tri-x in id-11

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by stefan : www.randlkofer.com, Dec 11, 2001.

  1. i used the hp5+ and id11 for a long time now and am pretty happy with it. pushing up to 1600 is no problem.

    <p>

    does anyone know the developing time of the kodak tri-x in ID-11 at 800 and 1600 iso? the chart that comes with the developer doesn't show puch times for other than ilford films
     
  2. xav

    xav

    Ilford ID-11 is an equivalent of Kodak D-76. I would suggest you to go to The Massive film dev chart and pick-up the times stated for D-76.
    If you want more information, I would suggest you to post your request to the other excellent LUSENET Newsgroup B&W Photo - Film & Processing
     
  3. Whoa! ID-11 and D-76 are similar, but the processing times are not
    identical! A better idea is to get the recommendation for ID-11,
    rather than D-76!
     
  4. Looks to me like Ilford's recommended times for their own films run
    about 15 to 20% greater for ID-11 than for the same films in D-76.
    This holds true for FP-5, probably the most similar of their films to
    Tri-X. So I think I'd consider going a bit to the plus side, even
    though the Massive development chart indicates no difference between
    the two developers. Ilford ought to know.
     
  5. xav

    xav

    ID-11 is close to D-76 but it's not D-76 (packaged in 2 parts instead
    of one, ...). It might explain the discrepencies (did I spelt that
    right?). Also, I think I remember that Ilford and Kodak don't
    calculate the characteristic curves of films in the same way. Do the
    development times aim at the same density? There are probably
    several other possible explanations, but anyway a 10 to 20%
    difference is not very significant. I routinely shorten development
    by 20% if I shot scenes with high contrast.
     
  6. Tri-X @800, ID-11 (straight), 70 degrees F., 12 minutes, a little
    agitation every 30 secs. This puts you in the ball park. But if it's
    a sunny day the contrast is a bit strong if printed normally.
     

Share This Page

1111