PDA

View Full Version : Inconsistency in Ilford ID11 Batches of Developer?



neil poulsen
28-Oct-2001, 08:20
Has anyone noticed inconsistencies in different batches of Ilford ID11 developer ? All my developer was purchased recently. I've been through three boxes, and I get different results each time. I've been doing calibrations, because I want to standardize on HP5 developed in ID11.

Without going into too much detail, I'm pretty sure my methods have been good. I've been tray developing using a Zone VI compensating timer to allow for differ ences in temperature, which have been at 72 degrees (+/- one degree), the 1/8th speed that I've been using on my 180mm lens varies between 126 and 129 milliseco nds, and I would estimate that exposures on my rear illuminated frosted glass te st source have been within 1/10 stop, as measured on my Pentax V 1 Degree spotme ter. I've conducted tests on my timer, and if I'm within 1.5 degrees, my develo ping times after 13 minutes will be within 5 seconds of Ilford's recommended tem perature compensated times. This isn't enough to account for the differences th at I'm seeing. All my film is from the same production lot. Etc.

To give you an example, for the same exposure, I've gotten densities of 1.53 and 1.43 at 15.5 minutes of developing, and a density of 1.66 at 15 minutes of deve loping. This is enough inconsistency that there's no point in proceeding furthe r until I figure out the source of variation.

Back to the original question, has anyone else noticed inconsistencies in differ ent batches of ID11?

Wayne_6692
28-Oct-2001, 09:56
Is the contrast of the negatives varying also? You've only given us one density measurement to go on. If the contrast range is affected it will be processing related - if it isn't your problem lies with the camera/lighting. Since it appears that this is an indoor exercise using tungsten light is the source voltage-regulated? And have you set the bellows extension exactly the same each time? How tightly controlled is your f/stop? Being mechanical, even if you are able to set it exactly on the same point each time, it will matter whether you approach it from the high side or low side (tolerances, backlash, etc...). Also are you using distilled water for the developer? Have you used the developer within the first 24 hours of mixing it, or have you allowed it to stablize first? How consistant is your tray developing. Are you using exactly the same amount of developer each time? Are you using the same number of sheets of film, exposed to the same overall density, and is the agitation pattern exactly the same? Your results are not as bad as they would first appear once you consider all of the variables that must be controlled. Just the meter/shutter/f/stop variations alone could be responsible for +/-.1 variation.

neil poulsen
28-Oct-2001, 11:21
Interesting.

I haven't used distilled water, and I didn't allow my developer time to stabilize. I live in Oregon, and our water is relatively soft. I have a magnetic mixer, so it's thoroughly mixed. But, I've never heard of allowing freshly mixed to stabilize. How much difference might this make?

I hadn't thought of its making a difference whether I approach the f-stop from the low or high side. This was individually set each time, without regard for the direction from which I approached the setting. However, my camera, bellows extension, etc., has remained the same. I'm basing my contrast control off a Zone VIII exposure. I'm using a frosted glass combined with a diffuse piece of plastic illuminated from behind (three 250w daylight hot-lights) and mounted on a black background as my test pattern, and I get very even illumination. I could just as easily leave my f-stop setting alone throughout calibrations and vary the light source to achieve Zone VI through Zone X exposures needed to predict contrast control. I'm not using a voltage stabilizer for this, but I check before and after exposure, and it must be tack-on.

As to tray development, I always develop four sheets in 32oz of ID11 mixed 1:1. I'm using a slosher, and I try to maintain consistent agitation. Development is even across the negative. Agitation could be one of the sources of variation, since my exposures are long.

As for contrast, successive minutes only make a 0.07 change in density, and a minute is a long time for contrast control. For example, I found only a 45 second difference between my N and N-1 development. But, this difference may have been subject to the variability that I'm experiencing.

I realize there is much greater variability in the field (gosh knows), but I try to be as consistent as possible when doing calibrations. It think it pays in the long run.

Wayne_6692
28-Oct-2001, 12:02
"I haven't used distilled water, and I didn't allow my developer time to stabilize. I live in Oregon, and our water is relatively soft. I have a magnetic mixer, so it's thoroughly mixed. But, I've never heard of allowing freshly mixed to stabilize. How much difference might this make?"

It may just be urban myth by now, but years ago certain developers ran "hot" for a short time after mixing. I noticed differences in D- 76 and just standardized on a minimum 24 hour "aging" for all standard developer stock solutions before first use. Distilled water just eliminates another variable - probably unnecessary with ID-11.

"I'm not using a voltage stabilizer for this, but I check before and after exposure, and it must be tack-on."

Don't rule out voltage fluctuations. A refridgerator, air conditioner, or any other apparatus with a motor can drop your voltage by 10-20V momentarily due to inrush current when it first kicks on. It doesn't even have to be in your dwelling. It will be for less than a second, and you would have to be extremely unlucky for it to happen during your exposure, but it can happen. At the company that I work for we had a problem with our power. It would drop from 117 to 105v every 90 seconds like clockwork. We are in an industrial park and never did find the cause (it was outside our building and thankfully stopped after a few days).

"As to tray development, I always develop four sheets in 32oz of ID11 mixed 1:1. I'm using a slosher, and I try to maintain consistent agitation. Development is even across the negative. Agitation could be one of the sources of variation, since my exposures are long."

How are you making out with the slosher? I've talked to Summitek about making a 5x7 unit - I may have to make it myself.

