D76 Type Developers Part 3: Ilford's Amazing ID68!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- Today we take a look at how Ilford, in the 1940s, raised the bar with D76 type developers and with most developers we use now across the world. We look at making their ID68 and check out if its as good as D76.
John
www.pictorialplanet.com
While I don't mix my own developers, I find this mini-series fascinating. It's such an interesting lesson in history and the development (sic!) of developers. Thank you for creating it, John.
Thank you TTL! It's always good to know that I'm hitting the mark with viewers. There's a lot of interesting history that's still very relevant today to home developing photographers. In fact there's some really good formulas that were forgotten when the digital camera revolution came. I hope you might try one or two in the future.
@@PictorialPlanet I've been developing my own films for just about 4 years or so, so I'm nearing the end of the phase of exploring available developers and figuring out what I like in combination with what film. Watching your videos I feel more and more compelled to try my hand at mixing my own and I'm sure one day I will. And it will sooner rather than later. :)
best youtube channel about analog photography, peroid. So much better than all the analog hipsters who do not have any knowledge about developing and all! keep up the great work!
Thank you Max!
Agreed
Love your channel on the darkroom and chemicals.
Thank you Nicholas
Really enjoying this series. I still like the stock standard d76 best so far, tonality is a little more pleasing somehow. Of course I would need to compare numerous images to really pick a favourite. Thanks for doing the series!
Glad you're enjoying it Dav!
I agree with Davy. I've watched three of the videos in the D-76 series, and thus far, I prefer the look and feel of the D-76 image. I am also beginning to favor Ilford HP5+ over Kodak Tri-X. HP5+ seems to have lower contrast than Tri-X. HP5+ also has good exposure latitude and highlight rendition when compared to Tri-X. Put another way, Tri-X portrays a bit more photojournalistic grit while HP5+ has a little more artistic finesse.
While I'm a pyro type user I'm really enjoying the comparisons of this dev type. Really looking forward to next in series! Hope you do some more comparisons with pyro developers. Keep up the great work John and I love your books! Best books about film developers I've found.
-Randy
Thanks Randy! I will be doing more work with Pyro developers in the future for sure.
Excellent videos, thank you. I'll stick with D76.
Yes, it's the best of this collection. There is one D76 type developer that I use because it is noticeably better and that's FX15. See my getting the best from PanF series for that developer. It's superb. If you want an eco developer that easily outperforms D76 use FX55.
Great review. Looking forward to next week and also perhaps a test for Ilford ID-11 with HP5. Regards.
Glad you liked it Bernard. Ilford's ID-11 is exactly the same as D76. It's their name for the same developer so everything I say about the D76 photograph counts for ID11 too.
@PictorialPlanet That's good to know if I choose to use a D-76-style developer. Kodak has sold off its chemical business to a company in China, so I've read. Such a development leaves me wondering about the quality control of Kodak chemicals.
My lord, you tell the TRUTH about film and grain and tonality! I'm an ole fart (nearly 70) and burned silver all my professional life, mostly in 120 format, but tons of 4x5, too. The film babies of today don't understand matching film/developer/development time/enlarging paper/darkroom techniques as Master Professional Photographers like I worked for demanded. Making an award-winning enlargement from someone else's image is much harder than from your own.
That’s why probably most teachers I’ve spoken to, like Philip Perkis, say it’s much better to be an artist and amateur than a pro working for someone else 😂
Great video John, can you develop say Ilford Fp4 using the same method in this video
Thanks for you kind words Martin! Yes, absolutely, use the times for Microphen.
I’d love to know what your opinion is on the MQ Borax compared to the ID68. I also wonder what would happen if these tests were applied to some other films. It’s all a bit of a Pandora’s Box when it comes to this, isn’t it. Thanks so much for taking the time to share these results and analyses with us!
Agreed! The two have similarities but I think one has a perceivable edge. I will do more tests in future videos. Of course, people must make their own minds up about which they feel is better but I want to help them decide at least which developers to invest time in. Of the two tested in this video Ilford's ID68 is impressive with finer grain and as sharp. I'm enlarging the 35mm HP5 negatives 10 times which is telling of the film-developer match and where, in my experience, the smooth tonality can start to break down. D76 held up well, MQB was sharper at edges with sharper grain but not necessarily better tonality however, ID68 is a very well formulated developer and is more carefully balanced with many years of careful improvement (from earlier Ilford PQ formulas). Yes, I'm excited to show what it can do in the future.
Thank you )))
You're welcome Gary!
I do sensitometry testing to efficiently get personal film speed and tune development time. I used one batch of Microphen as stock a couple of years ago and liked results but moved to using DDX. I wasn’t “testing” at that stage. With DDX 1+4 I get a good iso 500 with HP5. My first film with ID68 stock I got iso 160 with HP5 and I’m wondering if I’ve done something wrong. I use a low reading digital scales and Phenidone by syringe as you describe. With the same Phenidone solution my mix of FX55 gets me a good iso 320. I usually put a bulk rolled 24 frame film and a sensitometry strip (about 5 frame length) on the same spiral to go in a tank when I’m testing like this. I shot the 24 frames of HP5 at 200 which I developed at the same time and they look good!
Sensitometry is very accurate in one sense but inaccurate in another. The problem is it doesn't take into account the paper you use to print or the developer you use for your darkroom paper (they give different paper iso's). This is why I always do visual testing as ultimately what you see is what you get.
John, what's a good online source for ordering photo chemicals in bulk? (In Europe). Cheers! 😀
A good source is Fototechnik Suvatlar email: fotosuvatlar@live.de
Any videos on making fg-7?
No, sorry
Have any P+M+Q developer ?😂
Check out FX15 in my Getting the Best from PanF series!
When I was in middle school, I tried to add extra fenidone to D76, and I tried dissolving it in alcohol.The information that can be found on Web seems to be similar to FX4@@PictorialPlanet