Cinestill DF96 monobath

[Auer]

I don't have issues with DF96 lasting long. My first batch was good for 18 rolls of film, 2nd one I pulled the plug after 16 rolls. The first batch was in liquid form ready to go, the second was from powder that I had to mix with distilled water.
I much prefer the liquid form.
18 rolls of film from one bottle? Couldn't be happier.

Thanks for taking the time and sharing your experiences with DF96, much appreciated.

I'm going to pick some up in the fall. I spent the summer supporting my local mom & pop Photo store by buying all my film from them and having them develop it there.
I want to simplify my film development to the max in the winter so going to pick up a Lab-Box and some DF96.
Renovating our house over the winter and just need a simple 1-2 rolls per week setup for now.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't have issues with DF96 lasting long. My first batch was good for 18 rolls of film, 2nd one I pulled the plug after 16 rolls. The first batch was in liquid form ready to go, the second was from powder that I had to mix with distilled water.
I much prefer the liquid form.
18 rolls of film from one bottle? Couldn't be happier.

But how much time did it last? Monobaths are good if you process all your film within a short time, but what if you process weekly? It might be good at the beginning, passable the second week, and then it starts getting iffy. Stock solutions of many one-shot developers and working solutions of some multiple use developers can last for six months or more when stored properly. Replenishable developers in seasoned tanks can go for years.

 

[Auer]

But how much time did it last? Monobaths are good if you process all your film within a short time, but what if you process weekly? It might be good at the beginning, passable the second week, and then it starts getting iffy. Stock solutions of many one-shot developers and working solutions of some multiple use developers can last for six months or more when stored properly. Replenishable developers in seasoned tanks can go for years.

Cinestill says 2 months life after opened, so 2 rolls a week should be fine?

CHEMICAL REUSE:
Can process 16+ rolls of film. Simply recombine used chemistry and add +15sec. for each roll previously processed until you reach 8 min. If a film does not appear fully cleared, process for longer in Df96. It will not affect development.

Chemistry lifespan:
Expected shelf life for mixed chemistry is 1 year in a sealed bottle, and once used should be reused within 2 months. Film will still finish processing as chemicals age but will eventually produce thin negatives when developer is exhausted. Store in a tightly capped, full container.

Exhaustion indication:
As chemicals exhaust they will start to yellow and turn dark amber when perished. Oxygen and contaminants cause developing agents to perish. Depending on silver and dye content of film types, you should be able to continue reusing until you reach an unacceptable processing time.

Simple quality control:
Before reusing opened chemicals it is a best practice to do a daylight snip test. Cut off light struck film from a 35mm leader tongue and process in a cup with a small amount of Df96. The test should come out opaque black to guarantee quality. You can save the snippet to compare to future tests. If the test comes out thin, you can increase temperature and retest, or retire chemistry if transparent.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Since then it’s also gotten harder to obtain sodium hydroxide, which usually an important ingredient in monobaths, so that’s another issue.

My HC-110 monobath (the recipe that the New55 folks picked up and made into R1) contained no sodium hydroxide (even though it was easy to get then). If made with a neutral or akaline fixer, it likely wouldn't need the ammonium hydroxide, either. I never tried to reuse it, but both the fixer and developer (equivalent to Dilution A) should have capacity for a number of films. The tendency for the monster to eat its own tail, I haven't checked; I never tried to keep and reuse the stuff, because it was an experiment. I also don't know if it would work with the new HC-110 (I suspect not, but haven't and likely won't try it now that Df96 is readily available in dry form that keeps indefinitely).

I don't have issues with DF96 lasting long. My first batch was good for 18 rolls of film, 2nd one I pulled the plug after 16 rolls. The first batch was in liquid form ready to go, the second was from powder that I had to mix with distilled water.
I much prefer the liquid form.
18 rolls of film from one bottle? Couldn't be happier.

My Df96 started to get a little tired after 16 rolls and three months; next time I want to use that, I'll mix up my backup pouch. The advantages of buying it dry, to my eye, are cost (lower initial cost, cheaper/faster shipping due to no liquid) and keeping before first use -- as long as the pouches are sealed, the contents should last many years. If I need to process film while traveling, I can take along a dry form pouch, mix (with tap water, they claim) on site, process and archive my films, and dump the developer (preferably in an environmentally friendly manner) before returning home.

