Monobath Developers

[David A. Goldfarb]

The Adox CHS100/120 looks nice and clean (105 g/l hypo, no KBr).

I think the fog was a red herring. Looking at one particular sheet that had heavy and somewhat uneven fog, I'm now thinking it's light leaks in the area where I loaded the film.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's one of the better shots from the 120 roll. Contrast is a touch on the high side, and I could give a little more exposure as a margin of safety (it could likely be that my Bronica shutter is more accurate than the leaf shutter on my 150/4.5 Xenar), but the negs look quite printable. The detail is from the full 1000 dpi scan. With these little negs, I can avoid the streaky spots on my scanner.

The building is an Eritrean Cultural Center in the area known as "Manhattanville" west of Harlem. Columbia University is planning to buy up and tear down most of the buildings in this area to expand its campus over the next twenty years or so.

Bronica S2a, Nikkor-O 50/2.8, f:11, 1/250 sec., handheld.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well, now I see what Haist means by "sludging." For my initial tests, I used the formula as a one-shot, but for the rollfilm, I mixed up a fresh batch and thought I would try re-using it. Ian was kind enough to send me a PDF of Crawley's 1961 article in the BJP, and Crawley says that it can be used for about 9-12 rolls per liter.

The fresh formula is a pale yellow liquid, and after processing the Adox 100 it turned a transparent pink, presumably from the dyes in the film. A few hours later I noticed the whole bottle turned cloudy, and a few hours later a black precipitate was settling on the bottom. According to Haist this is caused by the developer reacting with the fixed out silver, so aside from the issue of the sludge itself, this phenomenon causes the developer to become depleted faster, reducing capacity and consistency.

The solutions seem to involve expensive and hard to obtain organic chemicals, and since I'm not using a mechanical processor or high temperatures, the best option might be just to live with it. But say I wanted to experiment at some point, how would I get something like L-thiazolidine-4-carboxylic acid, which is used as an anti-sludging agent in a formula that has the same components as FX-6a? Can individuals order from big suppliers like Sigma-Aldrich, or is it easier to try to go through someone like Artcraft, B&S, or PhotoFormulary?

 

[Photo Engineer]

David;

Sludging is going to be a plague in any monobath as it uses up the developing agents as well as forming sludge. Thats why they never became popular.

Best wishes though.

PE

 

[nworth]

Some miscellaneous others:

Calba's Grain Maximizing Monobath
Monobath formula for maximum grain
Stock Solution A
Water (45C) 700 ml
Metol 2 g
Sodium Sulfite (anhydrous) 50 g
Hydroquinone 20 g
Sodium Hydroxide 10 g
Potassium Bromide 2 g
Stock Solution B
Water (25C) 300 ml
Chrome Alum (optional) 20 g
Sodium Thiosulfate 70 g

Mixing instructions: Add chemicals in specified sequence. Always use cold water when
mixing potassium or sodium hydroxide due to risk of heat reaction. In this case, reduce
the original amount of hot water to 600 ml, and add the Sodium Hydroxide to 100ml of
cold water prior to adding to Solution A.
Dilution: Mix both solutions together to make 1L just before use.
Starting point development time: 5-7 mins at 30C

Notes: This is a monobath formula, so no fixing is required! Chrome Alum is not
required with modern emulsions. As with any monobath formula, results can vary greatly
depending on film type, and there is a risk of fog/staining, so you are advised to run a test
roll before processing any important negatives.
Ref: digitaltruth.com

High Speed Monobath
This was developed by the US Army Signal Corps in 1957 to process special film for
projecting radar images.

Water (125F) 750 ml
Metol 12 g
Sodium sulfite 70.9 g
Hydroquinone 25.7 g
Sodium hydroxide 25.7 g
Benzotriazole 10 g
Sodium thiosulfate 180 g
Water to make 1 l

The monobath was applied with a spray system. Processing time was 1.5 seconds at
170F. Life was limited to about 2 hours due to silver precipitation.
Ref: Dignan Photographic Newsletter, November 1974

Keelan monobath

Sodium sulfite 50 g
Phenidone 10 g
Hydroquinone 15 g
Sodium thiosulfate (penta) 110 g
Sodium hydroxide 18 g
Potassium alum 10 g (disolve
separately)
WTM 1 l
Process 4 to 7 minutes at 23C

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)

Monobath (Lumiere and Seyewetz)

Sodium sulfite 30 g
Amidol 5 g
Trisodium phosphate 20 g
Sodium thiosulfate 25 g
WTM 1 l

Process takes 15 to 20 minutes between 15 and 18C.

Orlando monobath

Solution A
Metol 12.9 g
Sodium sulfite 70.9 g
Hydroquinone 25.7 g
Sodium thiosulfate (penta) 180 g
Sodium hydroxide 25.7 g
WTM 500 ml

Solution B
Benzotriazole 10 g
WTM 100 ml

Mix solution A with solution B and add water to make 1 l.
Process 4 to 7 minutes at 23C.
(ref: Camera and Darkroom, May 1994)

Five second monobath

For rapid processing of prehardened motion picture film

Water (90F) 750 ml
Phenidone 2 g
Sodium sulfite (anh) 25 g
Chlorohydroquinone 6 g
Glycin 6 g
Sodium thiosulfate (anh) 10 g
Ethanolamine 60 ml
Water to make 1 l

pH = 10.5
Process film for 5 seconds at 85F to a gamma of 0.6.
Ref: US Patent 2,901,350 (1959) to J. S. Goldhammer.
Dignan Photographic Newsletter, November 1974

Two second monobath

For rapid processing of prehardened motion picture film

Water (90F) 750 ml
Sodium sulfite (anh) 50 g
Sodium bisulfite 20 g
Amidol 15 g
Hydroquinone 5 g
Glycin 10 g
6-Nitrobensimidazole (0.5% soln) 80 ml (Anti-Fog)
Sodium thiosulfate (anh) 54 g
Ethylendiamine (85-88% soln) 60 ml
Water to make 1 l

pH = 10.5
Process at 85F for 2 seconds.
Ref: US Patent 2,901,350 (1959) to J. S. Goldhammer.
Dignan Photographic Newsletter, November 1974

 

[dancqu]

Seems a little out of place but have mono bath
print developers been discussed? Dan

 

[Ian Grant]

I think you'll find I mentioned them far back in the thread

My company devised a formula (back in the late 70's) that worked extremely well with Ilford RC papers, and it was suggested that we market it, but I couldn't actually see a need for it other than for specialist uses, so our we just sat on it. I'll try and find it next time I'm in the UK and post it here on APUG.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

Colour Monobaths

Strange as it might sound I've just come across a Colour Monobath, actually it's designed for use as the 2nd developer in a specialist Reversal Process.

"Colour reversal Developer/Fixer "Monobath"

sodium sulphite 4 g
sodium thiosulphate pentahydrate 54 g
ammonium thiosulphate 6.6 g
CD4 colour developing agent 15 g
glycine 100 g
sodium hydroxide 44.4 g
sodium carbonate 40 g
water to 1 litre
pH 10.7 at 25°C


The first developer was Kodak C41

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

If the first developer formed a negative color image, then this one will form a positive color image and you will get black film. Now, if the glycine in that formula were glycin, then you might get no color at all due to competition, just a positive silver image. It depends on the activity of the CD-4 with the rest of the stuff there.

The thiosulfate content is also much too low to do anything to a color film, but then again there would not be much free silver halide left by the time this thing starts to work.

So, I ask, for what purpose was this odd duck devised?

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ask Kodak

I think the colour dyes are supposed to go walk-about into a receiver paper. I did think it odd that the first developer was C41, I would have thought a B&W first developer would be more appropriate.

This developer and the final product cost Kodak far more money than they ever expected !!!

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ian;

Can you give a reference then?

All of the color dyes that migrated used a plain activator of nothing but alkali and antifoggant. That was the Ektaflex activator. That is the only case I can remember.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Ron, it was in a Kodak Harrow patent, EP0572620

I assume rightly or wrongly this was part of the research programme into Kodaks Instant "Polaroid" type material. I came across it while looking for something entirely different.

Ian

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks Ian, I read it over and find that the purpose of this quite escapes me. The best example had a B&W developing agent in the reciever sheet.

At the time that was being done, I visited Harrow, and Mike and his wife were my hosts for part of the visit. I wish I had discussed this work with him, but we mostly 'caught' up since his prior visit to the US. All I remember is having a lovely roast beef with yorkshire pudding, visiting some old pubs for bangers and mash with mushy peas and gravy and going to the palace for a tour, but the guards were out and no-one was allowed in. I have a mediocre picture of the Concord and a duck flying in formation over the palace, and a few shots of Victoria station to show for it.

And no information on Mike's process.

PE

 

[Ian Grant]

Yes this is a perplexing patent, but I've read a quite few in the last few days and most are no better. Thinking back when I took out a Patent in the 70's what the patent agents wrote seemed quite meaningless and vague, so much that the Patent Office had to ask what's new before they'd grant the patent.

