Monobath Developers

[gainer]

I've done what Ole mentions, and Patrick Gainer discusses in other threads--just killing the developer with rapid fixer concentrate. It works pretty well, particularly if you use a dilute developer that oxidizes quickly like PMK, but who knows what the archival properties of such negs would be.

I cannot see how this method could have any effect on archival qualities. It simply dissolves the halide as any other fixer. The rest depends on the washing. The result of adding fixer to developer is to form an alkaline fixer, usually. If an alkaline concentrate such as TF4 is used, the result will certainly be an alkaline fixer. Aren't these supposed to be more easily washed out?

 

[Ian Grant]

Monobath Formula

FX-6a (G Crawley)

Sodiun Sulphite (anhyd) 50gms
Hydroquinone 12gms
Phenidone 1gm
Sodium Hydroxide 10gms
Sodium Thiosulphate 90gms
Water to I litre

The Thiosulphate can be varied betweeen 70gms to 125gms to alter sftness, and increasing Hydroquinone to 15 - 17 gms will increase the contrast. Crawley states that this formula gives normal film speeds, processing is normally around 4 to 5 mins at 20°C
and between 9 - 12 films per litre capacity.

See British Journal of Photography Annual 1972, page 162, article: Rise and Fall of the Monobath, also page 231 for details of how to use the Monobath

 

[Gerald Koch]

Two-bath monobaths are not true monobaths. The addition of the fixer concentrate merely stops and fixes the film as in any ordinary B&W process. For a monobath processed negative the bulk of the silver is concentrated near the surface of the emulsion. If you should look a two-bath monobath negative it would look like a conventional negative with the silver distributed throughout the emulsion.

Anyone wishing to experiment with monobaths should read Haist's book. This is the bible on the subject.

 

[Ian Grant]

Gerald, am I right in assuming Crawley's referance to the Monbath Manual, by Grout Haist in the 1972 BJP Annual is a Typo for Grant Haist, when was the book published, and rather was it revised after 1972.

Not quite sure about your referance to Two bath monobaths, Crawley does indicate that FX-6a can be made up and stored in two parts before use. But it's a obviously a true monobath when mixed for use.

Ian

 

[Gerald Koch]

Yes you are correct about the typo for Grant Haist. The monobath Manual is a great book and while fairly slim summarized monobath development at the time of publication. AFAIK, interest in monobaths soon faded after publication because of the difficulty in a producing a bath which would work with any film.

I was commenting on Ole's post in which he says "... I've turned to "two-bath monobaths" - single shot developer, pour in a dash of rapid fixer concentrate at the end of development." While this may work it is not a monobath and will not produce the same results as a monobath.

 

[Ole]

I was commenting on Ole's post in which he says "... I've turned to "two-bath monobaths" - single shot developer, pour in a dash of rapid fixer concentrate at the end of development." While this may work it is not a monobath and will not produce the same results as a monobath.

And that is why I've dropped the monobaths. I get far more predictable results with single-shot developers, at a far lower cost per developed film. Ammoniumthiosulfate is relatively cheap.

 

[htmlguru4242]

Wow - thanks for all of hte ideas, everyone - I'm impressed at the rapid rate of replies on this forum ...

The "FX-6a" sounds interesting, although alll of the chemicals required can get a bit expensive (doesn't matter, though, as this is not going to be used for everyday practical use.)

I'd like to try the idea of the HC-110 + Ammonia that someone mentioned and that I've read about here and there.

Does anyone have scans of either negs. or prints developed with monobath developers?

 

[dancqu]

... my 5x7" negatives. ... topped up with 100ml 60%
ammonium thiosulphate, ...

That would do me five rolls of Pan + that 100ml of 60%.
IIRC, T. Hoskinson routinely uses 30ml/roll. S. Thio. is slower;
16 grams anhydrous or 24 penta per/roll Pan F+.

As for mono-baths, I've not been able to justify their use.
There is always a loss of film speed.

My film goes directly from a least chemistry FX-1 - Rodinal
type developer to my very dilute 1:24 A. Thio. fix. Dan

 

[Donald Qualls]

Donald Qualls (he's here on apug) came up with a monobath formulation using HC-110, and Ilford Rapid fixer, and household ammonia. He originally posted it on photo.net, and I referenced it in an 'pintoid' camera article here on apug in the how to article section.

It works. My negatives were printable, but a bit low in contrast. I plan to experiment with the developer as a winter darkroom project to see if it can be optimized. I don't know if he has any refinements to it.

If you wish to increase the contrast, you need to bias the monobath in favor of the developer. Two ways to do this, basically -- increase the amount of developer (already a lot) or increase the pH by adding a smidge more ammonia. Instead of the original 60 ml of household ammonia, try it with 70 ml, and adjust further as needed -- the beauty of sheet film is you can adjust on a per-image basis instead of having to shoot a whole roll, and you don't need a huge amount of soup for your Pintoid Processors, either.

Making the soup more alkaline will increase the reaction rate of the developer, but won't affect the fixer; that will tend to increase contrast and will also (slightly) increase the film speed as more of the shadows get developed before the halide is fixed away. You MIGHT also be able to increase temperature with similar effect -- doing so will surely make both developer and fixer more active, but I'm not certain which will be more affected. Given the standard for this soup is already 75F, I'd recommend against going hotter -- just add more ammonia to raise contrast as needed (small increments, please).

 

[dancqu]

Developer and fixer, all mixed together.
Some would drop their jaw. Does physical
development worry you at all? Dan

 

[removed account4]

i had a few long conversations with a chemist who used to do all the testing for the photo lab index( 40s-60s). he used to love to use monobath developers and told me a story about how he processed 9mm film in one of his invented developers, and made a rather big enlargement from the negative. it was really sharp and fine grained so much that when ansel adams visited the office he thought it must have been made with a large format camera.
the chemist also suggested that newer films don't work as well as "olde fashioned films" because of their lack of silver and the amount of "poly-vinyl fillers" in the film. maybe some of the eastern european films j&c sells might work best ...

