ID-68 (Microphen) similar results to T-Max developer

[Tom Kershaw]

I recently made up some ID-68 developer for a couple of experiments and on processing the first roll I was struck by how similar the negatives looked (Kodak TMY-2) to film processed in Kodak T-Max developer, that is, with plenty of shadow detail and a slight tendency to "punchy" highlights, as compared to the more controlled look of my usual XTOL. I can see the advantage of ID-68 in low contrast situations, HP5 Plus in the winter shot at 800 EI...

Tom

 

[Paul Howell]

I thought T max developer and Ilford DDX were in the same camp, vague recollection that ID 68 in the same ball park as DK50, likely a confabulated memory.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

DD-X has been referred to as functioning as 'liquid Microphen', however the chemistry is different.

 

[pentaxuser]

DD-X has been referred to as functioning as 'liquid Microphen', however the chemistry is different.

I had feared that Microphen produced faster but grainier films than DDX but the above gives me hope that it may not or the difference may be marginal in say 5x7 prints.

pentaxuser

 

[Tom Kershaw]

I had feared that Microphen produced faster but grainier films than DDX but the above gives me hope that it may not or the difference may be marginal in say 5x7 prints.

pentaxuser

I don't know in terms of results across all types of film. I haven't used DD-X for years, not due to any antipathy towards it but simply because I've been using XTOL since around 2010/11 as my mainstay after having some reliability issues with Pyrocat-HD.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Shortly after T-Max developer was introduced, my local photo shop, considering adding it to their shelves, asked me to do a comparison of it to a known developer. I had used
id-68 for some years at that time, so it was the comparison. The resulting prints, 16x enlargements, were very similar, however the T-max appeared to be less sharp with a bit more mushy grain. The store decided not to stock T-Max developer at that time. This test got me looking at my own ID-68 based prints and left me dissatisfied. After extensive testing of more unusual options, I moved on to my own ascorbate modified FX-37 with very satisfactory results.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Shortly after T-Max developer was introduced, my local photo shop, considering adding it to their shelves, asked me to do a comparison of it to a known developer. I had used
id-68 for some years at that time, so it was the comparison. The resulting prints, 16x enlargements, were very similar, however the T-max appeared to be less sharp with a bit more mushy grain. The store decided not to stock T-Max developer at that time. This test got me looking at my own ID-68 based prints and left me dissatisfied. After extensive testing of more unusual options, I moved on to my own ascorbate modified FX-37 with very satisfactory results.

I have an older bottle of FX-39 (just before ADOX took over from Paterson) unopened and could make up FX-37. Perhaps I should experiment sometime.

 

[john_s]

....... After extensive testing of more unusual options, I moved on to my own ascorbate modified FX-37 with very satisfactory results.

I've been thinking of comparing FX-37 with ID-68. I'd be interested in more information about your ascorbate version of FX-37. I'm sure it would be of interest to other readers too.

 

[Rudeofus]

DD-X has been referred to as functioning as 'liquid Microphen', however the chemistry is different.

The chemistry is not nearly as different as you think: both are PQ type developers with Metaborate/Borax buffering system to set pH. They may be some differences in exact composition and final pH, but technically these two are very similar, and they are both aimed at the same user base looking for a decent speed improving B&W developer. TMAX developer is somewhat different, it uses Diethanolamine as base instead of Metaborate/Borax, but that still doesn't say it's a completely different developer. All three are speed boosting PQ developers with the usual claims of fine grain and good sharpness.

 

[Randy Stewart]

I've been thinking of comparing FX-37 with ID-68. I'd be interested in more information about your ascorbate version of FX-37. I'm sure it would be of interest to other readers too.

My modification of FX-37 with sodium ascorbate is the addition of 4 grams per liter to the working solution. FX-37 generally calls for a 1:3 dilution to working solution with developing times in the range of 8+ minutes. When I tried that dilution with ascorbate added, the developing time for HP-5+ became so fast as to be unworkable. After testing greater dilutions and developing times, I ended up with a 1:9 dilution (3x more dilute than normal) with times in the range of 6 minutes. Ascorbate in this usage seems to present a huge superadditive effect. Grain is small and tight; tonality appears smooth. I have tested development times and results for FP-4+ and HP-5+ because those are the films I shoot. I have not tested with T-grain films. but based on positive reports of FX-37 with T-grain films, I would expect good results. I give full attribution for this idea to Pat Gainer, based on an article he published years ago in Photo Techniques wherein he tested a number of additives to a conventional developer to study their relative impacts.

 

[john_s]

I've been thinking of comparing FX-37 with ID-68. I'd be interested in more information about your ascorbate version of FX-37. I'm sure it would be of interest to other readers too.

My modification of FX-37 with sodium ascorbate is the addition of 4 grams per liter to the working solution. FX-37 generally calls for a 1:3 dilution to working solution with developing times in the range of 8+ minutes. When I tried that dilution with ascorbate added, the developing time for HP-5+ became so fast as to be unworkable. After testing greater dilutions and developing times, I ended up with a 1:9 dilution (3x more dilute than normal) with times in the range of 6 minutes. Ascorbate in this usage seems to present a huge superadditive effect. Grain is small and tight; tonality appears smooth. I have tested development times and results for FP-4+ and HP-5+ because those are the films I shoot. I have not tested with T-grain films. but based on positive reports of FX-37 with T-grain films, I would expect good results. I give full attribution for this idea to Pat Gainer, based on an article he published years ago in Photo Techniques wherein he tested a number of additives to a conventional developer to study their relative impacts.

Thanks, that's very interesting. So you would add 4g to a litre of the diluted working solution even if diluted to 1:9?

 

[markbau]

The darkroom cookbook lists ID 68 as a warm tone paper developer similar to Neutol, did Ilford use ID 68 to describe two different developers, a film developer and a paper developer?

 

[Anon Ymous]

ID78 is a warmtone print developer, ID68 is a film developer.

 

[Murray Kelly]

Tom, if you get interrested in FX-37 you should consider DK-50 as well.
Accepting a ratio of 10 metol to 1 Phenidone the two are so alike as to be twins. Troop and Crawley both prefer metol to phenidone.