Great article on df 96 Monobath
-
A
- Thread starter Eric Rose
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Trade 9 Leica IXMOO reloadable cans.
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold Olympus XA
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AI-s Lenses
- Started by Barlow
-
For Sale Mint Nikon AF Lenses
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
Thanks for sharing, Eric. Stephen did a cracking job and I shall shortly be following up with my own comparison of Df96 and FF No.1 with Pancro 400, Rollei IR 400, Fomapan 100 and 200, ACROS 100 and Shanghai GP3 - PHEW!
There's a sample of one Rollei IR sheet already on the site. I won't link to it myself but if you search for "Rollei Infrared 400" it should be the first result.
There's a sample of one Rollei IR sheet already on the site. I won't link to it myself but if you search for "Rollei Infrared 400" it should be the first result.
Sorry I hate video reviews, can someone tell the point of using a monobath? Strong developer, weak fixer, may need to refix after processing. I just don't get it.
Monobaths have their uses, they need little control in terms of time and temperature (within certain limits), so as long as exposure is correct can greatly simplify processing. I did quite a bit of research on Monobaths for an applied application back in the late 1970's.
If you design a monobath for a specific emulsion you can achieve excellent high quality results. It was suggested I market the monobaths I came up with, for paper processing but we weren't interested.
Ian
Designed for specific emulsions seems quite the opposite of what the new monobaths tout. Perhaps I am just especially curmudgeonish this morning.
I tried Df96 on a few different films and found the overall development lacking in contrast. Per their recommendation, I even tried increasing the development temp to 90F, but that didn't make much difference. Perhaps, I was just "lucky" that the films I tried weren't particularly compatible. 
I tossed the bottle in the trash.
I tossed the bottle in the trash.
Overall, monobaths are good for two main things: they make a really easy first-timer entrance into processing B&W negatives, and they support minimalist (say, for travel) in-the-field processing, which can eliminate the need to carry exposed film through multiple airport security checks -- after all, X-rays at reasonable power levels (below where the film base melts) have no effect on developed film. The old classic photojournalist trick was to develop 35 mm film, still in the cassette, in a water glass, with a monobath.
As such, it was always a niche market -- people who needed to develop on the go. With the offerings available today from FF and Cinestill, it's become an easy, simple entrance into shooting and processing film (film is easy to get, but finding places to process your B&W is an issue if you don't live in a major city, and even if you do, it'll cost you a mint). Buy a jug of Df96 or FF No. 5, a daylight tank, and a changing bag, and it'll cost you about as much as having a send-out lab process two rolls of negatives, and you can see your images in less than an hour after shooting (instead of a week or more to mail the film out). With one jug of chemical.
From what I've seen online, the shadow detail in Df96 processed negs looks good, and I can fix contrast in printing, within reason (sure, I'd rather have my negs print on Grade 2 to 2 1/2, but a printable negative in hand is better than a perfect one coming in the mail in a couple weeks, provided the USPS didn't choose my package to the lab for an X-ray).
My darkroom isn't really set up yet, but I have daylight tanks, changing bag and a way to hang the film, so I can at least process my B&W negatives -- and a monobath works better with limited working space and equipment, at least until I see results that say otherwise (and apparently Foma 100 and 400 are on their list as "no special treatment needed, box speed"),
As such, it was always a niche market -- people who needed to develop on the go. With the offerings available today from FF and Cinestill, it's become an easy, simple entrance into shooting and processing film (film is easy to get, but finding places to process your B&W is an issue if you don't live in a major city, and even if you do, it'll cost you a mint). Buy a jug of Df96 or FF No. 5, a daylight tank, and a changing bag, and it'll cost you about as much as having a send-out lab process two rolls of negatives, and you can see your images in less than an hour after shooting (instead of a week or more to mail the film out). With one jug of chemical.
From what I've seen online, the shadow detail in Df96 processed negs looks good, and I can fix contrast in printing, within reason (sure, I'd rather have my negs print on Grade 2 to 2 1/2, but a printable negative in hand is better than a perfect one coming in the mail in a couple weeks, provided the USPS didn't choose my package to the lab for an X-ray).
My darkroom isn't really set up yet, but I have daylight tanks, changing bag and a way to hang the film, so I can at least process my B&W negatives -- and a monobath works better with limited working space and equipment, at least until I see results that say otherwise (and apparently Foma 100 and 400 are on their list as "no special treatment needed, box speed"),
And now I have two rolls of negatives, freshly processed in Df96. The hanging negatives, look as if there's little if any speed loss, and have very normal looking contrast; both films are well cleared after four minutes at 75 F with "normal" agitation (one minute continuous on fill, then 15 seconds each minute). One was .EDU Ultra 400 (aka Fomapan 400) that spent twelve years in my Super Ikonta B before I unpacked it and finished the roll; the other was .EDU Ultra 100 (aka Fomapan 100) that spent that same time frame in the same storage, but still in the original box and wrapper.
The Ultra 400 negatives from the Super Ikonta B look a bit thin, but that's likely because I overestimated the light using Sunny 16, rather than metering properly. The last few frames, shot after I unpacked the camera, were better (I used a meter app on my smart phone). All ten frames of Ultra 100 (6x7) from the old stored roll look excellent, though it appears I may have a light leak at the dark slide in the 6x7 roll holder for my RB67.
Negative photographed while hanging, inverted only Negative not flat, light not even.
.
The Ultra 400 negatives from the Super Ikonta B look a bit thin, but that's likely because I overestimated the light using Sunny 16, rather than metering properly. The last few frames, shot after I unpacked the camera, were better (I used a meter app on my smart phone). All ten frames of Ultra 100 (6x7) from the old stored roll look excellent, though it appears I may have a light leak at the dark slide in the 6x7 roll holder for my RB67.
Negative photographed while hanging, inverted only Negative not flat, light not even.
Last edited:
| 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:  |