"I realize there is much greater variability in the field (gosh knows), but I try to be as consistent as possible when doing calibrations. It think it pays in the long run."

Any exercise that increases our understanding of a process is time well spent. Good luck in your endeavor.

William Marderness
28-Oct-2001, 12:03
Neil,

I have not used ID-11, but I have had similar problems in the past with Kodak developers. Each batch of developer produced different densities. I have since switched to mixing my own developer from scratch. This solved my inconsistency problem. Mixing ID-11 or a variation of it is easy.

One other idea: ID-11 (basically as D-76) gets stronger as it ages. Were some batches older than others? Did the older ones produce higher density?

neil poulsen
28-Oct-2001, 14:12
All my batches of ID11 were fresh. I may go to mixing my own developer. I'm wondering if the liquid developers are more consistent, like the TMax non-RS and Kodak's HC-110? I seem to have pretty good luck with the former. From his book, Ansel Adams used HC-110 regularly.

I like the slosher, it's one that I made myself. I get even development across all negatives. (Finally!) I agitate by lifting opposite sides of the tray up a couple of times every 30 seconds. It's important to put a hole in each compartment and to place spacers that suspend the film up a bit so that developer can reach the underside of the film. I plan to make a second to place in the stop bath so that I can individually time each negative by transferring the negatives one at a time.

bob moulton
28-Oct-2001, 14:37
The variation in density could be attributed to a variation in the speed of the shutter. Calibrating LF shutters with a unit scuh as that sold by Calumet is quite an experience. Firing the shutter three times in rather brief succession yields three different apeeds quite often. Whether the variation is significant is of coyurse another matter. Some think that john Sexton is joking when he talks about "exercising " the shutters in his lenses. Perhaps not. It would be interesting to make three exposures of one of your scenes, identical exposures, process the negatives as using your normal system to see if all the images are of the same density.

Also, you may wish to consider how much of a variation is significant. Some teachers of the zone syste, suggest that +/- .05 is not a problem worth touching.

Bob

John Hicks
28-Oct-2001, 15:36
I'd suggest you try to eliminate the developer as being the source of the errors by doing some tests using a homebrew such as D-23 or D-76H and using distilled water.

D-23

Water 750ml 125F

Metol 7.5g

Sodium sulfite 100g

Water to make 1.0L

D-76H

Water 750ml 125F

Metol 2.5g

Sodium sulfite 100g

Borax 2g

Water to make 1.0L

Dave Schneidr
28-Oct-2001, 20:25
Could you provide details of your slosher? I tried making one and had problems with uneven development around the small posts I used to separate and hold in place the individual sheets. There were patters at each post caused by small flow eddies around the post. Too much agitation perhaps? I tried reducing and ended up with general uneven patches in the center. Would appreciate any drawing or details you could supply about your design and technique. Reply directly if this is too far off topic.

Dave Schneider

neil poulsen
29-Oct-2001, 12:53
A compadre showed me his, and I built mine in a similar fashion. His works and so does mine. Also, both are similar to one that I saw on the internet. I don't have the web-site, though. Perhaps someone else has that site.

I didn't use pegs. My film guides are 3 inches long for the 5" side of film, and 2 inches long for the 4" side of the film. The dimension of my base is 10 3/4 inches by 8 3/4 inches. My guides are 1/4 inch thick so that they can be glued solidly to the base. There are six of each size for the film guides, 12 in total. Looking at the slosher in portrait orientation, the 6 3" guides are positioned vertically at left-center-right below and left-center-right above. The 6 2" guides are positioned horizontally top-center-bottom on the left and top-center-bottom on the right. This divides the base into four symmetrical compartments, each with just enough room for the film.

I drilled a 1.5" hole in the base at the center of each compartment so that developer can reach the underside of each negative. To raise the negative about 1/8 inch above the base, I drilled four 1/4" holes to a depth of 1/8th inch oriented symmetrically around the center hole in each compartment. I positioned these holes as the four corners of a rectangle in a way that each side of this imaginary rectangle is positioned to balance the top, left, bottom, and right halfs of the film. (It's hard to describe in words what a picture would make immediately obvious.) I glued 1/4" plastic bearings into each of these holes so that the top half of each bearing would raise the film by 1/8". This allows the greatest flexibility for developer to reach all parts of the underside of the negative.

It seems to work quite well.

Dave Schneidr
29-Oct-2001, 18:10
Neil, How tall are the dividers? I tried a divider arrangement before the pegs. The dividers were only about 3/8 inch tall. I thought by keeping them short I would avoid flow turbulence. The problem was the sheets would float over the dividers. That's why I tried the posts which are a few inches tall. I put two posts on each of the four edges of the film to keep the film in position.

neil poulsen
29-Oct-2001, 19:43
The dividers are 1 1/4 inches tall. Also, I cut a diagonal about 3/4" long off each corner so that the slosher can fit in my 8x10 tray that has rounded corners. This not only allows the slosher to fit in a rounded corner tray, it also facilitates picking up that corner of the film if one wants to develop each film for a different amound of time.

neil poulsen
30-Oct-2001, 19:51
Yeah, I was wondering about that. Actually, I've alloted a little extra space in the center of my slosher for a Zone VI compensating time temperature probe. I was hoping that this might adjust for the variability in temperature that I thought might result from tray development. I wouldn't even consider tray development without a device like this.