I'm planning to order some of this stuff when my D-76 is used up.
Cinestill DF96 monobath
-
A
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
Sold FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Make sure to test it with a film clip once u reach roll #14. Learn from my mistake!
Could it be the slow film?
No, because it works fine with fresh DF96.
It just expires. So once you get past 12-14 rolls and/or 2 months, just test it with a little clipping from the film you are about to develop.
I always managed to get to 16, never tried to go further.
Never went past 2 months either....
Never went past 2 months either....
yeah, this is the first one that pooped out before 16 for me.
Any chance of some kind of contamination or air leak?
I wonder if some films are "harder" on DF96 than others? I'm no chemist so take that for what it's worth...
Last edited:
Thanks for the tip!
MattKing
Moderator
I'm guessing that the problem might relate to some films demanding more than others from the fixer part of the monobath.
Not to mention that the fixer in Df96 is only "semi-rapid" -- you can see the sodium thiosulfate crystals in the bag that contains the fixer component, and in dry form, the best you can get is to add some ammonium chloride -- that means you get a fixer that may be straining to fully fix a tabular grain film like T-Max, Acros, or Delta. That's why those films carry a recommendation to double process time -- not for development, but to give the best chance to completely fix those hard-to-fix films. Those films also use up fixer capacity (especially for non-rapid or semi-rapid fixer) more quickly than cubic grain types, so if you process a lot of T-grain films, you might find your Df96 has less capacity than if you stick to Tri-X, Fomapan, FP4, and other "old school" films.
One interesting tidbit about Fomapan 200 in Df96. There's some green dye that comes off Fomapan. The monobath turned green, I can see it through the amber bottle a few days later. I am presuming I can still develop other films like FP4+ with it.
Youre fine, I've done several rolls of Foma in D96 and never had an issue.
If you want, you can remove a lot of the green layer with a pre soak, one minute or so.
Worked fine for me after it turned green/blue. Several rolls later, it died, but that was a week or two after the two months date and it had processed 16 or so rolls up to that point -- in other words, it did everything it was advertised to do.
Rolleiflex 2.8E, Arista 200, Cinestill DF96 Monobath
Minolta XK, Minolta 35-70 3.5, Kentmere 400, Cinestill DF96 Monobath
Minolta XK, Minolta 35-70 3.5, Kentmere 400, Cinestill DF96 Monobath
@relistan thank you!
Leica MP, LightLensLab 35mm f2, Kentmere 400, DF96 Monobath
This is a shameless plug, basically, but if it wasn't for df96 I don't think I would have ever tried developing my own film. I did my first-ever roll a few days ago, and it went perfectly.
One thing that doesn't get a lot of mention is that df96 seems especially compatible with low water useage. I live in a remote cabin; I get my water at a rural community center and haul it up the hill, blue jug by blue jug. The fact that Cinestill even adds specific directions for minimal water useage is an added plus.
So far, thus, I'm delighted.
One thing that doesn't get a lot of mention is that df96 seems especially compatible with low water useage. I live in a remote cabin; I get my water at a rural community center and haul it up the hill, blue jug by blue jug. The fact that Cinestill even adds specific directions for minimal water useage is an added plus.
So far, thus, I'm delighted.
It's not much less than minimal water consumption with a conventional process -- I used to process with a one-shot developer and fixer, and use about one gallon of water total (for dilution, mixing the fixer, and wash) for a roll of 35mm. Half of that, roughly, was for the wash (Ilford three-step wash, followed by PhotoFlo needs four tanks full). Reusable fixer and developer would therefore cut that in half...
That is great to hear!
I too wouldn't have gone back to self developing if it wasn't for DF96.
Would you mind being more specific re the chemistry? I'm not necessarily wedded to df96, and tbh I did not really investigate other options. (Although storage is also an issue, in my tiny cabin. I'm getting the df96 in dry form -- which also cuts down on shipping cost and hassle -- and when it's mixed I've just got one re-used 1-litre growler in the back of the closet to deal with.)
I was using Parodinal 1:50 and one-shot hypo (60 g/L sodium thiosulfate), with reused acid stop -- but you could do the same with any one-shot developer (won't have any more water than that). Reusable developer and reusable fixer will only cut water consumption. The big factor is the Ilford wash -- it uses so little water (as noted, three tanks plus one for the PhotoFlo) that it was cost effective to wash with distilled water, as well as diluting, mixing concentrates, etc.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |