Kono! Monolit 400 in Ilfosol 3

HowieP · Dec 8, 2022

Hi, Anyone have any ideas as to how long to develop Kono! Monolit 400 in Ilfosol 3. I bought a roll from B&H because I liked the label(!) and now can't find anything on development times. Nothing in the Massive Development Chart nor on the distributor's website. I have read that it is repackaged from or produced by the same equipment of Svema films and/or Astum. I finally found a time for Astum Foto 400 of 17.5 minutes at 1:14 dilution. No idea how similar the Astum is to the Kono Monolit 400 so I'd like to hear if anyone has processed this film in Ilfosol 3 and can recommend a starting time.

koraks · Dec 9, 2022

HowieP said:
repackaged from

That would make the films identical for all intents and purposes.

HowieP said:
or produced by the same equipment

That would be virtually meaningless for the obvious reason you can manufacture wildly different film stocks on the same equipment.

However, I would probably just do a test strip based on the Astrum times you found under the assumption that it's unlikely that an entirely new emulsion was engineered for this purpose. Worst case scenario you have to adjust based on that first experience.

HowieP · Dec 9, 2022

koraks said:
That would make the films identical for all intents and purposes.

That would be virtually meaningless for the obvious reason you can manufacture wildly different film stocks on the same equipment.

However, I would probably just do a test strip based on the Astrum times you found under the assumption that it's unlikely that an entirely new emulsion was engineered for this purpose. Worst case scenario you have to adjust based on that first experience.

Yes, thank you.

Paul Howell · Dec 9, 2022

It more than likely rebranded Foma 400, I would use the massive development chart as a starting point.

HowieP · Dec 10, 2022

Paul Howell said:
It more than likely rebranded Foma 400, I would use the massive development chart as a starting point.

Thank you. It COULD be but, based on my research, it seems unlikely. Most point to it as a Sverna/Astum rebrand or offshoot. The S/A developing times are, in general, longer than than the Foma 400 times.

pentaxuser · Dec 10, 2022

HowieP said:
Thank you. It COULD be but, based on my research, it seems unlikely. Most point to it as a Sverna/Astum rebrand or offshoot. The S/A developing times are, in general, longer than than the Foma 400 times.

Can you tell us of the evidence you have found that it might be a Svema Astum 400 film. Yes, I too, have found such a film but not even any hint as to what it might actually be.

Plainly the sellers of this film have no incentive to reveal what it actually is and in the U.K. the seller that makes what I assume to be a good living out of selling exotically named rebrands at what what seems to be an extortionate prices. Fortunately in the U.S. it would appear there may be some form of price constraint on such films

pentaxuser

koraks · Dec 10, 2022

pentaxuser said:
Can you tell us of the evidence you have found that it might be a Svema Astum 400 film.

Just Google; virtually any page discussing this film or selling it mentions things like 'made with technical assistance of Svema' or even that it's a Svema product. Given the clear link with Svema I'd say it's more likely a Svema film than Foma.
Evidence that it would be Foma on the other hand would be limited to it being a 400 speed B&W film and Foma often being rebranded by 3rd parties, but no direct link with this particular product.

Paul Howell · Dec 10, 2022

As you bought a single roll I guess it's a toss of the dice, develop as Sevema or Foma and see what you get.

Andrew O'Neill · Dec 10, 2022

It's pretty much a roll of the dice, like Paul said but...you haven't told us what you intend to do with the negatives. Wet printing or scanning? And will you be exposing it at box speed? If it were me, with Ilfosol-3 at 1+14 (I have a lot of experience with this developer at this dilution), I'd develop at about 11 to 12 minutes, 20C... with the usual 5 sec every 30 sec agitation cycle.

relistan · Dec 10, 2022

As far as I know the Astrum films are on a fairly thin base. If the Kono! film is thinner than usual, then it's probably just Astrum and just do like @koraks said and test a bit of the leader to see if you get density that looks right. Fomapan 400 will be on a normal thickness film base.

gone · Dec 10, 2022

I wouldn't develop the whole roll. Like koraks said, why not put the minimum amount required to spool onto the reel and see what you get?

This says you can get technical assistance from Svema. Might be worth a try.

KONO! MONOLIT 400 - Black and White film - 35 mm — KONO Manufaktur®

No. 2 of our coop with Svema. Our B&W film for all purposes. Distinctive grain and a wide tonal range. B&W film, ISO 400, 36 exp. Based on a true Svema classic Produced for KONO! with technical assistance by Svema Price plus shipping costs Shipping information Preise in

konomanufaktur.com

HowieP · Dec 11, 2022

It's pretty much a roll of the dice, like Paul said but...you haven't told us what you intend to do with the negatives. Wet printing or scanning? And will you be exposing it at box speed? If it were me, with Ilfosol-3 at 1+14 (I have a lot of experience with this developer at this dilution), I'd develop at about 11 to 12 minutes, 20C... with the usual 5 sec every 30 sec agitation cycle.