 

[Donald Qualls]

Dan, no, physical development doesn't "worry" me at all. If I had seen dichroic fog with my HC-110 monobath, I'd be concerned to find the correct antifog agent to prevent it, but there was no evidence of it. Further, this same solution has been used with a few different films -- Tri-X, where I tested it originally, and also Efke 25 that I'm aware of. Mine works well, I think, because HC-110 already has a strong antifoggant to combat dichroic fog, since it uses ammonia as part of the alkali (ammonia, I've read, commonly would produce this symptom of physical development).

In fact, monobaths were pretty common in the 1950s and 1960s, before Polaroid took over the "immediate results" market -- when a photojournalist needed to shoot, develop, and print in minimum time, especially in the field with limited or no ability to get to a formal darkroom, out came the coffee cup, monobath mix, and pencil. Use a rubber band to tie back the 35 mm leader (so it can't pull inside the cassette), drop the whole cassette into the coffee cup full of monobath, and agitate by rotating the cassette spool with the pencil's eraser. Wait a while (timing is non-critical, as long as it's long enough -- most worked in 6-10 minutes), pull the cassette out of the cup, pop the end, pull the film out, wash as much as you had time for, and slip the wet film strip into the enlarger (set up in the hotel bathroom, with a towel under the door). From camera to prints in under half an hour, better quality and bigger prints than Polaroid could manage in the day (which is why, until the Polaroid pos/neg materials came out, monobath still had a market).

And dichroic fog was never a major problem -- these soups were formulated to prevent it, by one means or another.

 

[Gerald Koch]

the chemist also suggested that newer films don't work as well as "olde fashioned films" because of their lack of silver and the amount of "poly-vinyl fillers" in the film.

Haist in his book "Monobath Manual" comments that the newer emulsions at that time (1966) suffer from increased emulsion softness. He attributes this in part to the substitution of various polymers for part of the gelatine.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I found two threads on monobaths and merged them, and I thought I'd revive this topic in the wake of Polaroid's demise.

Monobaths were one way of making quick proofs before Polaroid, and the Polaroid chemistry was itself a form of monobath. So is anyone using monobaths these days, or planning to in the not too distant future?

 

[Photo Engineer]

I probably posted this elsewhere, but Grant Haist has published the "Monobath Manual" and his monobaths were used in the original two sheet monobath films in US space probes.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks for reminding me. I've just ordered a copy before it gets scarce. I didn't really think of monobath developing as anything but a novelty before, but now it's looking like a practical thing to think about.

 

[Ian Grant]

David, I'll scan and send you Geoffrey Crawley's 1972 BJP article when I'm next in the UK, it refers to the Haist book as well as other publications.

A PyrocatHD type monobath could be very useful for LF sheet processing, tray processing with no need to worry too much about time or temperature

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Thanks, Ian!

 

[mabman]

I read about the develop-in-the-coffee-mug technique a while ago, and I've been curious about it since. I asked about it on (I think) another forum quite some time ago, and was told that while it would likely work, getting consistent results might be a problem as the film coiled inside the cassette might not get evenly exposed to the solution, and this might be more of an issue for 36-exp. cassettes than 12 or 24.

I'd be curious to hear from those here who have tried it - is this a concern in practice?

Also, to clarify, I take it monobaths are generally used for box speed or slower - is it possible to use a monobath for pushing, say, 1-3 stops (it strikes me the fixer action would be harder to guage when trying to push)?

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd never try the coffee-mug method as the film can easily be scratched. You can't use a monobath for push-processing because the balance between the rate of development and fixing can't be altered, and is less temperature dependant than normal B&W development. Of course you could alter the formula to give you increase development.

My own work with monobaths in the 70's showed you could get excellent results by tweaking a monobath formulae to get the best out of a particular emulsion.

Ian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I just mixed up a batch of FX 6a, originally from the BJP but included in Haist's _Monobath Manual_, and I'll be darned--the stuff works. [This is the same as Formula #45, G. W. Crawley's monobath, in Anchell's _Darkroom Cookbook_, and I just realized it's in posts #18 and 27 above].

I tested with two sheets of Efke PL100 in about 100ml of solution, one at a time.

First test I figured no way is this going to give me the box speed, so I'll rate it at EI 50 and compensate on the generous side for reciprocity. Processed 6 minutes (agitating first 30 sec, then 5 sec for every minute), and I turned on the lights fully prepared to find a blank sheet in the tray, and I realized I was way overexposed.

Next sheet I tried at EI 100 and stricter reciprocity correction, and the neg looks dense, somewhat overdeveloped, less overexposed. According to Haist, increasing the hypo should bring down the contrast, and then I can fine tune the speed.

Anyway, this looks like a very viable thing. Part of the reason I use Acufine as a deep tank developer is for convenience (when I'm trying to be more serious, I use PMK or ABC usually), as well as the extra speed, and I could see a tuned and tested monobath replacing that, when I don't need the speed.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Just FYI, D76 can act as a monobath for pure chloride emulsions.

Please don't ask how I know. I think it is obvious. Anyhow, it is the sulfite in the D76 that does it.

PE

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Interesting. Straight D-76 with no added hypo?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes. The sulfite is a strong solvent and can wipe out AgCl images in the right emulsion. It does not work with all of them, but does a real job on others.

PE

 

[David Grenet]

This is a bit OT I know, but is this why high sulfite developers don't work for the RA4 reversal process? As they use a chloride emulsion?