Why did you (if you did) move on from D76/ID-11

#1 Son · Sep 27, 2013

I use DK-50, it does the things that I want it to do. And I like.

Sonny

Fixcinater · Sep 27, 2013

I started with D76 as that was what my school used and I wanted it to be an easy switch between home and school developing.

I haven't taken any classes lately, so I switched to HC110 (the easy version outlined by J. Brunner here) to further streamline things. It does fine, and seems less temperature sensitive than D76, which is good as I'm not always as precise as I probably should be. Less concern about shelf life, too, so I'm happy with the switch.

One less thing to worry about.

PhotoJim · Sep 28, 2013

I still use D-76 (homemade usually) when I shoot films I'm not really familiar with - and it still does a good job. It's my preferred developer for films that don't seem to work well with PMK, which is my principal developer.

paladin1420 · Sep 28, 2013

I will jump on the D-76 pile here.

I started processing film way back when I was a kid and used dektol for film (plus-x and tri-x) and paper both. As I got into my late teens and twenties i graduated to microdol. When Kodak came out with T-Max I started with the T-Max developer. I was never to picky about my results and never processed enough to justify trying too many different things. Then I took a 17 year hiatus until I came back in 2007 and it's been nothing but D-76 since. I use it 1+1 and go by the chart on the package. I have found the stock solution lasts far longer than I expect it to; For example, I'm just finishing up a gallon of stock that I mixed about a year ago. I'm happy with the results and right now I don't have any reason to switch.

bvy · Sep 29, 2013

D-76 is and probably always will be my default black and white developer -- as long as Kodak's around to manufacture it. That said, I recently started experimenting with Perceptol, and I'm finding that Pan F and even Neopan 100 both respond beautifully to it.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 29, 2013

What I find nice with D76 is that a lot of people have used it and know it well. All that knowledge is beneficial, especially to someone starting out.
That ID11 gives exactly the same results just makes the whole thing even better.

The bottom line is, though, that D76 is good enough to hold its own against most anything out there. Any photographer practicing b&w photography could easily live with D76 and get results so good that they would never need anything else.
I guess the same could be worded that if D76 doesn't give you results that are good enough, it isn't going to be because of the film developer. A bit facetious, perhaps, but it's true.

MatthewDunn · Sep 29, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Any photographer practicing b&w photography could easily live with D76 and get results so good that they would never need anything else.
I guess the same could be worded that if D76 doesn't give you results that are good enough, it isn't going to be because of the film developer. A bit facetious, perhaps, but it's true.

I'm not sure that's facetious at all. I don't know enough (or care enough) about the individual materials used by the most famous photographers, but I have to assume that there are some people whose work we think of as classic who never moved off of tri-x/d76.

cliveh · Sep 29, 2013

Many years ago I remember watching an interview of Don McCullin filmed at his home. In one shot on a shelf behind him was a bottle labelled D76.

hacked - sepiareverb · Sep 29, 2013

I stopped using all powdered chemistry if there is any viable liquid alternative. I now only mix KBr and Benzotriazole from powder.

Lamar · Sep 30, 2013

I switched to XTOL from D76 for the following reasons: I only use 3 to 4 liters of developer a year and XTOL lasts forever.... I use a single 5 liter batch for a full year with no problems. I tend to shoot higher ISO's and XTOL pushes better and gives finer grain.

Klainmeister · Sep 30, 2013

I'll be honest: I left D-76 in search of a magic bullet.

When I first started shooting film seriously (at age 15!), I used D76 and all the Kodak stuff available at the time. I was unsatisfied with my images, especially when I enlarged them. Lots of this was due to other issues. Poor focus, poorer exposure, mediocre equipment and lack of seeing. Therefore I searched the Gods of chemistry to avert my woes.

About the same time I upgraded enlarger, camera, and became more proficient right when I started using PMK. So in combo, my images dramatically increased in quality. After that it was habit until I started getting most of my chemistry either raw or otherwise from Bostick & Sullivan who turned me onto Pyrocat-HD, which I can print in my enlarger, via UV on alt processes, or scan with ease. Stuck with it ever since.

I do recommend D76 to beginners though...

chip j · Sep 30, 2013

ID-11 has an agent that prevents dissolved silver from replating itself onto the image, D-76 doesn't.

Roger Cole · Sep 30, 2013

chip j said:
ID-11 has an agent that prevents dissolved silver from replating itself onto the image, D-76 doesn't.

Not any more. That was the old ID-11 PLUS. They found it caused problems with T-grain films after those were introduced and ID-11 went back to the old formula.

cliveh · Oct 1, 2013

Klainmeister said:
I'll be honest: I left D-76 in search of a magic bullet.

D76 is the majic bullet.

hdeyong · Oct 1, 2013

Polyglot's link to the article about magic bullets is right on the mark.
Thanks.

markbarendt · Oct 1, 2013

cliveh said:
D76 is the majic bullet.

Or the true generic standard.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 1, 2013

markbarendt said:
Or the true generic standard.

