D76 & ID11 - The same, similar or different ?

I use D76 occaisionally, I've used ID11 in the past, and was

basically of the understanding that they were effectively

interchangeable. Local suppliers are "limited" in their choice, so I

usually mail-order my dev when I order some film or whatever, so

again I take what's available.

 

Re-reading Kodak's and Ilford's pdf's on these developers, I notice

that Kodak recommend 4 film-capacity for a litre of D76, but Ilford

say 10 films for the same amount of stock ID11.

 

So, are Kodak being very conservative in their recommendations, (and

have I just thrown a perfectly good half-used litre of D76 down the

drain) or are the two developers now only similar in the results that

they provide, not in their formulation?

I think similar but slightly different in formulation seems to sum it up.

 

Take a look at this thread - not answering it directly, but related.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005Hhe

I believe the formula is the same with the exception of a buffer in D76 to prevent the developer gaining in activity over time.

 

I think both manufacturers are being conservative with their capacities (Kodak excessively so). I use ID11 (1+1) and I use 60ml stock per roll which gives me about 16 rolls per litre of stock ID11.

Thanks to all so far ... I'll push my other pack of D76 a bit harder :-)

 

>>I use ID11 (1+1) and I use 60ml stock per roll which gives me about 16 rolls per litre of stock ID11.

 

Tony,

Just wondering what tank you're using to need only 120ml of liquid per film? One of the reasons I struggle (occaisionally) with my Jobo reels is that I only need 250ml, instead of the 300ml for my Paterson (I'm talking 35mm here, inversion or twiddler agitation).

As provided by the manufacturers, the question cannot be answered, since they do not disclose the exact formulas. This is a prime reason for mixing your own developer from scratch (easy for things like D-76/ID11) as there's no question about what's in it, and no risk that it will change over the years. That aside, capacity is terribly hard to pin down. It depends on the type of film, what you use as a cutoff point, and time. No two manufacturers would ever come up with the same numbers except by pure chance. Personally, I always use film developers as one-shots, regardless of dilution.

Chris,

 

I use Jobo 15xx tanks on a CPP2. Using the CPP2 means the reels do not have to be completely covered the whole time - the film dips in and out of the developer as the drum rotates. I usually use the 1520+1530 (holds 5 films) with 600ml of ID11 1+1. If just using the 1520 I do need slightly more developer per film, about 300ml 1+1, to ensure adequate coverage.

>As provided by the manufacturers, the question cannot be answered, >since they do not disclose the exact formulas. >

 

That's strange, I thought both developer formulas were public property. Has something changed? Even the MSDS sheets give ingredients. I'm confused.

Tony,

 

Thanks for the details. I do have a (relatively ancient) Jobo rotary processor and a 5-reel tank for it, so I could get away with 100ml per film if I chose, now I think about it, but over the last year or so I've reverted to inversion or "twiddler" agitation for non-C41 films as (I think) I can see the benefit of increased acutance. I'd not usually have 5 rolls of b&w ready for processing at one go, (in the summer I might just use more than one roll a week), and usually develop it immediately ... some of the old enthusiasm is still there ;-)

 

Thanks again to all the other posters :-)

I was a little bit supprised too at the 4 rolls per liter when I got D79 instead of ID 11 (ID11 10� for liter kit D76 20� 5 liter kit) I felt a little short changed. Do you need to increase the development time for each film like with ID 11? I did once process 2 rolls of FP4 using the same 1:1 working solution one after another and it worked fine I gave the second film an extra 10% more time but it was really not needed as the negs showed more contrast than the first film. I would guess Kodak are being very conservative.

As a matter of clarification, to the best of my knowledge it is *Ilford*, not Kodak, that has made public their formulation for ID-11. It is published in my early-1970s edition of "The Manual of Photography" (previously "The Ilford Manual of Photography").

 

So we do know the recipe for ID-11, at least as of that writing.

 

In response to Garry's question regarding the MSDS, I'll answer from the perspective of a former federal OSHA safety inspector whose job included reading and evaluating for compliance more MSDSs than you can shake a respirator at: The MSDS is required to list only the hazardous materials. It is not a complete list of materials unless the manufacturer chooses to make it such, which virtually none does (altho' I've seen "water" listed on some - apparently a fellow could drown in the stuff).

 

As of the time I worked for the agency (about 7 years ago), the amounts of ingredients were not required to be listed, if I'm recalling correctly; only the presence.

 

Also even certain hazardous materials *might* be withheld from the public record if the company can demonstrate the list comprises a trade secret. The company would be compelled to provide a complete list to the appropriate regulatory enforcement agency but this information would be flagged "trade secret" and would be exempt from public access via the open records acts.

 

Hence, Kodak's formulation for D-76 *might* be quite different from Ilford's ID-11.

 

And, no, we don't really know for certain just what the heck Dr. Pepper really is. They wouldn't tell OSHA either, other than to assure us it ain't hazardous.

To clairify my point, sure, we know about what's in the envelopes, but not precisely. Kodak and Ilford have published the formulas for general use, but are under no obligation to duplicate them exactly in the packaged product. They have to contend with unknown water supplies, and probably use surfactants (sp?), they have to package the stuff, so might add things to improve the flow properties of the powder. Since Kodak makes chemicals, they might use a slightly different formulation of developing agent that they had available, or even add an additional one if they thought it improved the product. Ilford could likely do something similar. The problem is that you just don't know. Make it up yourself, and there's no question.

Kodak I think published the orginal D-76 formula when it was new. What's that 75+ years ago. The problem is nothing forces them to sell D-76 using that formula. It's one of the reasons for mixing your own. I'll always know my D-23 is the same developer [Assuming my chemicals are good]

I've been following this thread waiting for someone to wade in with the 8 reel tank tome or "big gun" of film processing; Anchell & Troop's

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0240802772/qid=1065032669/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6880583-8299161?v=glance&s=books"><b>The Film Developing Cookbook: Advanced Techniques for Film Developing

</b></a>".<p>Was not to be so I had to get off my butt and get my copy back from someone who borrowed it for a couple days...a year ago.<p>Short book review here�if your interested in film processing then sooner or later you should get a copy of this book�but like the <a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html"><b>Massive Development Chart</b></a> it is <i>not</i> the definitive source, it�s information is not gospel; rather it is a starting point.<p>And so what do Anchell & Troop say? I�ll quote from page 41 & 42;<p>

<i>�<b>Note:</b> Although Kodak D-76 and Ilford ID-11 are ostensibly the same formula there are a few differences. Ilford sells ID-11 in two separate packages. The first contains methol, the second sulfite. This eliminates the need for some of the additives which Kodak includes in their single package and may allow the Ilford formula to perform closer to the original.�</i><p>The Film Developing Cookbook: Advanced Techniques for Film Developing, Anchell & Troop, Focal Press, 1998<P>

Ilford at least implies that they are different in the development chart that they

packaged with their RC paper recently. (This is the chart that gives times for

all of Ilford's films with a variety of developers. Many of the times quoted for D-

76 and ID-11 are different. For example, they suggest 13 minutes for HP5+ in

ID-11 1:1. In D-76, they suggest 11 minutes.

 

ID-11 is not available locally, and I have not compared myself.

AFAIK today's D-76 is buffered - close to the D-76d formula. ID-11 is closer to the original one.

As for the ID-11 and D76 times being different in Ilford's charts- maybe Ilford intentionally publishes erroneous information for D76 to discourage it's use! : )

I just read this thread. I'm not a chemist either,but I used to mix my own D76 often. Per The Focal Encylopedia of Photography , April 1971 Page 414 in a grid of MQ Borax developers, it shows D76 and ID11 with the same formula per 11000c.c. or parts per 1,000. Here are the components: Metol 2gr(grams); Hydroquuinone 5 gr; Sodium sulphite,anhyd. 100 gr; Borax 2 gr; Water to make 1000 cc (1 liter)

 

I, too, have questioned the difference. I remember years ago Ilford

created an "improved" ID11. I've lost touch through the years and perhaps the current one just calls the newer formula by the same old name: ID11. In this grid they show two other variations of D76 with nomencalature of D76a and D76d. D76a has an additional 14 gr sodium metaborate added to the formula, , D76d has 8 gr of metaborate added.

 

Don't know if this clears or muddies the water.

 

Les

More detailed information: I knew I mixed my own D76 for a long time before the 1970s, so I dug out my Kodak Reference Handbook of 1947 that I got after being discharged from Army Air Corps. In the replaceable sections under Formulas and Processing they give the Kodak formulas for the following developers:D-7,D-8, D-11, DK15, DK15a,D-19, D-19R, DK-20, DK-20R, D-23,D-25, D-32, DK-50, DK-50R, D-52 (warm tone developer similar to Selectol, I'd guess. I see I have made hand-written note LG), DK-60a, DK-60aTR, D-61a, D-61a, D-61R, D-72 (standard paper developer before Dektol,LG), D-76, D-76R, D-82, D-85, D-88 (for direct positive paper and related Bleaching bath R-9, Clearing bath CB-1, and Sulfide Redeveloper T-19)the DK-93. That's only developers! They also give Stop and Hardening baths and Replenishers, Fixing baths, Hypo tests and Hypo eliminators(yes, they used that so-called incorrect term 'hypo" then, and I still mark my trays and bottles that way)Last of all are intensififiers, reducers, and stain removers.

 

Kodak was very open and generous to share information with amateur photographers in those days. Many people mixed their own then. OTOH, Kodak was the major manufacturere of these chemicals. But unlike Edwal, Kodak did not hide behind proprietory names for chemical ingredients, it used only standard scientific names of chemicals. Weights were given in both Avoirdupois and Metric measurements, which makes life easier for people that only have metric scales. I'd guess most Americans these days, that make up their own solutions from scratch, don't have scales that read in grains.

 

Another source is Amphoto Lab Handbook (my copy is 1970)which also lists D76 with the same formula as ID11. In it are published formulas from many several manufacturers, i.e. Ansco, DuPont, Gavaert, Ilford and Kodak.

 

That's more than I should have written, but for those that read about old formulas that earlier photographers used and want to try those developers, these sources can be helpful. I have not seen several of the newer books of formulas. If all this is in them, I apologize, and also for rambling. My enthusiasm got the best of me. I promise to write less the next time.

 

Les

Much of this has already been said, but here are a few additional details.

 

Both Kodak and Ilford have published their respective formula, however, there is no guarantee that the packaged product is the same as the published formula.

 

The Ilford formula in my copy of Ilford's Monochrome Darkroom Practice by Jack Coote (1982) lists 3 gram of metol, while the published formula for D-76 only has 2 grams. The formulas are otherwise identical. If this difference extends to the packaged products, ID-11 should be slightly more active than D-76.

 

D-76 was a major advance in developers. It was invented by J. Capstaff in 1926. An important study of developers was published by Carlton and Crabtree in 1929. Carlton and Crabtree found that the activity of plain D-76 increased with time, and formulated the buffered D-76d to prevent this problem. The D-76d variant changes the amount of Borax and adds Boric acid.

 

For the packaged product, the Kodak MSDS provides useful information. Kodak pre-made D-76 contains boric anhydride (boric acid), which isn't in the original D-76. It is likely that the packaged product is similar to D-76d. Photographically, D-76d behaves very much like fresh D-76.

 

In addition to the boric anhydride, the Kodak MSDS lists the four ingredients of the original D-76 formula. Of course, others ingredients might not make it onto the MSDS.

 

The Ilford MSDS for ID-11 stock lists the four expected ingredients and also sodium tripolyphosphate. Searching the web, sodium tripolyphosphate appears to be useful for softening water and helping to disperse other chemicals. The addition of sodium tripolyphosphate is at least one way in which Ilford has tried to improve their packaged product compared to the original formula.

 

As far as can be discerned from the MSDS, the two products should be similar. Both companies list the two developing agents, metol and hydroquinone, of the published formulas. Both packaged products differ in some ways from the original formula. The MSDS have no evidence of major changes that would alter the photographic behavior. But we don't know for sure.