Now that I'm running replenished Xtol, I likely won't bother mixing the Df96 until something special comes up (like a need to process a bunch of film quickly or a travel situation).

 

[Huss]

Yeah I've used my first bottle up in about 2 months (18 rolls). My third batch was started in August, and I have already developed 10 rolls of film in it. Last roll was Tri-X 220 so perhaps that should count as two rolls?
My local shop just started carrying DF96 in liquid form, right there on the shelves under the film! So I will no longer need to mail order it.

 

[Huss]

Lomo Babylon 13 in DF96, regular process.

 

[Huss]

Arista 400 Ultra EDU, DF96, Leica M7, CV 28 3.5

The negatives looked thin on this roll, but scanned/printed just fine so I guess just a characteristic of the Foma
400 film which it is.
The next roll developed - Tri-X 320 - had lovely density so no issues with the DF96 getting worn out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Last roll was Tri-X 220 so perhaps that should count as two rolls?

Correct, a 220 roll is exactly equivalent to two rolls of 120 in terms of film area. Both developer and fixer components will exhaust the same with 1x220 as with 2x120.

Arista 400 Ultra EDU, DF96, Leica M7, CV 28 3.5

The negatives looked thin on this roll, but scanned/printed just fine so I guess just a characteristic of the Foma
400 film which it is.

That's what I've experienced, too. Makes me think their chart should be amended to either give a lower EI for Foma 400 (the usual solution for its use in other developers) or to put "normal" into the same temp/agitation column as "Push +1" for most films.

 

[Huss]

Correct, a 220 roll is exactly equivalent to two rolls of 120 in terms of film area. Both developer and fixer components will exhaust the same with 1x220 as with 2x120.



That's what I've experienced, too. Makes me think their chart should be amended to either give a lower EI for Foma 400 (the usual solution for its use in other developers) or to put "normal" into the same temp/agitation column as "Push +1" for most films.

Yeah it seems that Foma 400/Arista EDU Ultra 400 should be rated at ISO 200, at least if developed in DF96.

 

[Huss]

Leica M7, ZM 35 1.4, Eastman 5234, DF96 Monobath

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yeah it seems that Foma 400/Arista EDU Ultra 400 should be rated at ISO 200, at least if developed in DF96.

Seems like Foma 400 may just fix relatively faster than it develops, so loses speed in a monobath. Cinestill's chart swears it gets full speed in normal process, though. Wonder how they measured that? What are they not telling us?

Hmmm. Has anyone tried XP2 Super in Df96? Probably needs the same treatment as T-Max 400 (from what I've read, that's a safe bet for any C-41 stock).

 

[Huss]

Seems like Foma 400 may just fix relatively faster than it develops, so loses speed in a monobath. Cinestill's chart swears it gets full speed in normal process, though. Wonder how they measured that? What are they not telling us?

Hmmm. Has anyone tried XP2 Super in Df96? Probably needs the same treatment as T-Max 400 (from what I've read, that's a safe bet for any C-41 stock).

I have a bunch of BW400CN, which kinda sorta is Kodak's version of XP2. I thought TMAX and Delta still is a silver halide based film, just with a dye base, and it needs double time to clear that dye base.
Isn't XP2 and BW400 different than that?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yes, T-Max and Delta are silver image films, BW400CN (and whatever other versions Kodak used to offer) and XP2 Super and whatever the Fuji version is that's not sold in the US are dye image films. Development wise, however, (and I haven't tested this myself) C-41 films all have the same time/temp, and what I've read suggests that their time in B&W chemistry is essentially the same as T-Max 400. Easy to check, in at least one case: XP2 Super is well known to work about as well in B&W chemistry as in C-41, and there are times for it in the Massive Dev Chart, among other references. I haven't checked (I'm at work, and the MDC is blocked on our network), I'm just repeating what I've read.

 

[Huss]

Challenge accepted! I mean, why not? I have a bunch of BW400CN, and this thread is all about testing what works and what doesn't in DF96. I mean, it can't be worse than Silberra!

 

[Auer]

Could DF96 be used with Adox Scala 160 black and white reversal film?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Could DF96 be used with Adox Scala 160 black and white reversal film?

Most likely, though that's some expensive film if you're only going to get negatives.

 

[Huss]

Lomo Babylon 13 shot with a Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8

 

[Huss]

Well... developing BW400CN in DF96 was a failure. I developed for 14 minutes @75 (double the time I would need at the current dev cycle for regular B&W film), and the images were barely visible.
The dye 'base' did not clear, images are very very murky as if I missed exposure by 4+ stops. Wasted a roll of decent film in the interest of science...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, adding time with Df96 only ensures full fixing; it does nothing for development. Increasing temperature would be needed to "push" process.

For Kodak C-41 stock in B&W chemistry, mask not clearing is more or less expected. Might try giving it a visually monitored bath in Farmer's Reducer or C-41 blix to see if you can lose enough "fog" to see the images. Given the relative records of BW400CN and XP2 Super in B&W chemistry (the latter is fairly widely reputed to work about equally well in either chemistry choice), it's tempting to say XP2 is still worth trying in Df96 -- I have some of the film, and another bag of the monobath mix, though the one exposed roll I have, and the one still in my Kiev 4 were shot at EI 800 to allow for bleach bypass. Maybe I can bang off a roll (in a 6x9, only 8 frames) and get it into the soup this week.

 

[Huss]

The monobath instructions say to double developing time to remove the dye layer of Tmax and Delta style films. So that is no to insure full fixing, but to clear the dye layer. The temp was closer to 77 degrees, and after 14 minutes souping in it results were a failure. It's ok, it was not designed for this type of film but it would have been nice it I could have got a decent result.

 

[Huss]

Just developed rolls #14 & #15 in this batch - Tri-X and Fantome 8. No issues, looks great.

 

[Donald Qualls]

The monobath instructions say to double developing time to remove the dye layer of Tmax and Delta style films. So that is no to insure full fixing, but to clear the dye layer. The temp was closer to 77 degrees, and after 14 minutes souping in it results were a failure. It's ok, it was not designed for this type of film but it would have been nice it I could have got a decent result.

Okay, that makes sense. I'll try to run a roll of XP2 through my Wirgin Auta (with the masks out, so eight frames) today and get it souped in Df96 tonight or tomorrow night, then report back (may not have scans until next weekend, but I'll have negatives I can see).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, following up -- got the XP2 Super loaded into my Wirgin Auta and did some digging in the massive Dev Chart. Looks like I mis-remembered the process details for XP2 Super; on the page Ilford links for B&W chemistry processing of XP2 Super, the author started with stand development in Rodinal 1:100 and eventually wound up with HC-110 1+49 (an easier-arithmetic version of Dilution E, normally 1+47) at ten minutes -- which the Massive Dev Chart shows as the same as Tri-X at EI 400. However, Tri-X at EI 400 requires nothing special in Df96. There seems to be no such article backing up processing of Kodak C-41 monochrome films in B&W chemistry, so despite nominally wanting the same development (C-41 films, after all, get exactly the same treatment from ISO 100 to 1600), there may be a difference (possibly a colloidal silver anti-halation layer that would normally be removed by bleach/fix steps?) that appears outside the standard C-41 process.

I'm now a little more confident that I'll get usable results from XP2 Super in Df96. I'll know in a couple days...

 

[Huss]

Thanks for adding technical info to this thread Donald!

Looking at my Lomo Fantome 8 negatives, DF96 works really well with it. Will be posting later. Tri-X of course looks great.
My local shop had 10 bottles of DF96 on the shelf a week ago. Gone now so obviously the word is out!
Hope they will restock as better buying that way than paying for shipping.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I'm now a little more confident that I'll get usable results from XP2 Super in Df96. I'll know in a couple days...

It could very well be a match made in heaven. Are you going to shoot at box speed? With a few other B&W developers, XP2 Super gave best results when given a stop additional exposure. You might want to bracket.