ID-11 and D-76
Paula and David
the same film, shot under the same conditions, the D-76 1:1 negatives
appeared to be more developed. I got better results from ID-11 1:1.
For example, Plus-X was very contrasty at 7 minutes with D-76 1:1, but
at 7 minutes with ID-11 1:1, it was normal contrast and looked
perfect. This has also happened with Tri-X and HP5 Plus. So even
though it is claimed that these are interchangeable developers, in my
experience, the times are not the same. Has anyone else noticed this?
I always mix ID-11 with distilled water and mix only a quart at a time
and use it within a couple of weeks, so everything is fresh. Could it
have something to do with the fact that the metol is stored in a
separate packet, unlike D-76 which has it all mixed together?
As far as the published times, I notice that Ilford always gives a
little bit longer time than Kodak, and they have turned out right for
me.
John Hicks
<pau...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I have noticed that when I used D-76 1:1 and then used ID-11 1:1
Although the published formulae may be the same, the packaged
developers aren't. Therefore they may not work exactly the same.
---
John Hicks
Ian Grant
years ago. That will be the reason for the slight differance, when compared
to D-76
The ID11 in the UK is still the original formulation
Ian
"Paula and David" <pau...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qk21ht049mfovlreb...@4ax.com...
Richard Knoppow
>Ilford changed "improved" the formula of ID-11 for the American market a few
>years ago. That will be the reason for the slight differance, when compared
>to D-76
>
>The ID11 in the UK is still the original formulation
>
>Ian
>
There is quite a difference between packaged D-76 and packaged
ID-11.
Packaged D-76 is actually a buffered formula similar to the
published formula D-76d. The purpose of the buffering is to prevent
the slow increase in activity caused by a complex reaction between the
hydroquinone and sulfite. Probably it also contains some seqestering
agent. Metol will not dissolve in a solution of sulfite. Normally,
developer formulas will have you dissolve the Metol first, then the
sulfite. However, in packaged D-76 (and Dektol) everything is mixed
together in one package, so something has to be there to get the Metol
to dissolve. Whatever it is either is not hazardous or is there in too
small an amount to require showing it on the MSDS.
Packaged ID-11 is not a buffered formula. It contains a silver
binding agent, presumably to eliminate the slight tendency of
high-sulfite developers to produce dichroic fog. (The agent shows up
on the MSDS).
I have seen no investigation of packaged ID-11 to show whether it
increases in activity in the same way that un-buffered D-76 does,
presumably it does. The pH slowly rises with time. For unused D-76 the
time required to reach a given contrast may drop by as much has half
for developer stored a month or more.
MSDS for Kodak products can be found on their web site at:
http://www.kodak.com For Ilford products on the Ilford site at:
http://www.ilford.com and for many products at http://hazard.com or
http://siri.org (two servers for the same site).
>"Paula and David" <pau...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:qk21ht049mfovlreb...@4ax.com...
>> I have noticed that when I used D-76 1:1 and then used ID-11 1:1 for
>> the same film, shot under the same conditions, the D-76 1:1 negatives
>> appeared to be more developed. I got better results from ID-11 1:1.
>> For example, Plus-X was very contrasty at 7 minutes with D-76 1:1, but
>> at 7 minutes with ID-11 1:1, it was normal contrast and looked
>> perfect. This has also happened with Tri-X and HP5 Plus. So even
>> though it is claimed that these are interchangeable developers, in my
>> experience, the times are not the same. Has anyone else noticed this?
>> I always mix ID-11 with distilled water and mix only a quart at a time
>> and use it within a couple of weeks, so everything is fresh. Could it
>> have something to do with the fact that the metol is stored in a
>> separate packet, unlike D-76 which has it all mixed together?
>>
>> As far as the published times, I notice that Ilford always gives a
>> little bit longer time than Kodak, and they have turned out right for
>> me.
>>
>
>
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Knoppow
>Ilford changed "improved" the formula of ID-11 for the American market a few
>years ago. That will be the reason for the slight differance, when compared
>to D-76
>
>The ID11 in the UK is still the original formulation
>
>Ian
>
This may have been the case in the past but the UK and US/Canada
MSDS currently on the Ilford site are identical.
At one time Ilford put a silver sequestering agent in the developer.
Its either no longer there or is in such a small quantity it doesn't
show up on the MSDS.
I suspect differences in recommended times are from variatons in
sensitometric testing. As posted elswhere packaged D-76 is enough
different than ID-11 to account for differences in performance.
>"Paula and David" <pau...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:qk21ht049mfovlreb...@4ax.com...
>> I have noticed that when I used D-76 1:1 and then used ID-11 1:1 for
>> the same film, shot under the same conditions, the D-76 1:1 negatives
>> appeared to be more developed. I got better results from ID-11 1:1.
>> For example, Plus-X was very contrasty at 7 minutes with D-76 1:1, but
>> at 7 minutes with ID-11 1:1, it was normal contrast and looked
>> perfect. This has also happened with Tri-X and HP5 Plus. So even
>> though it is claimed that these are interchangeable developers, in my
>> experience, the times are not the same. Has anyone else noticed this?
>> I always mix ID-11 with distilled water and mix only a quart at a time
>> and use it within a couple of weeks, so everything is fresh. Could it
>> have something to do with the fact that the metol is stored in a
>> separate packet, unlike D-76 which has it all mixed together?
>>
>> As far as the published times, I notice that Ilford always gives a
>> little bit longer time than Kodak, and they have turned out right for
>> me.
>>
>
>
---
bg
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b118cfd...@news.mindspring.com...
> "Ian Grant" <iang...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Packaged D-76 is actually a buffered formula similar to the
> published formula D-76d. The purpose of the buffering is to prevent
> the slow increase in activity caused by a complex reaction between the
> hydroquinone and sulfite. Probably it also contains some seqestering
> agent.
much has half for developer stored a month or more.
Richard,
Given the above, what activity change is present in the current D-76 which
is buffered. What are the keeping properties and how much does contrast
change with storage?
bg
Richard Knoppow
A little history. D-76 was compounded by John Capstaff of Kodak
Laboratories and announced in 1927. Capstaff was responsible for many
products at Kodak, he originated the reversal process and was one of
the primary inventors of 16mm motion pictures.
D-76 was originally used for developing fine grain duplicating film
for motion picture negatives but became a general purpose negative
developer, especially in the motion picture industry, where it
replaced many other formulas, most of them the result of guesswork and
alchemy rather than any real understand of how they worked.
It was discovered after a time that the results of D-76 were not as
consistent as desired. Further research at the Kodak labs found the
slow increase in activity with time. The chemistry of this was not
understood at the time but it was found that a slow rise in pH also
happened. It was speculated that it resulted from the production of
hydroxide ions from some complex reaction. In fact, this is true
although the exact mechanism was not understood for many years.
All developers are alkalised by the producton of hydroxide from
other materials in the developer. Hydroxide itself has poor buffering
qualities. A high pH is produced by just a little so that the pH can
change with any addition or destruction of the hydroxyl ions.
Carbonates or Borates provide much better buffering by providing a
large resevoir of a material which is converted to hydroxide as needed
by the formula. The problem with D-76 is that this conversion happens
when its not needed. By adding a buffer to the borax a much larger
resevoir is created and the pH is stabilized.
The original D-76 formula contains 2 grams/ liter of Borax, the
buffered version contains 8 grams of borax and 8 grams of boric acid
per liter forming a strong buffer system. At this ratio the activity
is the same as the original formula when its fresh. The activity of
buffered D-76 can be varied over a wide range by changing the ratio of
alkali to acid in the buffer. This was used in motion picture
processing to adjust contrast while keeping development time constant.
The buffered formula was announced in a paper by Kodak Lab "Some
Properties of Fine-Grain Developers for Motion Picture Film"
H.C.Carlton and J.I.Crabtree, _Transactions of the Society of Motion
Picture Engineers_ Vol XIII, NO. 38, 1929 In this paper is described
the rise in activity and a large number of variations of D-76.
The paper discusses the increase in pH and activity of the
developer and gives data for gamma. The gamma of unbuffered developer
went from 0.92 at 15 min development in fresh developer to 1.43 in
developer 49 days old. Interpolating from other data in the chart
indicates the original gamma would have been gotten at about 8 minutes
in the aged developer. Similar data is shown for other development
times.
The same tests were carried out for buffered D-76 and show only a
very slight increase in gamma. For instance for the above 15 minute
time the increase was from 0.92 in fresh developer to 0.98 in 49 day
old developer. this is probably within the experimental error. Both
sets of data show some up and down values, possibly errors, or maybe
some side effect of the process.
In any case, the increase in activity of unbuffered D-76 is
noticable after a week. Buffered D-76 has for practical puroses
constant activity. (This is the answer to your question).
There was no testing of used developer. Using the developer lowers
its activity so the original formula may have been advantageous in
non-replenished systems.
Unfortunately, this source is probably hard to find. I have access
to a good collection of the "Transactions" from the Los Angeles City
library but they are hard to find elsewhere. Many libraries may have
them catalogued with the later _Journal of the SMPE_ The SMPE is now
the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers_ and it may be
necessary to look under that to find the holdings.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
I have always been frustrated will increased developer activity in ID11,
but this problem is gone since I went to a 'new' technique.
First I mix the 1l stock solution as recommended and then I fill it into
160ml glass containers. Tall little olive glasses have the ideal volume.
I fill them up to the rim with little or no air in it, while still warm.
In the Jobo, this volume mixed with water 1+1 makes enough liquid to
develop a roll or four to six sheets. The time difference between the
first and the last roll has been up to 2 months with no noticable change
in developer activity.
There is however some sediment forming after a few days. This formation
peeks and stops after two weeks. I don't know what it is, and I think it
has always been there, just never saw in in the plastic bottles. It
looks like a slightly yellowish milky bacterial grows which I'm sure it
isn't. Anyway, it gets filtered out when the developer is used and it
has never caused any harm.
Ralph W. Lambrecht
Ian Grant
we (as kids) didn't ever contaminate bulk volumes of solution. Although I
used to make up the original bulk solution myself !
Ian
"Ralph W. Lambrecht" <lamb...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3B13E0...@btinternet.com...