Yes I'm going to do as suggested, just haven't gotten to it yet. It was exposed at box speed and will be wet printed. It was exposed at box speed. I suspect your processing recommendation, Andrew, will prove correct. I've never developed at 1+ 14 so this will be a new thing.

This says you can get technical assistance from Svema. Might be worth a try.

Considering Svema is made in Oblast in northeastern Ukraine, I think I'll postpone contacting them and hope for their survival. After reading more on their website and Facebook pages, I am intrigued by their line of film products.

HowieP · Jan 3, 2023

Here's my report: I did as instructed and found that a development time of approximately 15 minutes at 1:14 dilution gave an acceptable density. This is roughly similar to the recommended time for Astrum film in the massive development chart which leads me further to believe that this is repackaged Astrum film. Some further observations: there is no lip on the film canister so I pulled the film out manually to load it onto the spool. No damage was caused. The film base is colored green and, when I poured out the used developer, it was colored green. The film base was incredibly thin; I have no experience with such a thin base and it was hard to get the film to do anything I wanted it to do but I eventually succeeded in loading it. There are no markings on the film whatsoever. I had ordered a 24 exposure roll but my roll had 36 exposures. Don't know if that is a manufacturer's defect or a B&H mess up.

The images look pretty good on the negatives but I'll know more when I make prints. I don't thin I'll be investing heavily in this film as it was very hard to work with, unlike my usual Ilford Delta and Kodak TMax films.

John Wiegerink · Jan 4, 2023

HowieP said:
Here's my report: I did as instructed and found that a development time of approximately 15 minutes at 1:14 dilution gave an acceptable density. This is roughly similar to the recommended time for Astrum film in the massive development chart which leads me further to believe that this is repackaged Astrum film. Some further observations: there is no lip on the film canister so I pulled the film out manually to load it onto the spool. No damage was caused. The film base is colored green and, when I poured out the used developer, it was colored green. The film base was incredibly thin; I have no experience with such a thin base and it was hard to get the film to do anything I wanted it to do but I eventually succeeded in loading it. There are no markings on the film whatsoever. I had ordered a 24 exposure roll but my roll had 36 exposures. Don't know if that is a manufacturer's defect or a B&H mess up.

The images look pretty good on the negatives but I'll know more when I make prints. I don't thin I'll be investing heavily in this film as it was very hard to work with, unlike my usual Ilford Delta and Kodak TMax films.

Good to hear you got something usable. There is a lot of discussion going on here right now about rebranding of film stock. I think it stinks myself. I wouldn't mind if the rebranded films were much cheaper, but they are not. So, I won't be buying any just because I like the looks of the label, that's for sure. I'll stick with films like Delta and HP5+(of course I had a little mottling on some HP5+) and Kodak films. I've had pretty good luck with Foma film also, but don't use it much. I just bought a fresh bottle of Ilfosol3, and it worked great for my last roll of HP5+ in 120.

Film-Niko · Jan 4, 2023

HowieP said:
Here's my report: I did as instructed and found that a development time of approximately 15 minutes at 1:14 dilution gave an acceptable density. This is roughly similar to the recommended time for Astrum film in the massive development chart which leads me further to believe that this is repackaged Astrum film.

Svema / Astrum is also a repackaging brand. They don't have an own emulsion making and coating. But AFAIK certain capacities of low-volume film finishing in 135 format.

HowieP said:
The film base was incredibly thin;

Then it could probably be aerial or surveillance film, maybe from Tasma.

HowieP said:
The images look pretty good on the negatives but I'll know more when I make prints. I don't thin I'll be investing heavily in this film as it was very hard to work with, unlike my usual Ilford Delta and Kodak TMax films.

Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Foma, Adox deliver all we need in BW photography in very good to excellent quality.

miha · Jan 4, 2023

Film-Niko said:
Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Foma, Adox deliver all we need in BW photography in very good to excellent quality.

What do FujiFilm offer in BW? One single 100 ISO emulsion available in 135 and 120 only. Same for Adox, one single 100 ISO emulsion in 135 and LF sheets, at least they coat it by themselves. No BW photopaper from them either (ok there is some Lupex left to be fair) but these two companies do not belong to the "all we need" category, at least not for me.

Film-Niko · Jan 4, 2023

miha said:
What do FujiFilm offer in BW? One single 100 ISO emulsion available in 135 and 120 only. Same for Adox, one single 100 ISO emulsion in 135 and LF sheets, at least they coat it by themselves. No BW photopaper from them either (ok there is some Lupex left to be fair) but these two companies do not belong to the "all we need" category, at least not for me.

