Ilford Microphen is a fine grain film developer which gives an effective increase in film speed whilst retaining much of the grain characteristics associated with. And to make it even sweeter the Kodak equivalent, DK, is a developer I had never even heard of until now! According to the Ilford Product. Ilford powder developer for film processing makes great use of the film speed. This makes it ideal for high-speed films and their accelerated devel.

Author: Doutilar Yoshakar
Country: Uzbekistan
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Business
Published (Last): 28 January 2016
Pages: 248
PDF File Size: 16.56 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.32 Mb
ISBN: 920-8-29093-929-2
Downloads: 98643
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kajigar

Film, Paper, Chemistry ‘ started by hoffyJun mocrophen, Jun 23, 1. OK, my first bottle of developer is just about done.

Results have been OK, but I want something finer grained. I have been looking at Ilfords powder developers as a cost effective way of achieving this. Considering that ID and Microphen cost the mirophen to produce the same amount of stock solution, is there any reason to choose ID over microphen? I know, I should probably just stop talking and choose one, but I would like some opinions before I do. Jun 23, 2. ID D76 is the accepted standard against which all developers are compared. My suggestion would be to use a jug of it microphsn deciding on whether to use Microphen.

Jun 23, 3. Having used both extensively I’d suggest ID unless you’re doing a lot of push processing, it gives better tonality and finer grain. Jun 23, 4. Also consider what speed you will be shooting your film at develoler have a look at all the data available on the Ilford website. In general, you can’t go wrong with either product. A litre kit for either is only a few Euros I hope it doesn’t triple going over the equatorthen you can decide which you prefer, for whatever it ilgord you do.

Jun 23, 5. For general use, my vote, too, goes to ID comparable to D You really can’t go wrong with it; good tonality and fine grain. Microphen, when you’re pushing. Jun 23, 6. Consider Perceptol, too, if you are after finer grain. I like the suggestion of the others to use ID – the bog standard benchmark developer.

Always a good idea to have some ID negs in your collection to microphej against, I think – but then try perceptol to see the improvement in grain. The developers do behave quite differently at different dilutions. Jun 23, 7.

Microphen as everyday developer

Remember that developers that give microophen grain tend to give lower sharpness. If the image is sharp, the grain is sharp. The two go together.

Microphen will give you higher microphrn and larger grain than ID will. Perceptol will give you less. Using these developers undiluted will give you less grain and sharpness, too. Jun 23, 8. OK, thanks for the replies all.

Exactly the info that I am after. I think I will go for the ID first. Jun 24, 9. OK, I have my ID ready to go. I will mix it up tomorrow night via the instructions. To stop another new thread from me, I do have a quick question in relation to fixer. I was gifted from another member here thanks Ninette, I cannot remember your online name!


I was having a look at it last night and noticed that there is a layer of sediment in the bottom of the container. Or should I leave it? Jun 24, If it clears film -yes Ian. At least I have plenty of fixer now but I will use up my piddly little 1 litre bottle first!

Deveoper Microdol X is reckoned to be similar in action, a basic developer, main ingredients only metol and sodium sulphite, which is buffered it to a lower pH, possibly with sodium bisulphite. So it’s almost at the point where it’s barely operating at all, which reduces grain clumping, helped by the silver solvency of the sulphite. The downside is the speed penalty. There’s probably lots of archive stuff on this site about it.

Quite right, any idea how the sodium chloride operates here? At any rate, they seem to be rather neglected developers, BUT when Perceptol was becoming unavailable 4.

There are a lot of closet Perceptol users out there. Then Ilford dropped the micgophen litre size, so that was the end of that. But it’s a developer well worth considering even in the 1 litre packing, the potential speed loss puts so many people off from having a look at it.

Microphen as everyday developer | Photography Forums

Ammonium Chloride is still used in a few commercial developers. Metol- or Phenidone-hydroquinone carbonate developers, is sufficiently fine for contact prints and moderate enlargements, but when very big enlargements are made from small negatives graininess becomes increasingly apparent. Special developers have been formulated to produce images of reduced graininess. Many of these developers restrict grain size by dissolving some of the silver forming the image. Ilforc this causes a reduction in density a longer exposure is needed to achieve a satisfactory density for printing.

A speed increase of at least 50 per cent is possible with most materials and it has the advantages common to Phenidone based developers in that it has a long working life and it is unlikely to cause staining on fingers or miceophen. Most other fine grain developers may be described in one of four categories as follows: Metol- or Phenidone-hydroquinone borax developers, para-phenylene diamine developers, developers containing silver halide solvents, physical developersMetol- or Phenidone-hydroquinone borax developers These are characterised by low alkalinity and a high concentration of sodium sulphite.

The formula of ID is: Water to make 1, cc. Boric acid 2 g. Deeveloper bromide 1 g. These formulae are for working strength solutions which are used without further dilution. One advantage of this type of formula is that no increase in exposure is necessary; another is that development times are not inconveniently long.


The scope of such developers is not limited to small negatives, they are equally suitable as general negative developers. Para-phenylene diamine developers Developers in this group contain para-phenylene diamine and sodium sulphite with varying concentrations of glycin.

This loss of film speed may limit their usefulness. The developers in this group which achieve the greatest reduction in grain size are those which require the greatest increase in exposure. The maximum contrast obtainable with these developers is rather low and development times tend to be long.

They also have the disadvantage that they are toxic and stain fingers and equipment. Developers containing silver halide solvents Certain develooer grain formulae contain silver halide solvents such as hypo and thiocyanate. These depend for their action on the fact that some of the silver dissolved during development is redeposited in a very fine form to reinforce the final image.

Ilford ID Developer is of this class. Such developers give considerable reduction in grain size but require 50 to per cent extra exposure. ID Add ammonium chloride to ID in the proportion of 20 g. Camera exposures should be increased by about 50 per cent and the development times are double those specified for ID Physical developers These developers contain silver in solution and ilflrd developed image consists of very finely divided silver deposited by the action of the developer on the latent image instead of being derived from the silver halides in the emulsion.

They give extremely fine grained images which are to some extent independent of the nature of the negative emulsion used. Such developers have, however, found only limited application. Their activity and the fog level they produce fluctuates greatly according to the concentrations of the constituent chemicals, consequently great care is needed in making up the formulae.

A high standard of cleanliness is required to avoid contamination of the developer and regular checks on activity are necessary. Jun 25, Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, I’m too scared to ilforc a new topic after what happened last time, so I’ll bring back the dead thread instead But let’s change the conditions a little.

I have never developed anything on my own so I have no experience whatsoever. Microphen and ID are the only available options in my country so I have to choose from them.

Which one is more forgiving? I think most of you will say ID, but still it’s good to double-check.

Exploring Ilford – Part 4 – Microphen – Alex Luyckx | Blog

So thanks in advance. ID is the better choice. You must log in or sign up to reply here. Your name or email address: Do you already have an account?