Is ID-11 the original D-76 or the buffered one? : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

After the rousing round of discussion 20 or so questions ago about D-76 gaining activity with age--or not--I'm led to wonder about ID-11. Has Ilford remained true to the original formula, or have they also buffered ID-11? Anyone know?

-- Brian Hinther (, June 19, 2001


Brian, If you check the last decade tech-sheets from Ilford, you might have some sort of an idea of any possible changes on their factoring. I suspect they are investing their time on new chemistry. Have you noticed that? Cheers.

Cesar B.

-- Cesar Barreto (, June 19, 2001.

"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. Teh first contains metol, the second sulfite. This eliminates the need for some of the additives which Kodak includes in their single package & may allow the Ilford formula to perform closer to the original." (Film Developing Cookbook. Steve Anchell/Bill Troop)

-- Dan Smith (, June 20, 2001.

As I recall, Metol is proprietary to Kodak and Phenidone is the Ilford version. Essentially they work the same but I think the phenidone is a cleaner working chemical. It is more expensive to purchase in bulk but you use ALOT less so it really boils down to a cheaper chemical. When D76 is replenished... that is when it gains activity. You will find that the contrast builds so you will end up taking more time off or cutting back on your replenishment. I have used D76 in large tanks for years so I speak from experience. I don't think the ID11 is buffered but it is due to the cleaner workings of the phenidone, to answer your question.

-- Scott Walton (, June 20, 2001.

Quotes from Riichard Knoppow over on USENET:
Both D-76 and ID-11 are metol-hydroquinone developers containing no Phenidone. Check the MSDS for them at Kodak has newer MSDS for its products on its web site: Ilford does make a Phenidone-based developer similar to D-76 under the name Microphen. Microphen is buffered in the same way that packaged D-76 is. The published formula for ID-11 and D-76 are identical. The packaged versions of neither is exactly like the published formulas. The packaged version of D-76 is similar, but not identical to the buffered D-76 published as D-76d. The buffering was done to eliminate a characteristic increase in pH and thus activity of the unbuffered version. The buffered version was announced in a paper published in 1929 so its been around for a while. The packaged version is made of somewhat different forms of the chemicals, e.g. boric anhydride instead of boric acid, which are probably for greater stability of the powedered form and to allow mixing from a single powder formula. ID-11 contains a sequestering agent, probably to make it go into solution more easily and to avoid precipitating calcium in the water its mixed with. I would appear from the MSDS that ID-11 is also buffered although the buffering system is different than D-76. ID-11 also contains cinnamic acid, which is also in some other Ilford developers. I don't know what this does.

-- Tim Brown (, June 20, 2001.

ID11+ contains a sequestering agent which D-76 does not have. The sequestering agent keeps the silver in solution so that it will not replate onto the silver halide grains during development. This makes ID11+ somewhat finer grainer and as it reduces "clumping" of the grains. As was stated previously, both use metol and hydroquinone as the developing agents. The Kodak name for metol is "Elon."

-- steve (, June 21, 2001.

ID-11 uses a different buffering agent than D-76; otherwise, the developers are quite similar. Neither contain Phenedone.

ID-11+ is no longer made. It contained a sequestering agent which was helpful for large tank processing, but proved less desirable for small tank processing. It was discontinued, and ID-11 reverted to the original formula.

BTW, MSDSs are available from the ILFORD web site for all ILFORD chemistry.

David Carper ILFORD Technical Service

-- David Carper (, June 22, 2001.

I just want to thank everyone who took the time to respond to this post. I've learned a lot. I think John Hicks has the right idea in his more recent post... actually TESTING it.

-- Brian Hinther (, June 22, 2001.

> ID-11 uses a different buffering agent

David, has testing shown any rise in activity with age in the packaged version of ID-11?

-- John Hicks (, June 23, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