O.k. not for you. Fine, then you will find the products you want certainly at the Ilford, Kodak and Foma offerings.

For me personally the offerings of Adox and Fuji are very relevant and important:
- With HR-50, Scala 50, CMS 20 II and CHS 100 II Adox is offering three unique films no other is offering (and at extremely attractive prices!), and one very good film with a distinct look. They are also offering excellent photo chemistry in a huge variety.
- Fuji's Acros II is a unique film: No other BW film has such an extremely low reciprocity failure: no correction needed for exposures up to 2 minutes!! That is a league of its own. There is only one other film with such an outstanding performance: Provia 100F.

miha · Jan 4, 2023

Well, you may well know that CMS 20 II = SPUR UR = Agfa Aviphot Copex HDP, so nothing unique to Adox here. While SCALA 50, HR 50 derive from Agfa Aviphot pan 80, with a slight twist. All rebrands that wouldn't exist without the Agfa technical films.

Film-Niko · Jan 4, 2023

miha said:
Well, you may well know that CMS 20 II = SPUR UR = Agfa Aviphot Copex HDP, so nothing unique to Adox here.

I have to disagree, because
- CMS 20 II is not SPUR UR (UR is the former, discontinued CMS 20, ask SPUR if you have doubts)
- only Adox is delivering that material to us photographers, no other source
- Adox is delivering the best developer for it, you get a well working system of special film + dedicated special developer

miha said:
While SCALA 50, HR 50 derive from Agfa Aviphot pan 80,

That maybe, maybe not. So far I have not seen a 100% evidence. But if it is, no problem for me, as Adox has implemented a visible improvement. That counts for me.
And with the Scala reversal kit Adox is offering a unique chemistry for wonderful slides with that film.

miha said:
with a slight twist.

I have compared HR-50 to Retro 80s (Aviphot Pan 80) and I've found HR-50 better with a different, more straigt linear HD curve and higher effective film speed.
For me a clear advantage.

miha · Jan 4, 2023

The thing is that you obviously reject any other reincarnation of the Agfa technical film but the one sold as ADOX (which ironically constitutes most of their current film offerings) I find such stance to be particularly biased.

Film-Niko · Jan 4, 2023

miha said:
The thing is that you obviously reject any other reincarnation of the Agfa technical film but the one sold as ADOX (which ironically constitutes most of their current film offerings) I find such stance to be particularly biased.

That is wrong as I am using Rollei Superpan 200, too.

But if Adox would take Aviphot Pan 200 and improves it with their 'Speed Boost' technology, I would immediately switch to that option, as it would offer me a significant advantage. It would be a better product for me compared to Superpan 200.

Maco offers Aviphot Pan 200 as Superpan 200, Retro 400s and Infrared 400. The same film, but with different box speed, data sheets, marketing and prices.
They also offer Aviphot Pan 80 as Retro 80s and RPX 25. Again the same film with different box speed, data sheet and prices.

They have changed the film used for their Ortho 25 without any information to the customers, and the film used now is completely different to the old one.
Just some examples, there have been more in the past.

Misinformation is unfortunately not the exception with Maco, but it is an essential part of their business model.
So it seems like Maco thinks that you and I as customers are complete fools and don't realize when we get the same stuff under different names and prices.
And I think that you and I have the right to criticise that. Or just switch to companies which do treat us with more honesty and respect.

relistan · Jan 4, 2023

Film-Niko said:
That maybe, maybe not. So far I have not seen a 100% evidence.

It's definitely a better film. But it's Aviphot Pan 80 as the basis.

You can see it clearly in the datasheets. First, ADOX says "ADOX HR-50 is based on an emulsion commonly available for technical purposes, featuring an ultrafine grain and superpanchromatical sensitization." Then we can look at the charts.

HR-50 Spectral sensitivity:

Aviphot Pan 80 spectral sensitivity:

Not quite as perfectly clear as the spectral charts, because of the different developers used and lack of exposure numbers on the ADOX chart, but looks roughly right:

HR-50 characteristic curve vs the basis film characteristic curve in FX-39:

Aviphot Pan 80 characteristic curve in Gevatone 66 developer, specially for this film:

EDIT: You can also Greg Davis' curve for RPX-25 (also Aviphot Pan 80 as mentioned above), in D-76 here:

Kono! Monolit 400 in Ilfosol 3

HowieP

koraks

Moderator

HowieP

Paul Howell

HowieP

pentaxuser

koraks

Moderator

Paul Howell

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator

relistan

gone

KONO! MONOLIT 400 - Black and White film - 35 mm — KONO Manufaktur®

HowieP

HowieP

John Wiegerink

Film-Niko

miha

Film-Niko

miha

Film-Niko

miha

Film-Niko

relistan

Kono! Monolit 400 in Ilfosol 3

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency