty much the same thing.

Of course Ilford state that 3rd party film info is a guide line only, and I have heard that Kodak recommended quantities (photo-flo) are not always the best to follow. So this is why I feel the need for help.

Have I got this wrong, do the 2 developers (powder) produce similar results, but definitely do utilise different processing times, or am I correct in at least asking the question.


Many thanks in advance.



Darryl

 

[vet173]

The developing time is correct. The developers are interchangeable. Massive developing chart also has 1:3 dilution for 15 min.
Put this in your favorites:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/

 

[Lyrrad]

The developing time is correct. The developers are interchangeable. Massive developing chart also has 1:3 dilution for 15 min.
Put this in your favorites:
http://www.digitaltruth.com/

Wow, thanks for that, so Ilford's 10 minutes is wrong. I'm glad I asked

 

[ann]

Not necessarily wrong, all those times are suggested starting points.

Most folks start with the manufactors suggestion and then tweaking from that point.

 

[Lyrrad]

Not necessarily wrong, all those times are suggested starting points.

Most folks start with the manufactors suggestion and then tweaking from that point.

Ann, yes I fully understand that, but as I have only processed a handful of films, i knew that the moment I chose Ilford/Kodak combination that my starting point may not be from the same place. Whilst Ilford quote 10 mins with ID11, i could find nothing on Kodak website that even mentioned using ID11.


Perhaps a sensible thing to do would be pitching somewhere in the middle of 12.5 mins and 10 mins. I just don't have the experience to know how much 1 minute 15 secs changes things.

To be honest I am still not convinced 12.5 minutes is correct.

 

[sunnyroller]

When I have shot TMax 400 in the 120 and processed in D-76 I used the Kodak suggested time with acceptable results. I haven't ever used the Ilford version so I don't know how close they are. I don't know if this helps or only muddies the water. I have pretty much switched to HC110 b/c I am not far along enough with my photography to really tell an appreciable difference one way or other between using either D-76 or HC110. HC 110 is just more convenient than mixing powder. I have a little Rodinol left that I save for my Efke and use HC 110 for everything else.

 

[srs5694]

I'd advise you to stop thinking about these times as being "correct" or "wrong" (two words you've used). The meaning of "suggested starting points" (Ann's words) is that these times will get you somewhere in the ballpark that most photographers consider acceptable. The best time depends on a number of factors, including your personal agitation style, any inaccuracy in your thermometer, whether you're using a condenser or diffusion enlarger, the paper on which you print, and your personal preferences. With all these variables, a range of suggested starting points of 10:00 to 12:30 isn't all that unusual. There are lots of Web sites with unofficial suggested developing times, and they often vary by this much, or perhaps even more.

As a practical matter, you can try 10:00, 12:30, or some in-between point. If you don't want to risk improper development of an important roll, shoot a test roll of "junk" shots (but be sure you've properly exposed them) to see how a given time works. If you don't like the results, do it again until you get acceptable results.

 

[vet173]

I'd advise you to stop thinking about these times as being "correct" or "wrong" (two words you've used). The meaning of "suggested starting points" (Ann's words) is that these times will get you somewhere in the ballpark that most photographers consider acceptable. The best time depends on a number of factors, including your personal agitation style, any inaccuracy in your thermometer, whether you're using a condenser or diffusion enlarger, the paper on which you print, and your personal preferences. With all these variables, a range of suggested starting points of 10:00 to 12:30 isn't all that unusual. There are lots of Web sites with unofficial suggested developing times, and they often vary by this much, or perhaps even more.

As a practical matter, you can try 10:00, 12:30, or some in-between point. If you don't want to risk improper development of an important roll, shoot a test roll of "junk" shots (but be sure you've properly exposed them) to see how a given time works. If you don't like the results, do it again until you get acceptable results.

Now that's the correct answer.

 

[Lyrrad]

I'd advise you to stop thinking about these times as being "correct" or "wrong" (two words you've used). The meaning of "suggested starting points" (Ann's words) is that these times will get you somewhere in the ballpark that most photographers consider acceptable. The best time depends on a number of factors, including your personal agitation style, any inaccuracy in your thermometer, whether you're using a condenser or diffusion enlarger, the paper on which you print, and your personal preferences. With all these variables, a range of suggested starting points of 10:00 to 12:30 isn't all that unusual. There are lots of Web sites with unofficial suggested developing times, and they often vary by this much, or perhaps even more.

As a practical matter, you can try 10:00, 12:30, or some in-between point. If you don't want to risk improper development of an important roll, shoot a test roll of "junk" shots (but be sure you've properly exposed them) to see how a given time works. If you don't like the results, do it again until you get acceptable results.

Thank you. Whilst I am certainly not lazy, your answer stopped me in my tracks. I chose 11min 15 secs for the first 2 rolls, and then 11min 52 secs for the next 2 rolls. I prefer 11min 52 sec results. I intend to try 12min 30 seconds next.

Thank you once again for the reality check. Another great lesson learnt from this forum for me.

 

[Gerald Koch]

T-grain emulsions such as Tmax 400 do not respond well to solvent type developers like D-76 and ID-11 unless they are well diluted say 1+3. This also applies to Ilford and Fuji films of this type.

 

[gnashings]

Generally, if I was in doubt and had no time to experiment, I would go with the longer time. But of course, that is not nearly as good an approach as testing a variety and seeing how they work - as you have been already advised. Remember, your agitation technique may be a little different, your pereferences when it comes to printing may be different, your enlarger may have different "preferences" as well - there is so much that happens to a negative after its processed that you may even find that the different times are all "correct" depending on your preferences and specific applications for that particular negative.