Back to the Colour Monobath, the emulsion Mike's describing is C41 compatible, so in theory it could be used to develop any C41 emulsion, and possibly adapted for RA-4. But of course the silver image is still there and would need to be bleached out. So why use it - perhaps it takes away variables in the processing steps, a Monobath isn't particularly critical of temperature or time.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Here's another test with Arista.EDU 400 (Fortepan, same as J&C Classic, Classicpan) rated at EI 200 but probably slightly underexposed since I'd metered the light closer to the window and was at max exposure for this camera without doing a time exposure. FX6a in the straight formulation with 90g hypo/l, 5x7" Press Graflex, Xenar 210/3.5 at f:3.5, 1/10 sec. Detail is from 1000 dpi neg scan.

I've got a couple hundred sheets of this film in 4x5" and 5x7", so it seemed worth testing even though it is discontinued. I got a little dichroic fog, but it's not excessive. This is a neg scan, but I'd guess this neg would print well around grade 3. Results are quite grainy, but this is a format that I only contact print, so the grain isn't a big problem.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Ran a few tests with TXP--the first time I've tried FX6a with a modern hardened emulsion--and got a really good result by the third sheet. Contrast is a little high, but I think I can fix that by being a little more careful about temperature--I was at 74 degrees F and should really be at 68 F, since there is no way to adjust for temperature without changing the chemistry. Grain looks normal, and speed is easily EI 320 with a little room to spare. The emulsion also came through the process cleaner than Adox PL100 or Fortepan 400.

Details: 4x5" Tech V, 150/4.5 Xenar, f:12.5, 1/250 sec., 3x yellow filter, FX6a with 105g hypo/l, 6 min. Detail--full res neg scan at 1000 dpi.

 

[RobC]

there' a little info on monobath dev at Barry Thorntons old site at the "bleach monobath" page. It includes a formula or two.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

That's interesting. He uses it in a bleach and redevelopment process for reducing contrast.

 

[Ian Grant]

It's a bit like a proportional reducer, I thought the idea was interesting.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I've been testing a camera that just came back from the repair shop and using my FX6a monobath with 105g/l hypo to process the test rolls, so I have a couple of new observations.

1. The temperature is really critical. I made a point of tempering the solution to 68-deg F this time, and that solved the high contrast issues with Adox 100 (EI 100). The upside of this would be that I could use temperature to control contrast, as long as I have to temper the solution anyway. According to Haist, the theory behind this is that rate of development is more temperature sensitive than the rate of fixation.

2. I tried (old) TX 400 and got a good EI 400 and normal contrast out of it, so that's another film that works.

3. The sludge left an unpleasant film on the Tri-X, so I guess it's time to replace the solution, and maybe I should decant and filter between development batches. Meanwhile, I just wiped it off with a wet soft paper towel, put the film back on the reel, and continued to wash it, and it seems fine.

 

[Photo Engineer]

David;

Any sign that the film on the Tri-X was really dichroic fog? Sometimes monobaths do this. There are ways to prevent it.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

It was kind of silvery blue and wiped off easily. It seemed more concentrated in the thin parts of the negative. When I've gotten dichroic fog it's been more pinkish. Any ideas?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Probably sludge, but Monobath developers are known to form dichroic fog. The silver complexes are hard to keep in solution and eventually they begin to turn into silver metal. This can 'plate out' on film or settle as fine sludge.

Modern films from Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are rather resistant to dichroic fog IIRC.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I posted an image of a print from a TX/FX6a neg on Efke Emaks G2 in the gallery. I've got the new darkroom light tight enough to print and process film at night. A little more work to do before I can work during the day.--

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The digital image is kind of noisy, but the print has very nice gradation and a crisp look.

 

[ben-s]

I've started experimenting with monobaths.
I decided to use Donald Qualls' formula, simply because the ingredients were easily available - or so I thought.
Jessops don't stock HC-110, and other places would have been closed by the time I could have got there.

Undeterred however, I grabbed a copy of Ilford's competitor equivalents datasheet and saw that as equivalents for HC-110 they list Ilfotec HC and LC29.
I have a bottle of LC29, so I decided to experiment with that and FP4+.
The first experiment was a resounding failure. I used the quantities listed in DQ's formula, and got very slight development and no fixing, even after around 30 minutes.
For the second try, I modified the formula after looking at the tables on the dev bottle.
I made up 200ml, using 20ml each of dev and fixer, along with 30ml 9.5% ammonia solution.
To my surprise and gratification, it worked!
The negs are quite thin, and have a line running across them, as I didn't mix up enough to completely cover the film, but for all that, they are completely cleared, and there is an image there - probably printable in most cases.

I now need to tweak the formula to give better development, so I'll post again when I've got more results.

EDIT:
In true fast process style, I dropped the negs in isopropyl alcohol to dry them quickly, and I've just scanned one, attached.
Please excuse the dust and other garbage on the scan.
Pentax Espio 115G, Ilford FP4+, straight scan from neg