Cinestill DF96 monobath

[devecchi]

Huss, I'm asking you because you often deal with Cinestill: the last months I have developed this film in both135 and 120 format with normal D.96. Strangely, while in the 135 the basic fog i not present, With 120 it is evident ( expired 2024 ..). Do you agree?

 

[Huss]

Huss, I'm asking you because you often deal with Cinestill: the last months I have developed this film in both135 and 120 format with normal D.96. Strangely, while in the 135 the basic fog i not present, With 120 it is evident ( expired 2024 ..). Do you agree?

What films are you developing? You need to double the dev time w tabular grain films like Delta, Tmax, Acros etc

 

[devecchi]

Quali film stai sviluppando? Devi raddoppiare il tempo di sviluppo con film a grana tabulare come Delta, Tmax, Acros ecc

Huss, I'm referring to Cinestill Double - X, not tabular grain film.

 

[Huss]

Huss, I'm referring to Cinestill Double - X, not tabular grain film.

Sorry, I just noticed you said D96, not DF96. This thread is for DF96 which is a monobath. Is that what you are referring to?

CineStill BwXX Dev Times

CineStill BwXX is a variable speed, classic black & white film emulsion, with an EI of 250 under daylight and 200 under tungsten lighting. Recommended development in D96 developer or Df96 Monobath, but is compatible with D-76, HC110 and all other black and white film developers. Processing times...

cinestillfilm.com

 

[devecchi]

I don't use DF96 but normal D96. I think as far as development action is concerned they are similare result.

 

[Huss]

I don't use DF96 but normal D96. I think as far as development action is concerned they are similare result.

OK. Sorry but no experience w D96. It should be the same for 35mm or 120 with DoubleX as it is a regular panchro film. There must be something else going on w your process.
I would start a new thread asking that question so it has more visibilty.

 

[devecchi]

No problem Huss. Thank you for your reply. I tried with D.96 self made and D.96 purchased and the problem persists, not serious, negative a little' soft. In any case, to dispel any doubts I will try to develop it with D.76, if it still gives me fog the problem will be the film 120. Question: but are these emulsions fresh or reels of old repackaged films?

 

[Donald Qualls]

negative a little' soft.

This just means you need to develop 10% longer to boost the contrast a little. FWIW, I've got a bulk loader full of 5222 (the direct-from-Kodak version of 35 mm Double-X), but haven't processed any of it yet. I have shot a roll of Cinestill's repackaged Double-X, and loved it -- hence why I bought a hundred feet from Film Photography Project (they break it down from four hundred foot "camera rolls" as sold by the cine division of Kodak).

 

[devecchi]

Donald, I assume that increasing the development time proportionally increase the fog. I could try increasing the dose of potassium bromide by 50% and increase the development time. The strange thing is that 135 format this problem does not arise.

 

[Donald Qualls]

increasing the development time proportionally increase the fog.

Extending development will increase fog, yes, but it will also increase density and contrast of exposed halide, so you'll gain in terms of the image vs. the fog. Usually, if there isn't too much fog due to chemical exposure or age, anyway. Increasing the bromide in the developer or adding a small amount of benzotriazole can also help, but especially the latter is also likely to require extending development to regain normal contrast.

Worth noting that fog in the 120 only as packaged by Cinestill may implicate backing paper -- and escalate into wrapper offset if the film is held too long. AFAIK, they're the only company recutting wide format Double-X for 120 in the world, and we don't know the source of their backing.

 

[devecchi]

In reality the film can be printed even if I would prefer this fog not to be there. Unfortunately months ago I gave my densitometer to a friend and therefore I can't give an exact value...but the eye does not betray me. Your observations about possible causes deserve attention. Tank you.

 

[Huss]

Leica M3, Rollei 40mm 2.8, Arista 100, DF 96

 

[devecchi]

L'estensione dello sviluppo aumenterà la nebbia, sì, ma aumenterà anche la densità e il contrasto dell'alogenuro esposto, quindi guadagnerai in termini di immagine rispetto alla nebbia. Di solito, se non c'è troppa nebbia a causa dell'esposizione chimica o dell'età, comunque. Anche l'aumento del bromuro nello sviluppatore o l'aggiunta di una piccola quantità di benzotriazolo può essere d'aiuto, ma soprattutto quest'ultimo richiede probabilmente anche un'estensione dello sviluppo per riguadagnare il contrasto normale.

Vale la pena notare che la nebbia nel 120 solo come confezionata da Cinestill può implicare la carta di supporto e intensificarsi nell'offset dell'involucro se il film viene tenuto troppo a lungo. AFAIK, sono l'unica azienda al mondo che ritaglia Double-X di grande formato per 120 e non conosciamo la fonte del loro sostegno.

I developed a roll film today : no fog. The only thing I can say is that I used a film with deadline of 11/2024 while the previous two film whit fog had a deadline..... of 10/2023 ( fake deadline or other....).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Storage conditions, shipping history, chemical exposure, etc. Lots of things can increase the fog in an emulsion. And some emulsions are more prone to fog than others. Glad to hear it isn't a problem with your Df96, though.