Which shows that the film developer is only a very small part of the whole process, because many photographers have magical results with 'generic' products.
Knowledge of how to use it to get the results needed is infinitely more important. Technique, knowledge, and hard work is the true magic bullet.

Klainmeister · Oct 1, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Which shows that the film developer is only a very small part of the whole process, because many photographers have magical results with 'generic' products.
Knowledge of how to use it to get the results needed is infinitely more important. Technique, knowledge, and hard work is the true magic bullet.

Exactly. That's what I was hoping to admit to. I just was young and naive and wanted to buy my way into better images.

Tom Kershaw · Oct 1, 2013

In terms of developer I went from: DD-X > Ilfotec HC / HC-110 > Tetenal Ultrafin > Pyrocat-HD > D-76 > XTOL. I had reliability problems with Pyrocat-HD. XTOL is reliable, high quality, inexpensive, and convenient in mixing and storage terms; i.e. near room temperature mixing, and good shelf life of powered product prior to mixing into solution.

Tom

Mark_S · Oct 1, 2013

As most, I started with D76. I moved to HC-110 when I started doing an experiment when I was using BTZS tubes for 4x5. I wanted to standardize on time and temp, and adjust contrast with changes to the developer concentration. Long story short, it was more trouble than it was worth, but I liked HC-110, both for the results, and the ease of mixing and stuck with it.

Hatchetman · Oct 1, 2013

I like D-76 just fine. But I don't like the hassle of powders and I'm not organized enough to have a batch ready when I need it. I use mostly TMax.

MattKrull · Oct 1, 2013

Still new...

When I bought my film development kit (used) a year ago, it came with 3 packets of D-76 powder, 1 gallon of Kodak stop indicator concentrate (I will never need to buy stop bath again), and 400' of Plus-X 125 (I think I'm about 1/3rd the way through that).

Understandably, D-76 has been my go to developer. However, the first roll of B&W I had developed at a lab was done in ID11, and it turned out super grainy. Which was a problem, since it was Delta400 and supposed to be very low grain. So I've been warry of D-76/ID11 for Delta. When I bought out an ex-film student's supply of medium format Delta 100 & 400, I was thinking ""Well, time to buy that expensive DD-X stuff".

Turns out, no need. I've now done a couple of rolls of Delta (including a 400 pushed to 800) and it looks fantastic.

I've just ordered a bottle of Rodinal in hopes of playing with Retro 80S and going for that high-contrast look. Then last weekend I developed some Plus-X 125 I shot at 500, and you know what, it gives pretty much the look I was hoping for. The rodinal is still on it's way, so I'll still play with it (afterall, I don't have Plus-X for the 645, but I can get Retro 80S for it).

Between my recent successes with D-76, and this thread, I am totally happy stickign with D-76.

miha · Oct 1, 2013

I moved from ID11 to Ilfotec HC. I prefer the look of FP4 in 120 and pushed HP5 in 135 when developed in Ilfotec HC to ID11. PanF in ID11 is superb though.

Thomas Bertilsson · Oct 1, 2013

miha said:
I moved from ID11 to Ilfotec HC. I prefer the look of FP4 in 120 and pushed HP5 in 135 when developed in Ilfotec HC to ID11. PanF in ID11 is superb though.

That's interesting. Kodak HC-110 and Ilford Ilfotec-HC were both designed to be liquid concentrate alternatives to D76 and ID-11, with great keeping properties, but otherwise very similar picture qualities.
How are the Ilfotec-HC pictures different? Did you develop the negatives to the same contrast before you compared? I'm just asking because I'm curious.

miha · Oct 1, 2013

Thomas Bertilsson said:
That's interesting. Kodak HC-110 and Ilford Ilfotec-HC were both designed to be liquid concentrate alternatives to D76 and ID-11, with great keeping properties, but otherwise very similar picture qualities.

Hi Thomas, I don't believe they are too similiar. People usually say that because they look similar, are diluted in a similar way and have similar names but my feeling is that Ilfotec HC is a better developer. I'm kidding though as I have never tried the 'original', but those who did agree with me: http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/funfilm.shtml and http://www.chrisjohnsonphotographer.com/charts.shtml

How are the Ilfotec-HC pictures different? Did you develop the negatives to the same contrast before you compared? I'm just asking because I'm curious.

I heve been developeing film for close to 20 years now but have never done the contrast thing - no densitometer in my darkroom, sorry. The difference between the ID11 and Ilfotec HC shows at the printing stage with my favorite paper - Ilford MG FB 5k (matt). As you know matt paper has a dynamic range that is more limited compared to glossy, also blacks can be visually weaker. After many random combinations of films and developers, HP5 (and Ilford Pan 400), even pushed, printed marveosusly when developed in Ilfotec HC at 1+31. Another matte paper, Fomabrom variant 112, although not as dead matte as Ilford also gives results to my liking when printed from films developed in Ilfotec HC. Very subjective I know, but I'm sticking to it as it gives me results I like from a paper surface that is not everybody's cup of tea. And more difficult to print too. In each case the paper, either Ilford or Foma, was developed in Neutol NE or Moersch eco 4812.

Why did you (if you did) move on from D76/ID-11

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency