Kodak Monobath

Peter de Groot · Oct 9, 2013

http://www.hofmeester.nl/Groups/Ron.../KODAK-MONOBAD-(6x500ml)-5087911-5087911.aspx

See above link. I sometimes try new stuff. I played with teh monobath for a while that D. Qualls made up. Now I have some x-ray film i play around with and i stumbled upon this Kodak Monobath. Sorry for the link being dutch but I figured that the picture is cleu enough
But I have a hard time finding more information about this stuff. Can anybody help me out? I might try it out anyway as it ist not that expensive I think but any info is very welcome.

Thanks.

Ian Grant · Oct 9, 2013

It's for dental x-ray film and it is a true monobath, how well it would work with conventional films I don't know. I did a lot of work on Monobaths in the late 1970's for work and had very good results but they need fine tuning to suit the material used to get the best results.

Ian

Peter de Groot · Oct 9, 2013

Hi Ian thanks for your prompt reply. Since I have 18x24 cm x-ray film it might be worth a try. I will try it on normal film as well. And maybe I##l try it out on paper since x-ray film can be developped in paper developper as wel. You never know.

Gerald C Koch · Oct 9, 2013

Ian hits on the most important problem with monobaths. They must be configured for a specific film and hence lack flexibility. Haist makes the same point in his book The Monobath Manual. Anyone interested in monobaths should get this book which contains a lot of useful and interesting chemistry.

Ian Grant · Oct 9, 2013

The Russians did a lot of work on Monobaths there was a long technical article in a 1970's BJP Annual which compared work on monobaths around the world inc Haist's work.

Ilford used to sell a monobath for film processing - Monophen.

Ian

TheToadMen · Oct 9, 2013

Can someone please explain to me what makes a developer a "monobath"?

Ian Grant · Oct 9, 2013

TheToadMen said:
Can someone please explain to me what makes a developer a "monobath"?

It's a developer with fixer incorporated it develops faster than it fixes so you get normal negatives.

Michael R 1974 said:
What I could never understand is why someone would have ever chosen to use a monobath unless the situation demanded it (spy developing film in a hotel room or something like that). No matter how optimized the formula is, a monobath is always a compromise, never ideal.

If a monobath is optimised it can give results no different to a normal dev then fix sequence.

The advantage is they aren't temperature dependent (over a reasonable range) and you process to finality. So there's no need for a thermometer or timer/clock.

The big disadvantage is they really do need fine tuning for a specific film or paper and this is why they mainly get used for applied applications, such as this dental monobath. I worked on them for an industrial application and it was suggested we make one available commercially for paper processing.

Ian

Gerald C Koch · Oct 9, 2013

Monobaths do find limited use in specialized applications, ie the Poloroid camera is based on a monobath. But for general purpose use they have no real advantage. A monobath depends on the control of two competing kinetic reactions; development and fixation. Unless the two processes are finely controlled the resultant images will be less than optimal. Monobaths became only practical with the use of Phenidone or its derivatives. The negative produced by a monbath differs from a conventional one in several ways. For those that are curious get Haist's book as he explains the differences fully. For example the image of a monobath negative is limited to the surface of the emulsion and does not penetrate very much into its interior. This acts to increase acutance.

Prof_Pixel · Oct 9, 2013

Gerald C Koch said:
Monobaths do find limited use in specialized applications, ie the Poloroid camera is based on a monobath.

"the Poloroid camera is based on a monobath" should say "the Poloroid B&W peel-apart system is based on a monobath"

I know monobaths were used in some early B&W reconnaissance satellites.

Vaughn · Oct 9, 2013

Michael R 1974 said:
It is also quite grainy

I guess Polaroid Type 55 was the exception...the negs are beatutiful!

Peter de Groot · Oct 9, 2013

But no one has actually experience with the Kodak Monobath? As my question was? I don't mind the talking that was going on. But I geuss I will have to buy 6 bottles of 500ml and give it a try. See how it behaves and such.

My interest is purely curiosity. Do it once or twice and probably forget about it. But it would be nice to go out on a trip with Harman direct positive paper and be able to process it on the spot on step. Not that I have any specific plans yet

Ian Grant · Oct 9, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
"the Poloroid camera is based on a monobath" should say "the Poloroid B&W peel-apart system is based on a monobath"

I know monobaths were used in some early B&W reconnaissance satellites.

Neville Maude's article "The Rise & Fall of the Monobath" in the BJP Annual (can't remember off hand if it was 1972 or 76) states that the US research was sponsored by the US Air force and they were working with 40" wide film. H.S. Keeling an was using Phenidone based PQ monobaths as soon as it was commercially available in the early 1950's.

In the UK a commercial monobath "Develofix" was available and reviewed in 1913 by the BJP. Mees and Sheppard a pair of chemists in the UK just out of University worked on Monobaths they pointed out that development was deep in the emulsion but that the effects of the solvent (thiosulphate) were greatest at the surface.

I've a around 30+ pages of notes on Monobaths as well as quite a few Patents and articles and it would be useful to collate it all, unfortunately I have little time at the moment as I've just moved house and much of my stuff is in storage.

As Vaughn points out Monobaths are capable of excellent fine grain and sharpness, and my experience is with the balance right there's no loss in Dmax.

Ian

Prof_Pixel · Oct 9, 2013

I remember using (and selling) a monobath in the late '50s or early '60s. Seems to me it was called Unibath. It worked OK, but the shelf life was short.

Ian Grant · Oct 9, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
I remember using (and selling) a monobath in the late '50s or early '60s. Seems to me it was called Unibath. It worked OK, but the shelf life was short.

Unibath CC1 (normal films), CC2 (high speed films slight push) and CC3 (papers) Introduced 1959. by the Cormac Corporation of New York. Evidently the CC3 was useless with British papers and was unsuccessful. (It's in my notes)

Ian

AgX · Oct 9, 2013

Prof_Pixel said:
"the Poloroid camera is based on a monobath" should say "the Poloroid B&W peel-apart system is based on a monobath"

I know monobaths were used in some early B&W reconnaissance satellites.

All diffusion transfer-reversal systems based on silver-salt use monobath processing. This includes the former Polaroid integral b&w system.

Prof_Pixel · Oct 9, 2013

AgX said:
All diffusion transfer-reversal systems based on silver-salt use monobath processing. This includes the former Polaroid integral b&w system.

Interesting enough, it doesn't apply to the integral picture unit Kodak Instant/Fuji Instax films

I don't remember ever seeing an integral picture unit B&W film from Polaroid.

AgX · Oct 9, 2013

It was marketed for some years. Impossible tries to make us believe they were the first to market b&w integral instant film, as that Polaroid film is merely known.

nworth · Oct 9, 2013

I'm not quite sure where this came from:

Kodak monobath film developer-fixer (1961)
Sodium sulfite 50 g
Phenidone 4 g
Hydroquinone 12 g
Sodium thiosulfate (penta) 110 g
Sodium hydroxide 4 g
Develop film 4 - 7 minutes at 23C (or until fully fixed)
To mix, add the Phenidone to the water, but do not mix. Add a pinch of the hydroquinone. Add the remaining ingredients in the order given, and mix to dissolve the Phenidone. Then add the remaining hydroquinone. Dissolve the sodium hydroxide separately in a small volume of water before adding it to the mix.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 9, 2013

I was working with monobaths for a while and occasionally come back to it as circumstances demand it. The attraction at the time was to be able to process film in limited space with fewer trays, storage bottles, etc. Another attraction might be to process sheet film with less handling, say one sheet of ULF at a time.

In fact the results were quite good, and if you like the Type 55 look, a slow to medium speed traditional film (I was fond of Efke PL100) in a monobath (I was using mainly fx6a) is kind of it. Haist argues that you can tweak a monobath to give results similar to D-76, and that fits with my experience.

The problem with a monobath is that without exotic and expensive chemicals, it tends to self-destruct once you start using it, so you have to mix it up and use it in one session, or at most within two days, or fixed out silver, the fixer, and the developer all start interacting to produce sludge and to exhaust the developer. You also need kind of a lot of developing agent to compete with the fixer, so it could get costly in large quantities.

There's a long monobath thread around here with lots of formulas, info, and sample images.

Peter de Groot · Oct 10, 2013

Hi David thanks for the info. I know that there is a long thread about monobath. But my question was really if anyone has more info on the Kodak monobath that is sold for use with x-ray film. And if anyone has some hands on experience with the stuff. No answer yet

Ian Grant · Oct 10, 2013

Grant Haist MM-1

nworth said:
I'm not quite sure where this came from:

Kodak monobath film developer-fixer (1961)
Sodium sulfite 50 g
Phenidone 4 g
Hydroquinone 12 g
Sodium thiosulfate (penta) 110 g
Sodium hydroxide 4 g
Develop film 4 - 7 minutes at 23C (or until fully fixed)
To mix, add the Phenidone to the water, but do not mix. Add a pinch of the hydroquinone. Add the remaining ingredients in the order given, and mix to dissolve the Phenidone. Then add the remaining hydroquinone. Dissolve the sodium hydroxide separately in a small volume of water before adding it to the mix.

It's Grant Haist's NN-1 formula. It can contain Gluteraldehyde 25% 8ml (hardener) to prevent softening of the emulsion.

Grant Haist's Monobath MM-1

Sodium Sulphite (Anhyd) 50.0g
Hydroquinone 12.0g
Phenidone 4.0g
Sodium Hydroxide 4.0g
Sodium Thiosulphate 110.0g
Gluteraldehyde 25% 8ml
Water to 1 litre

Do not dilute for use.
Process for 6 min's at 20c. Agitation for first 30 seconds then 15 sec's every minute on the minute. To adjust the contrast use greater or lesser amounts of Hypo. Use of more will result in a softer image, less increases contrast.

Ian

Cor · Oct 10, 2013

You all know that gluteraldehyde is nasty stuff, right ?

Best,

Cor

Ian Grant · Oct 10, 2013

Cor said:
You all know that gluteraldehyde is nasty stuff, right ?

Best,

Cor

So dangerous that it's sold in the chemists as a 10% solution as wart treatment and has no effect on surrounding skin, it's also used in the manufacture of vaccines.

There plenty of common photographic and household chemicals that are far more dangerous.

Ian

Peter de Groot · Oct 11, 2013

I think this thread can be closed since nobody has experience with the Kodak monobath.

David A. Goldfarb · Oct 11, 2013

No reason to close it. Someone might come up with an answer in six months or two years and can continue the discussion, as with any thread. Or if you get some interesting results, you can post them here.

Kodak Monobath

Peter de Groot

Ian Grant

Peter de Groot

Gerald C Koch

Ian Grant

TheToadMen

Ian Grant

Gerald C Koch

Prof_Pixel

Vaughn

Peter de Groot

Ian Grant

Prof_Pixel

Ian Grant

AgX

Prof_Pixel

AgX

nworth

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Peter de Groot

Ian Grant

Cor

Ian Grant

Peter de Groot

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

Kodak Monobath

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency