Cinestill DF96 monobath

[Donald Qualls]

For the Kentmere 400 to be dark even on the sprocket holes/film rebate, the entire film strip has been exposed to light.
For the Foma 100 - Was the film leader completely black? If so then it looks underexposed in camera.

I agree in both cases. That Kentmere has light fogging, either during loading, in the tank, or before it went into the camera (damaged cassette), or possibly due to a bad light seal on the takeup side of the camera. Bulk load or commercial cassette? If bulk, could have happened during loading or when putting the bulk roll into the loader, too.

The edge markings on the Fomapan look nice and dark, and contrast (shadows to sky) looks normal, so probably underexposed. Meter left at EI 400 perhaps?

 

[Huss]

Actually all are taken on the same day, using the same camera, same lens, processed with the same darkroom tools on the same day .

The reason why my K-100 looks better because after seeing the results of K-400 and Fomapan 100 I had decided to change the chemicals. The Fomapan 100 also have a black leader, although I cut it while filling.

The Kentmere 400 got fogged somehow before it was developed. For the reasons Don offered. And the Fomapan was underexposed - clue the leader was black - and most probably again for the reason Don mentioned.

 

[kl122002]

I agree in both cases. That Kentmere has light fogging, either during loading, in the tank, or before it went into the camera (damaged cassette), or possibly due to a bad light seal on the takeup side of the camera. Bulk load or commercial cassette? If bulk, could have happened during loading or when putting the bulk roll into the loader, too.

The edge markings on the Fomapan look nice and dark, and contrast (shadows to sky) looks normal, so probably underexposed. Meter left at EI 400 perhaps?

The Kentmere 400 got fogged somehow before it was developed. For the reasons Don offered. And the Fomapan was underexposed - clue the leader was black - and most probably again for the reason Don mentioned.

I am very confident with my metering , not just camera, since I also carried a Gossen light meter with me. Fomapan 100 and K-100 go with ISO 100 and K-400 with ISO 400 in the setting

Unless I am so unlucky than I have a poor quality bag of DF96, otherwise , those reasons you have suggested seems less likely : light seals have been replaced , meter is correct, changing bay just brought in last year, and the film was pre-loaded 36-exp by manufacturer.

Here is the pic before I cut and filing the fomapan , the whole roll of film was like this way. It looks grey to me when compare to K-100 :




I should have a pic of K-400 but I cut it . Need some time to check my phone

 

[Huss]

Let's forget about the Kentmere 400, as that was obviously light fogged, no matter how it happened. For the film to be black all across onto the sprocket holes has nothing to do with the developer - it has been light damaged.

The fomopan 100 WILL look different to K100 as it is not the same film! If the leader was black - as you say - then there is nothing wrong with the DF96. The film was perhaps underexposed. You just need to determine how that happened by thinking your processes through methodically.
To suggest that my reasons for the issues you are seeing are unlikely to have caused your issues - well it's pretty simple. There are three places where things could have gone wrong:

1. The DF96 is defective. You have ruled this out because you said the film leader was black. If that is the case, the DF96 is fine.

Which leaves:

2. Incorrect metering - the film is underexposed.
3. Camera is defective resulting in underexposure.

There is one other option - as I have mentioned Fomapan 100 is NOT K100 so it will look different. Try printing/scanning some of those images and see what you get.

 

[MattKing]

FWIW, the Kentmere 100 in Ilfosol 3 negatives look to me to be substantially over-developed - I would be leery about using them as a standard for comparison.
The Fomapan 100 negatives in DF96 do look under-exposed and, possibly, slightly under-developed.
Perhaps Fomapan 100 doesn't achieve anything close to an ISO of 100 in DF96?

 

[Huss]

..
Perhaps Fomapan 100 doesn't achieve anything close to an ISO of 100 in DF96?

I have had no issues with Arista 100 (which is relabelled Fomapan 100) in DF96. Sometimes the answer is the most obvious one..

 

[MattKing]

I have had no issues with Arista 100 (which is relabelled Fomapan 100) in DF96. Sometimes the answer is the most obvious one..

Can you show us how your negatives look, Huss? For the purpose of comparison.

 

[Huss]

Can you show us how your negatives look, Huss? For the purpose of comparison.

I will, but remind me in a few days as I'll have to dig them out of storage! Right now I'm 'working'.

 

[Huss]

That vicious side eye should have warned me of my impending doom.

 

[kl122002]

Let's forget about the Kentmere 400, as that was obviously light fogged, no matter how it happened. For the film to be black all across onto the sprocket holes has nothing to do with the developer - it has been light damaged.

The fomopan 100 WILL look different to K100 as it is not the same film! If the leader was black - as you say - then there is nothing wrong with the DF96. The film was perhaps underexposed. You just need to determine how that happened by thinking your processes through methodically.
To suggest that my reasons for the issues you are seeing are unlikely to have caused your issues - well it's pretty simple. There are three places where things could have gone wrong:

1. The DF96 is defective. You have ruled this out because you said the film leader was black. If that is the case, the DF96 is fine.

Which leaves:

2. Incorrect metering - the film is underexposed.
3. Camera is defective resulting in underexposure.

There is one other option - as I have mentioned Fomapan 100 is NOT K100 so it will look different. Try printing/scanning some of those images and see what you get.

Maybe later when D76 or ID11 back in stock I would give it a try again to see how Fomapan and K-400 should looks like. So far I don't know why D76 /ID-11 is still not back in stock in my place, and that's why I give a try to DF-96.

 

[Huss]

Maybe later when D76 or ID11 back in stock I would give it a try again to see how Fomapan and K-400 should looks like. So far I don't know why D76 /ID-11 is still not back in stock in my place, and that's why I give a try to DF-96.

Try and scan/print some of those Foma images. You may actually have good stuff there.

I took the liberty of screen grabbing one of your Foma images and converted it. Now remember, this is about as bad as it could get because I just captured your pic of your negs, then cropped so there is only one, then converted it! A real scan from one image will look so much better it's not even funny. And still it made this:



So it's a bit underexposed, but I'm sure you've got some stuff there if you just work with your actual negs.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I"m with Huss -- it's much easier to believe someone accidentally left the meter at 400 while shooting 100 speed film (which fits well with the level of thinness of these negatives) than that Df96 mysteriously failed after processing just a couple rolls of film. It's a common error; pretty sure everyone here has done it at least once.

Ways the Kentmere 400 could have gotten fogged the way we see: phone or watch lighting up unexpectedly (the latter, if inside a dark bag, you'd never know until the film was out of the tank), bad cuff on a dark bag sleeve, tank lid not properly latched, if bulk loaded loader lid not fully closed or bulk roll fogged during loading the loader. Again, it happens. Those of us who've been doing this a while have almost certainly had one of those things happen, too.

 

[mtnbkr]

Agree with Donald and Huss. In fact, I ran into this myself recently when I shot two rolls that were grossly underexposed due to a meter mis-calibration (external meter). I was able to save the 2nd roll by pushing it.

Chris

 

[Huss]

I've done it too. I had packed what I thought was only Arista 400 on one trip, but there was a roll of 100 in there! I got lucky though, I noticed it when I took it out of the camera, and just made a note that I shot that 100 roll at 400. I pushed it 2 stops in DF96 and it actually came out great!

 

[Huss]

Fuji Klasse W, Kentmere 400

 

[kl122002]

I let my friend try my DF96 with one of his 4 x 5 Ilford FP4 film. This time the whole process was done by him using his jobo tank rather than my Paterson. The film just fogged like what I have seen in K-400.

I am not complain, but I just think I really had a bad luck with DF96.

 

[Huss]

DF96 cannot fog film. Fogging film is from exposure to a light source.

I've literally developed hundreds of rolls of film in DF96, and documented my results here. I've shown the failures and successes. And I have never had DF96 "fog" film.
I have had it strip the emulsion off Orta 50 and OrwoCMS. And react badly with Shanghai 220 if at 75 degrees. But I have never had it fog film.

Because fogging film is from the film being exposed to light.

 

[Huss]

K400 in DF96

Leica M5, CV 35 1.4v2, Kentmere 400, DF96 Monobath

 

[Huss]

Leica M5, CV 35 1.4 v2, Kentmere 400, DF96

 

[MattKing]

DF96 cannot fog film. Fogging film is from exposure to a light source.

Actually, there are chemical foggants. The example that we are most familiar with being the foggants used for reversal processing, in place of re-exposure to light.
But I doubt that is what is happening here.
Of course, a highly active developer can tend to accentuate existing fog.

 

[Huss]

Leica M5, CV 35 1.4 v2, Kentmere 400, DF96 Monobath

 

[Huss]

Leica M5, CV 35 1.4 v2, Kentmere 400, DF96

 

[Huss]

Hasselblad H1, 80mm, Delta 3200 @ 800, DF96 Monobath

 

[Huss]

Hasselblad H1, 80mm, Delta 3200 @ 800, DF96 Monobath

 

[Huss]

Hasselblad H1, 80mm, Delta 3200 @800, Cinestill DF98 Monobath