A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 2nd 04, 08:21 PM
i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock

I am in the process of setting up a darkroom at home to continue a hobby
I stopped ten years ago. The last film I developed was using ILFOSOL S,
because it was what we used a university. I have been looking into using
ID-11 but have no experience of using replenisher, so using a dilution
as a one shot developer makes sense to me. I wondered though if there is
any change in the qualities of the negatives when using a 1+1 or 1+3
dilution? There doesn't seem to be any mention of any effect on the
ilford site.

Thanks

Ian
  #2  
Old May 3rd 04, 05:37 AM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock


"i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk" "i dot hodge at
tiscali dot co dot uk" wrote in message
...
I am in the process of setting up a darkroom at home to

continue a hobby
I stopped ten years ago. The last film I developed was

using ILFOSOL S,
because it was what we used a university. I have been

looking into using
ID-11 but have no experience of using replenisher, so

using a dilution
as a one shot developer makes sense to me. I wondered

though if there is
any change in the qualities of the negatives when using a

1+1 or 1+3
dilution? There doesn't seem to be any mention of any

effect on the
ilford site.

Thanks

Ian


There is some. ID-11, and the very similar Kodak D-76,
produce about the same quality at 1:1 as they do at full
strength. There may be some increase in grain but I've never
observed it. 1:1 is useful as a economical way of obtaining
uniform results when small quantities of film are to be
processed and is necessary for some films which have very
short development time. At 1:3 both developers begin to have
noticable acutance effects. These are due to local
exhaustion, which has teh effect of increasing the contrast
at the edges between high and low density areas. The eye
interprets this as sharpness. At the same time there may be
some reduction of the contrast of highlights (compensation).
I don't particularly like the way D-76 looks at 1:3 but its
just fine at 1:1 as is ID-11. Both are very good general
purpose developers and work with most films. Somewhat finer
grain and somewhat greater speed can be gotten with Kodak
Xtol. Higher speed with some additional grain with Ilford
Microphen or Kodak T-Max developers.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



  #3  
Old May 3rd 04, 06:31 AM
i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock

Richard Knoppow wrote:
"i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk" "i dot hodge at
tiscali dot co dot uk" wrote in message
...

I am in the process of setting up a darkroom at home to


continue a hobby

I stopped ten years ago. The last film I developed was


using ILFOSOL S,

because it was what we used a university. I have been


looking into using

ID-11 but have no experience of using replenisher, so


using a dilution

as a one shot developer makes sense to me. I wondered


though if there is

any change in the qualities of the negatives when using a


1+1 or 1+3

dilution? There doesn't seem to be any mention of any


effect on the

ilford site.

Thanks

Ian



There is some. ID-11, and the very similar Kodak D-76,
produce about the same quality at 1:1 as they do at full
strength. There may be some increase in grain but I've never
observed it. 1:1 is useful as a economical way of obtaining
uniform results when small quantities of film are to be
processed and is necessary for some films which have very
short development time. At 1:3 both developers begin to have
noticable acutance effects. These are due to local
exhaustion, which has teh effect of increasing the contrast
at the edges between high and low density areas. The eye
interprets this as sharpness. At the same time there may be
some reduction of the contrast of highlights (compensation).
I don't particularly like the way D-76 looks at 1:3 but its
just fine at 1:1 as is ID-11. Both are very good general
purpose developers and work with most films. Somewhat finer
grain and somewhat greater speed can be gotten with Kodak
Xtol. Higher speed with some additional grain with Ilford
Microphen or Kodak T-Max developers.


Thanks for the advice. I was just looking through the ilford site to
find a film developer that matches more the kind of work I take now,
which is landscape and architecture and ID-11 look like it. I've just
never used a powder developer and only get through small amounts of
film. I've never used anyone elses chemistry, so are there are better
developers made by other manufactures?

Thanks.
  #4  
Old May 3rd 04, 08:26 PM
Andrew Price
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock

On Mon, 03 May 2004 06:31:10 +0100, "i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot
uk" "i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk" wrote:

Thanks for the advice. I was just looking through the ilford site to
find a film developer that matches more the kind of work I take now,
which is landscape and architecture and ID-11 look like it. I've just
never used a powder developer and only get through small amounts of
film. I've never used anyone elses chemistry, so are there are better
developers made by other manufactures?


If you prefer a liquid developer, still with Ilford, you could try
DD-X, which I find gives comparable results to ID-11, both of which I
found better than the Ilfosol you used previously.
  #5  
Old May 4th 04, 05:01 AM
Donald Qualls
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock

i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk wrote:

Thanks for the advice. I was just looking through the ilford site to
find a film developer that matches more the kind of work I take now,
which is landscape and architecture and ID-11 look like it. I've just
never used a powder developer and only get through small amounts of
film. I've never used anyone elses chemistry, so are there are better
developers made by other manufactures?


If you develop seldom, you might want to consider a highly concentrate
liquid developer such as HC-110, Ilfotec HC (essentially identical to
HC-110), Rodinal or Calbe R09 (again, effectively the same developer
from different companies). I use HC-110 because it's very versatile and
economical, but many people prefer the look imparted by Rodinal, which
tends to produce very crisp, but somewhat grainy negatives by comparison.

The advantage of liquid concentrates is that you can dilute direct from
concentrate as you use the chemical, and the concentrate keeps much
longer than a stock solution of a product like D-76 or ID-11 -- HC-110
concentrate, broken down into smaller bottles with no air so most of the
concentrate is protected from oxygen and diluted as used, will keep for
more than a year. Rodinal concentrate is legendary for keeping for
years even in partially filled bottles. PMK Pyro is also known for its
keeping qualities in the stock solutions, and is sold as premixed A and
B solutions by Photographer's Formulary.

You might even try coffee. I've used it once with amazing results; 4
slightly rounded tsp coffee crystals (instant coffee), 2 tsp washing
soda (sodium carbonate monohydrate), to 8 ounces water produce a slow
acting staining developer; 25 minutes at 68 F for Plus-X, or 30 minutes
at 72 F for Tri-X, produce negatives with a distinct brown general
stain, what seems to be some imagewise stain, crisp grain and excellent
sharpness; they scan wonderfully. It's not Ilford, but it keeps well,
doesn't require storing a stock solution in air-excluded containers, and
it's economical.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

  #6  
Old May 11th 04, 05:41 AM
Richard Knoppow
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Effect of using ID-11 dillutions from stock


"i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk" "i dot hodge at
tiscali dot co dot uk" wrote in message
...
Richard Knoppow wrote:
"i dot hodge at tiscali dot co dot uk" "i dot hodge at
tiscali dot co dot uk" wrote in message
...

I am in the process of setting up a darkroom at home to


continue a hobby

I stopped ten years ago. The last film I developed was


using ILFOSOL S,

because it was what we used a university. I have been


looking into using

ID-11 but have no experience of using replenisher, so


using a dilution

as a one shot developer makes sense to me. I wondered


though if there is

any change in the qualities of the negatives when using

a

1+1 or 1+3

dilution? There doesn't seem to be any mention of any


effect on the

ilford site.

Thanks

Ian



There is some. ID-11, and the very similar Kodak

D-76,
produce about the same quality at 1:1 as they do at full
strength. There may be some increase in grain but I've

never
observed it. 1:1 is useful as a economical way of

obtaining
uniform results when small quantities of film are to be
processed and is necessary for some films which have

very
short development time. At 1:3 both developers begin to

have
noticable acutance effects. These are due to local
exhaustion, which has teh effect of increasing the

contrast
at the edges between high and low density areas. The eye
interprets this as sharpness. At the same time there may

be
some reduction of the contrast of highlights

(compensation).
I don't particularly like the way D-76 looks at 1:3 but

its
just fine at 1:1 as is ID-11. Both are very good general
purpose developers and work with most films. Somewhat

finer
grain and somewhat greater speed can be gotten with

Kodak
Xtol. Higher speed with some additional grain with

Ilford
Microphen or Kodak T-Max developers.


Thanks for the advice. I was just looking through the

ilford site to
find a film developer that matches more the kind of work I

take now,
which is landscape and architecture and ID-11 look like

it. I've just
never used a powder developer and only get through small

amounts of
film. I've never used anyone elses chemistry, so are there

are better
developers made by other manufactures?

Thanks.


You will get all sorts of advice about this. However,
developers do not make a big difference in the curve shape
of the film. A little, but not a lot. ID-11 or D-76 will
give you very good results from nearly any film. This type
of developer is the standard to which others are compared.
There are "better" developers in some ways. For instance
Phenidone developers will generally yield about 3/4 stop
greater speed for most films. Xtol and Microphen are
Phenidone developers but Xtol will give slightly finer grain
and Microphen or Kodak T-Max developer slightly coarser
grain than D-76/ID-11. Concentrated developers like Kodak
HC-110 and its Ilford equivalent are very convenient but
give slightly lower speed and sometimes a bit of a shoulder
when compared to D-76/ID-11. Rodinal is another highly
convenient concentrated developer with extraordinarily long
shelf life, but it is considerably coarser in grain than the
above and also loses a little speed.
There are dozens of other developers put up commercially.
Liquid concentrates are very convenient but powders are not
hard to mix and some developers are not available as
liquids.
My main advice is to pick a developer which works well
for you and not switch around. Use a developer which has
full information for the film you are using. Both Kodak and
Ilford give very complete data for the development of their
films in both their own and the other's developers. For the
most part the times given in these charts are quite
accurate, especially Kodak's. But- you MUST follow the
directions: the temperature and agitation will both have
significant effect on the degree of development. You must
follow the directions given with the charts for them to be
good predictors. Keep in mind that the degree of
development affects mostly contrast, exposure affects mostly
overall density. Some adjustment must be made to the
exposure when a change in contrast is desired to make sure
that the range of density is acceptable. For instance,
Kodak's chart times are predicated on negatives intended for
diffusion enlarging or contact printing. For a condeser
enlarger the contrast must be lowered if the negatives are
to print on "normal" grade paper (there is no problem with
printing it on lower contrast paper if you choose). To
produce the one paper grade lowering of contrast the time is
reduced by some amount, which depends on the emulsion. For
most conventional films the difference in time is about 30 -
33% less. For T-Max, and probably other thin emulsion formed
crystal films, it is only about 20 - 25% less. For both
films the exposure must be increased about 1 stop to
maintain shadow detail. The same is true in reverse if
greater contrast is desired. Ilford gives times for a
compromise contrast midway between diffusion and condenser
values. This is one reason the times in the manufacturer's
charts sometimes do not agree. Usually, the chart will
indicate somewhere the target constrat the charts are meant
to produce. For your personal use some adjustment may have
to be made to get negatives you like. Note that the contrast
of the negative is sometimes also adjusted to compensate for
subject contrast. This is the bases of the Zone System. If
you want to do this you will have to work out the relative
changes in development and exposure which will result in the
desired negatives.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.