a new monobath - hmmmm?

[jvo]

i never used one... i can imagine circumstances where they might be useful. can't imagine you'd use it in "normal" circumstances - am i wrong? whaddya think?


1 liter, 8 min processing, archival, $25 bucks!

Dead Link Removed

 

[saman13]

I never even knew that a monobath was a thing (I guess I never thought too hard about it though, because of course that is what instant film has to use). But that's some pretty cool chemistry. I need to read up on how that works. That counts as studying, right?

I could see how that would be useful if you wanted to develop film while traveling (although I always just wait until I get home to develop). They don't mention anything about processing paper in it. Does anyone know why this wouldn't work?

 

[illumiquest]

Wonder if that would work on paper? Would make the afghan cam a little easier.

 

[PhotoBob]

But is it archival?
Is it up to the standards demanded by curators, galleries and collectors?

 

[NedL]

Wonder if that would work on paper? Would make the afghan cam a little easier.

The exact same thought crossed my mind... or any other situation where it would be nice to develop paper away from the darkroom.

 

[halfaman]

II need to read up on how that works. That counts as studying, right?

It is basically a fast developer mixed with a slow fixer (sodium thiosulfate).

 

[Anon Ymous]

Am I the only one who thinks that monobaths are a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Grant Haist a Kodak, engineer, who was THE authority on monobaths, the wrote the book The Monobath Manual came to the conclusion that they were a waste of time and not worth the added expense. They confer no benefit over conventional processing. Resist the hoopla and stick to conventional processing.

 

[Ces1um]

I've used new55's monobath- it worked quite well, remained chemically stable for a several months after it was first opened. It arrives premixed and ready to use. For someone new to black and white developing it offers fewer steps, less monetary outlay and provides usable results. Less to learn "all at once" so to speak. I think it's great for people who have just gotten into film photography who want to take baby steps into developing their own film. The issue I ran into was since everything was reused over and over, more and more silver built up in the solution so eventually the "grit" started to muddy the negative.

It would also be particularly useful for someone who needs to develop in the field, as was it's original intention. Today, I think it would be great for someone shooting 4x5 on a camping trip with limited number of film holders. A tent, a mod 54 style developing tank, and a monobath would let someone use up their 4 film holders, develop them and reload their film holders for the next day with minimal kit to carry.

 

[Ian Grant]

Wonder if that would work on paper? Would make the afghan cam a little easier.

It's easy to make a monobath for papers and they work perfectly. I did a lot of research and testing of Monobaths in the late 1970s.

Grant Haist a Kodak, engineer, who was THE authority on monobaths, the wrote the book The Monobath Manual came to the conclusion that they were a waste of time and not worth the added expense. They confer no benefit over conventional processing. Resist the hoopla and stick to conventional processing.

Neville Maude wrote an article on Monobaths in a BJP Annual, it contained a lot of references to Monobaths that Haist had never covered he quotes from Haist as well). Russian photo-chemists were at the forefront of Monobath use.

The major issue with Monobaths is they give their best results when balanced for a specific emulsion. The monobath I worked on was for an emulsion we manufactured but I did use it with Ilfospeed initially. It was suggested at the time we market it commercially.

There can be benefits to using a Monobath they aren't time/temperature critical (within a reasonable temperature range) as the process is to completion, archival permanence can be a separate (second) fi bath. We needed.

Ilford sold Monophen a film Monobath for a while, Tetnal and others offered Monobaths as well, they were often used by Photojournalists who would have their images wired to their publication. David Goldfarb (of this website) has successfully used a Monobath for processing sheet film, Crawley's FX6a is a good start.

Ian

 

[rpavich]

Am I the only one who thinks that monobaths are a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist?

I do. When I first started developing film I thought that it would be a good thing but after realizing the drawbacks of using it, vs realizing that it's not a big deal to dump and fill a tank once or twice...I just said...meh....

 

[locutus]

Today, I think it would be great for someone shooting 4x5 on a camping trip with limited number of film holders. A tent, a mod 54 style developing tank, and a monobath would let someone use up their 4 film holders, develop them and reload their film holders for the next day with minimal kit to carry.

As someone who travels with 5x4...

That sounds like a terrible idea, this would mean i need to carry solution, development tank, and have the risks of spillages etc.

A empty film box marked in fat letters 'EXPOSED' and just taking it home to develop is in every way better, smaller, less weight, less risks, easy.

 

[nimajneb]

It is basically a fast developer mixed with a slow fixer (sodium thiosulfate).

Oh, so it's kind of like a race? The developer needs to develop just fast enough to develop before the fixer clears the film, but the fixer needs to finish before the developer over develops.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ian observes that monobaths work well when modified for particular films. Haist devised thee MM-1 formula for his book. Development is controlled by adjusting the pH. This works rather well. However if you calculate its cost versus conventional process you can see why Haist made his comment.

 

[Ian Grant]

There's other variables as well Gerald.

I don't disagree with Haist's comments but when yo mix the Monobath from raw chemistry you have control,of the cost compared to off the shelf chemistry. After devising a viable Monobath which was 100% reliable it was cost that killed our application, but for tray processing prints it was economic. We were spray processing.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's the old thread that I was active in during my monobath experiments that Ian mentions above:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/monobath-developers.10935/

I did it for a few reasons, one being that I was living in an apartment without much space to set up trays or tanks or store chemicals, and also I was looking to see if I could get the local contrast and edge effects characteristic of the Polaroid Type 55 look from a slow or medium speed film processed in a monobath. For those purposes, it was good.

