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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|