Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,699   Posts: 1,549,152   Online: 1098
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chorley, Lancashire, England
    Posts
    129

    Delta 400 MF in ID11 (1+1) Dev. time

    The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
    I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
    Thanks
    Jeff
    PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.

  2. #2
    joeyk49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Images
    26
    I recently developed a couple of rolls of D400 in ID11. I rated the film one stop slower and developed 1:1 for 10.5 minutes. I too got decidedly thin negs.

    My next batch will be with Rodinal. I seem to be having better luck with the old standard and I tend to be a grainy kinda guy...

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chorley, Lancashire, England
    Posts
    129
    I'm thinking of going back to FX39. Don't really know why I changed!
    Except it's an Ilford film in Ilford standard developer so should work well - I think.
    Cheers
    Jeff

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by chorleyjeff
    The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
    I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
    Thanks
    Jeff
    PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.
    Test and adjust. You should always assume that the manufacturer's time/temperature recommendation is only an estimate that will get you somewhere into the vicinity of where you want to be. This is true whether or not you are using ID-11 or some other developer (like FX-39).
    Temperature and agitation technique are two important variables in film development that are governed by your equipment and working practices.

    The current Delta 400 literature: www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/400_Delta.pdf

    Recommends developing Delta 400 rated at EI 400 in the 1+1 dilution of ID-11 for 10 1/2 minutes at 20C with intermittent agitation.

    Ilford says: "The development times are intended as a guide and may be altered if a different result is needed."
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  5. #5
    joeyk49's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    Images
    26
    So, 10.5 min. should have given me decent densities....especially since I over exposed by a stop.


    hmmmm...<scratches head> Now I'm not really sure what to do...

    I'm still leaning towards the Rodinal.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,998
    Quote Originally Posted by chorleyjeff
    The Ilford web site and the ID11 package info. is 14 minutes at 20c for the above film/dev combination but an Ilford wall chart I have says 11.5 minutes.
    I guess the web site is the best info. BUT I had assumed the wall chart was right so I used it without checking the other sources of information. I found that 11.5 minutes gave thin negatives so reduced film speed to 200 ISO and it seemed to work OK. So I'm a bit confused. Should I be pragmatic and rely on experimentation or can anyone advise whether I should increase film speed and increase development time ( 400 ISO and 14 minutes) or should I go to basics and try several different film speeds with different development times? Any advice gratefully received.
    Thanks
    Jeff
    PS I print on Ilford multigrade in MG dev.using a meopta colourhead.
    Like you, what I find a little worrying is that in the space of a few posts we have three different times all of which can be attributable to official Ilford sites. Yet there seems to be no explanation as to why three different times should be quoted. Have things changed since, say, the oldest quoted times and is so why?

    In terms of my practical experience, all I can say is that I was a user of ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. I had learned my processing skills on an evening class course at Leamington College and used the times on the darkroom noticeboard which were, I believe, copied directly from Ilford info, although which info is now in question.

    However once I had set up my own darkroom I continued to use ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. Then I used the times quoted either on the film package or the ID11 box. They at least were identical.

    I never experienced thin negs. Since then I have joined APUG and learned about using other than box speed and the existence of other developers and have even tried Perceptol and Rodinal.

    The saying that learning a little more has been a mixed blessing springs to mind. Using the so-called jack of all trades developer known as ID11 and following the instructions on the film or ID11 packet has certainly produced good negs.

    Based on my college experience pre APUG and before learning more by being on APUG, I always thought that there was only way to develop and provided you followed instructions, nothing could go wrong.

    I am now older, wiser but not necessarily better.

    Pentaxuser

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser
    Like you, what I find a little worrying is that in the space of a few posts we have three different times all of which can be attributable to official Ilford sites. Yet there seems to be no explanation as to why three different times should be quoted. Have things changed since, say, the oldest quoted times and is so why?

    In terms of my practical experience, all I can say is that I was a user of ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. I had learned my processing skills on an evening class course at Leamington College and used the times on the darkroom noticeboard which were, I believe, copied directly from Ilford info, although which info is now in question.

    However once I had set up my own darkroom I continued to use ID11(1+1) and Delta 400. Then I used the times quoted either on the film package or the ID11 box. They at least were identical.

    I never experienced thin negs. Since then I have joined APUG and learned about using other than box speed and the existence of other developers and have even tried Perceptol and Rodinal.

    The saying that learning a little more has been a mixed blessing springs to mind. Using the so-called jack of all trades developer known as ID11 and following the instructions on the film or ID11 packet has certainly produced good negs.

    Based on my college experience pre APUG and before learning more by being on APUG, I always thought that there was only way to develop and provided you followed instructions, nothing could go wrong.

    I am now older, wiser but not necessarily better.

    Pentaxuser
    "Yet there seems to be no explanation as to why three different times should be quoted."

    Remember that, at best, all three of those times are only estimated starting points. Ilford does warn you that these development times, ( plus the associated temperatures, dilutions and agitation techniques) may need to be altered, based on the results.

    An alternative is Development By Inspection
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    22
    I seem to recall that Roger HIcks had a post either on this forum or PN about proces-sing times. IIRC, the jist of his post was that these manufacturers do not pull these times out of thin air. They really are tested and proven. If they don't work, either due to conditions beyond our control or our own habits, then it is time to test and adjust. I can honestly say that exposing at box speed and developing per instructions has given me a much higher success rate than experimenting.
    Maybe I have been extemely fortunate, or I don't know good from mediocre.
    Jim

  9. #9
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    On a recent workshop with Les Mclean we shared the film developing routine for three sections of film that had been exposed for speed testing. Les with one drum whilst I had another. Each drum contained the same type of film, in the same developer, and we filled and emptied in unison. Whilst my inversion routine is a gentle, affair, Les has adopted the style of a cocktail waiter, with each inversion accompanied by a vigorous shaking. The result was about a one stop difference in density between the films in his drum to those in mine. It demonstrated that all elements of the film development routine are important, and why the development time may need to vary between one person and another.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  10. #10
    johnnywalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,255
    Images
    78
    The wall chart I have says 9.5 minutes for stock and 14 minutes for 1+1. I've always used the 14 minutes 1+1, and my negatives usually turn out well. If they don't, it's not the fault of the developer.

    I realize that the posted times are starting points, but why so many "official" starting points?
    If I had been present at the creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better arrangement of the Universe.
    Alfonso the Wise, 1221-1284

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin