Jump to content

Monobath Developer Release


Stealth3kpl

Recommended Posts

First, the video didn't run properly on my computer - I only got the first 90 seconds before it stopped dead. Secondly, the idea seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Yes, that and the fact that it is all sold-out. Vapor chemistry?

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

.......the idea seems like a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Pun intended?

 

Anyway, it has been a "solution" for some problems for decades. As the video mentioned, all Polaroid films used monobath technology right back to 1948. And there were ads in Pop. and Modern Photo magazines for monobath solutions to use on regular films as well, throughout the 50's and 60's. Hobbyists love to fiddle with this kind of thing - and it does (or did) have some useful features.

 

The technology mostly came out of WW2, where very limited space or other resources in the field (sometimes a battlefield) led to lots of experimentation with simplified film processes.

 

Advantages? Speed (6 minutes for everything except wash and dry). Simplicity (One bottle and chemical to carry around, store, keep track of). Timing (as with Polaroid developing, basically a process-to-completion. Give it at least the minimum time, and after that, all the silver is either developed or fixed. You can't overprocess by mistake - at least in anything short of a half-hour).

 

So imagine you are a Robert Frank/Danny Lyons wannabe in the mid-century, roaming the country and processing film in motel rooms. Or a one-room apt. in the Bronx. Or out of the trunk of your car (a la Weegee). https://greatsnaps.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/weegee.jpg

 

It's not for "develop to exactly N-1.547" zone-system perfectionists - but not everyone needs to be a perfectionist. https://www.flickr.com/groups/monobath/

 

On the other hand, monobath research could get you your advanced degree from RIT, c. 1967: http://scholarworks.rit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6198&context=theses

Edited by adan
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An article here about monobath developers from the 'Online Darkroom'

 

http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2015/05/monobath-magic.html

 

Personally I think this re-discovery is aimed at the cool kids who want to be hip and use film, but don't really have enough spare time or concentration available to them to process a film properly. It will be a big hit because everybody gets an extra 5 minutes to Tweet that Rodinal is dead. 

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been using the homebrew version of this for a few months. It works great for sheet film, but I get surge marks on faster 35mm films. Even pouring in the solution and letting it stand for six minutes makes surge marks! My answer is to use a Rondinax with continuous rotation. I get lovely results from Acros 100 and Plus-X, and will put some Tri-X through it this weekend. Some monobath shots are here.

 

And here's a (digital) shot of two films hanging to dry, with drag marks from a conventional tank and on the left from the Rondinax:

 

17641304418_6fd2477df9_c.jpg

 

Chris

Edited by chrism
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just developed a roll of 35mm Tri-X in the Rondinax, and it looks to be free from stripes. Because the reel sits on its edge in this tank, with the bottom half in the solution and is rotated to bathe all the film, any marks that do form from drag at the sprocket holes should be along the unused edge of the film, but I don't see any there. I did pour in quite slowly whilst rotating the knob, then slowed the rotations to a 1/4 turn every ten seconds or so to minimise turbulence.

It might be possible to do it in a Paterson tank, using the twiddle stick to turn the reel as the solution is poured in, and then just letting it stand for six minutes. I might try this out, but it's nice to have the convenience of a daylight loading tank. Now I have figured out how to reliably load the Jobo 2400 daylight loading tank I'll have to see if I can twist the reel as I pour in. That will be fiddly and might require three hands!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those are the most impressive surge marks I have ever seen.

I've been coming back looking at this over the last few days and I think these might not be tide marks at all. Surge marks tend to make delta-shaped patterns around the sprocket hole, these are parallel and stretch across most of the negative. Also the left (bottom) of the negs seem to be fogged. It wouldn't surprise me if this is all fogging related.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had to stop the video after four minutes because of the commentator's deluge of verbal diarrhoea! :(

 

Monobath seems to have a fun-factor slightly lower than stand developing.  (There's an idea for his next video).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been coming back looking at this over the last few days and I think these might not be tide marks at all. Surge marks tend to make delta-shaped patterns around the sprocket hole, these are parallel and stretch across most of the negative. Also the left (bottom) of the negs seem to be fogged. It wouldn't surprise me if this is all fogging related.

 

Yet I can reproduce them, reliably, with development in a standard tank, and don't get them in the Rondinax. The film above was just allowed to stand for six minutes in a Jobo 2400. In a Paterson tank with inversions, they extend from the holes on both sides of the film. The ones shown above were also on the side of the film at the bottom of the tank - if due to a light leak they ought to be on the upper side nearest the source of light. The tanks work fine with other development methods, and the cameras involve work fine with no light leaks. Add to that the other folks getting striped negatives on the Flickr group for Monobaths and I think you'll agree it is related to the chemistry, and not to a light leak. This weekend I'll use my new hydrometer to check the strength of the ammonia. This is not a method with any advantages other than speed and convenience, so I'm not promoting it as a holy grail method of development, but I am enjoying the challenge of experimenting with something different!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My ammonia was much stronger than 5% (SG 0.89 and pH 13 - should be 0.979 and pH12.2) so I diluted it half and half before making up a litre of monobath. But I still got stripes from the lower edge of the film when allowed to stand. The good news is that I refined the process with the Rondinax, and followed the Agfa instructions of filling the tank with developer before winding the film onto the reel which is already in the solution, thus immersing it lengthways rather than sideways. You'd have to be familiar with the Rondinax, perhaps, to understand that. Slow and gentle rotation produced this:

 

18126052590_44e09d4c2b_c.jpg

 

I have used that litre for four films over the weekend, filtering the used solution to remove silver crud when returning it to the bottle (this can deposit on the next film and makes dust-like specks). I'm getting some yellowish discoloration along the film, which shows in some frames when scanned. The commercial 900ml bottle of New55 mixture is said to be good for about ten films, but I'm wondering if I might be better off keeping this method as single shot use. If I do another litre batch I will dilute the ammonia a bit more - I have a pH of 10 in the final mixture and it should be 9.5 - but I'm using indicator paper rather than a pH meter, so it's hard to be precise. I don't trust my uncalibrated hydrometer to accurately measure an SG of 0.979. Currently it doesn't show 1.000 on pure water (but that was tap water and not distilled). I do get the impression that Bob Crowley of New55 is right when he says over-strength ammonia makes marks, but I don't think that an accurate 5% solution will be the whole answer when it comes to films with sprocket holes. If nothing else, I'm getting a good appreciation for how nicely Acros 100 comes out with HC-110!

 

Chris

Edited by chrism
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a Rondinax, but I've noticed an immense improvement in quality (and a welcome lack of surge marks) by very slowly rolling my Patterson tank sideways (not agitating at all with the spinning rod) while developing. I wouldn't have thought of that if not for this post, so thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried a presoak this weekend on a test film to see if having the emulsion waterlogged before pouring in the monobath would slow the ingress of developer into the emulsion, making for fewer surge marks. They were fainter, but still there. It's frustrating to be able to get such results with a tank that belongs in the 1950's but not with modern tanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...