Me neither. IMHO, monobaths are a solution looking for a problem. They come with all sorts of shortcomings that you need to have a very serious reason to use one, which is highly unlikely to exist nowadays. And while one could in theory use a monobath successfully, it has to be formulated for each specific film and/or use scenario. I really don't see the point.I will never understand the latest trend of using a monobath...
There's an appeal on a one step process, if it works. Certainly DF96 can work for some films, but in general I think it's less of a hassle to just use something simple like Rodinal and Ilford Rapid fix for more experimental stuff, and leave DF96 for true and tested films.I will never understand the latest trend of using a monobath. Almost every recent "why did this happen" developer problem I've seen has been linked back to Df96
I would be interested in knowing the details of processing, so see why this film fails with this monobath.
Did the developer cause the emulsion to sloug?. Was it a reaction to the fixer? Did some unexpected chemical reaction between the two cause the problem? Was it a temperature related issue? A time-related issue? Was there chemical residue from a previous roll that set off the problem?
It is basically an academic issue to me, but it does suggest the film itself has some issue which may be manifested with more traditional developers also.
I love using the Monobath and have had excellent results with everything apart from Silberra Orta50.
Never used a monobath though always intrigued by it. Did you notice higher base fog with DF96 with the films you tried?
No. But with films like Tmax and Delta you have to double the dev time to clear the pink/purple dyes in the emulsion.
It dissolves the emulsion, leaving you with a totally clear film strip.
Monobaths by their nature (high pH) can cause severe softening of the emulsion and must contain a hardening agent.
@Huss:MSDS of DF96 mentions a pH of 10.85. If you have pH meter or a pH paper, you can check the pH of DF96 working solution and confirm.
Best keep your Orta 50 out of Caffenol, too, then, if that's the cause. Sodium carbonate (the accelerator in all the Caffenol variants I'm familiar with) has a solution pH of 11. The final developer might be lower, because coffee and vitamin C are slightly acidic, but it's likely well above 10.
Interestingly Silberra recommends using D76, XTol & ID-11 for this film.
D-76 and ID-11 are essentially the same developer, and all of these, as I recall, use a less alkaline accelerator (borax or metaborate, as I recall). Dektol uses carbonate, as do most C-41 formulas I've seen.
I wonder if the monobath also has some Thiocyanate (halide solvent) in it which could also be softening the emulsion.
Me neither. IMHO, monobaths are a solution looking for a problem. They come with all sorts of shortcomings that you need to have a very serious reason to use one, which is highly unlikely to exist nowadays. And while one could in theory use a monobath successfully, it has to be formulated for each specific film and/or use scenario. I really don't see the point.
Of course you get an image, but is it as good as the one you could get with a conventional developer? You might not care at all and be more than pleased, but it's not that simple. A monobath is a balancing act. You have two different processes running parallelly, development and fixation. It is obviously mandatory to fix film completely, which means that there is a minimum processing time. But what if this time is too long and you get too high contrast? What if it's too short and you get low contrast? And what if you wanted to push process your film? How about pull processing? That's what I was talking about previously. You can do all these things with a monobath, but it has to be specifically formulated for each film and use case scenario, which excludes a "universal" formula from being adequate. These are the shortcomings, which may, or may not apply to you. If you are happy with a monobath, I will not be the one to judge what you should do, this is up to you. But a marginally shorter processing time and one less bottle of chemicals to store isn't much of a pro as far as I am concerned.I have found zero shortcomings, using many different types of film. Outside Silberra ORTA of course.
It is super quick and easy, and cheap. One chemical for everything for $20 for 16+rolls of film. As well as not having to store anything apart from the one bottle that it came in.
You can push and pull process the film. Just follow the provided instructions.Of course you get an image, but is it as good as the one you could get with a conventional developer? You might not care at all and be more than pleased, but it's not that simple. A monobath is a balancing act. You have two different processes running parallelly, development and fixation. It is obviously mandatory to fix film completely, which means that there is a minimum processing time. But what if this time is too long and you get too high contrast? What if it's too short and you get low contrast? And what if you wanted to push process your film? How about pull processing? That's what I was talking about previously. You can do all these things with a monobath, but it has to be specifically formulated for each film and use case scenario, which excludes a "universal" formula from being adequate. These are the shortcomings, which may, or may not apply to you. If you are happy with a monobath, I will not be the one to judge what you should do, this is up to you. But a marginally shorter processing time and one less bottle of chemicals to store isn't much of a pro as far as I am concerned.
Best regards
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?