The main downsides of monobath processing are--short life of the solution after the first use without expensive and exotic sequestering agents and the need for a lot of developing agent to balance the fixer, and also inability to change development time without mixing a new batch of the formula. These also tend to be strongly alkaline solutions, meaning extra precautions to avoid skin or eye contact, plus having to work with sodium hydroxide which has become increasingly more difficult to obtain in many places.

I wouldn't recommend it for processing while traveling, due to the short life and the hazards of dealing with a chemical that's like drain cleaner in an unfamiliar location in the dark, and I definitely don't want that stuff in my backpack, if I'm camping. I've done a cross country road trip with 4x5" TXP and Efke PL100, a bottle of Acufine and a bottle of TF-4 and a Nikor daylight sheet film tank. That kept the processing kit compact and simple, and I could pour the solutions back into the bottles after use. Any reusable developer and fixer will do, or you could go one-shot with a little more mixing (and measuring vessels and stock bottles to carry). I processed in motel bathrooms at night.

 

[bsdunek]

So, has anyone actually tried the FPP Monobath? I decided to try a bottle, as I remember when monobaths were popular in the 60's and my Dad tried some. I agree that it's not that hard to dump and refill the tank a couple of times, and you have more control. Still, I'm going to try it. Should be here by the end of the week, and I've got two rolls of Delta 100 exposed in a Minox to try. I'll let you know.

 

[P.johnson14]

I'm planning to try it this summer just for the hell of it. Something different.

 

[bsdunek]

So, has anyone actually tried the FPP Monobath? I decided to try a bottle, as I remember when monobaths were popular in the 60's and my Dad tried some. I agree that it's not that hard to dump and refill the tank a couple of times, and you have more control. Still, I'm going to try it. Should be here by the end of the week, and I've got two rolls of Delta 100 exposed in a Minox to try. I'll let you know.

Well, it didn't work out very well. Everything is very u underdevoped. Try it on some thing you don't care about first.

 

[Agulliver]

I cannot personally see myself using a monobath but I can see why they might come in useful. For anyone new and a bit apprehensive about mixing chemicals (even powder developer) and who wants to minimise steps before learning how to use the more traditional dev/stop/fix method. Also potentially for people who live in small flats and even studios who might not have space to store separate chemicals, might even to share a bathroom in something like student accommodation.

Also I have heard of people on their travels developing film in budget hotel rooms. The Travelodge chain (in the UK at least) often has bathrooms with no window and if one puts a towel at the bottom of the door they are said to make a good dark room. If someone wants to develop film on the go, a monobath could come in handy. Though personally I wait until I get home I can see the attraction.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I don't know about you, but when I'm on a photo road trip after shooting and humping my gear all over the place, the last thing I want to do is develop film in a hotel room. I'd rather have my feet up in front of the telly with a cold pop.... save the development when I get home.

 

[Agulliver]

I don't know about you, but when I'm on a photo road trip after shooting and humping my gear all over the place, the last thing I want to do is develop film in a hotel room. I'd rather have my feet up in front of the telly with a cold pop.... save the development when I get home.

I'm the same, but I know of people who do develop in Travelodge bathrooms. Perhaps their spousal units are less forgiving of them spending a whole day developing film when they get home than mins is...

 

[saman13]

If my master plan works out and I get into medical school this year, I'll be starting next fall. I plan to take a month or so off before classes start and take a road trip out west. I'll probably be shooting film for this month and I'm not sure if I'll want to wait to develop it all (not to mention it will be summer and developed film is tolerant to the heat while undeveloped film isn't). If I end up developing on this trip, I'd probably give the monobath a try just to cut down on the chemicals needed and transfer of liquids during the developing process. So, I can see how it's appealing to some.

 

[BAC1967]

I'm the same, but I know of people who do develop in Travelodge bathrooms. Perhaps their spousal units are less forgiving of them spending a whole day developing film when they get home than mins is...

I spend a lot of time on the road so I'm always developing film in hotel rooms, I even do contact prints in hotels rooms on a rare occasion. It's not that hard to do, I have a kit with everything I need for developing and scanning that fits in a medium size cooler. I develop in Caffenol or Beerol most of the time so that adds to the amount of stuff I have to bring like Sodium Carbonate and Ascorbic Acid, I can get salt beer and coffee anywhere. The monobath wouldn't make the kit much smaller than what I can do if I just used a developer like a small bottle of R09 since it's about the same size as the bottle of fix that I bring but it would make the process simpler.

The photo is my setup for doing contact prints, no window in the bathroom so it was easy to make it dark. That's a lot more stuff to take on the road so I don't do it very often. I took the lamp off the hotel desk and added the darkroom bulb. I could make this setup smaller if I didn't use the printer and just used a sheet of glass.

 

[Ces1um]

Well, it didn't work out very well. Everything is very u underdevoped. Try it on some thing you don't care about first.

I've had decent results from new55's monobath, now rebranded as ff no.1 or something like that. Might be worth a try. I do find the monobath tends to produce a higher contrast photo.