R3 Monobath

[OptiKen]

I love the idea of a single chemical developer that is reusable and keeps well. I'm afraid I will have to reserve this developer for 120 sized film with no sprocket holes only. I am guessing that due to the non-agitation of this developer, it has a tendency to drip down from the sprocket holes creating lines on the negative. Anyone see this before?

 

[removed account4]

hi optiken

i beleive that is what is called bromide drag.
some say if you agitate every 5? 7 ? minutes you won't get this
problem, but i also think it depends on the developer.
here are a few threads here about it
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

can you post these pix in this thread
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

great to see folks using the monobath ( and experimenting with it ! )
john

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Reserving the monobath for only 120 film is not going to get rid of the problem. Without the sprocket holes it will just look different. You will see it when there are heavily exposed areas adjacent to lighter areas.

Did you read the other threads about monobaths? From my previous post

For decades monobaths have come and gone. They have all quickly failed for one or more reasons. Mainly they did not live up to their claims.

 

[swhiser]

I avoid 135 format streaks with R3 by first pouring the warmed solution into my tank (a cold aluminum tank will reduce the temperature significantly) and THEN inserting my loaded reel into the solution firmly and smoothly.

The development takes place early.

I like R3 because of the convenience and the acutance of stand development, which is sacrificed in agitation. It produces for roll as well as sheet films the similar edge-effects that we get with the New55 PN instant 4x5 positive-negative. I use it for all my negatives and have done for over two years. It pushes well at higher temperatures and the compromises of a monobath suit me fine.

 

[OptiKen]

swhiser:
I will try your method to avoid streaks today.
I really like all of the R3 advantages of speed and convenience.
Now I just need to make it work for me without streaks

 

[bvy]

Curious, what kind of tank are you using and what's its capacity?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Do not use Aluminum equipment with photographic solutions.

PE

 

[OptiKen]

Curious, what kind of tank are you using and what's its capacity?

Paterson Plastic tank and reels - 2 roll capacity with only the one roll inside - solution quantity is supposed to be 375mm for a single 35mm roll.
I use 400mm of solution with a single inversion and tap on the bottom when the solution is put in and then it is stand developing for 6 min. Another single inversion prior to dumping out the developer

 

[OptiKen]

I just processed another roll of the same but with a rotation at the beginning, 3 rotations at 3 minutes, and an additional 2 rotations at 5 minutes. Finished developing at 6 minutes per directions.
Same banding. :confused:

 

[Photo Engineer]

It is bromide drag and is created by bad agitation. Therefore, what you have done is not enough.

You may have too much solution in the tank. Too much and agitation cannot take place effectively. You have to have a tiny air space at the top of the tank just so the reel is covered by developer. The air improves movement of solution when you rotate. But, inversion is important as well. Try a few inversions.

PE

 

[OptiKen]

I've written to the manufacturer of R3 hoping for some help from them. Their directions for the R3 monobath call for NO AGITATION. In the meantime, I may split a roll and develop half with no inversions and no agitation and the other half with my usual inversions of 4 every minute following 15 - 30 seconds of inversions at the start

Divine enlightenment is NOT what this photo needed

 

[OptiKen]

Optiken, would you mind posting a scan of the frames in your original post including the sprocket holes. Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Certainly not surge marks, as they aren't opposite the sprocket holes.

 

[drmoss_ca]

History repeats itself! New55 don't ship outside the US, so I made my own monobath according to Donald Qualls' formula - which should be exactly the same. I got the same surge marks from sprocket holes - on both sides of the film if I inverted, but just on the lower edge if I poured it in and did no agitation as New55 recommended. I adjusted the pH, ensured my ammonia was exactly 5% with a hydrometer, but couldn't avoid the surge marks on 400ISO films. 100ISO films were tolerable. The eventual solution for me was to use my old Rondinax tanks, where the film reel is on its edge, and so any drag marks will run lengthways along the film and stay within the unused border. It works so well that I have stayed with the technique for several weeks now. I have also used a Rondix tank with no film reel with perfect results. Today I discovered the limit of a litre of monobath - the ninth film was underdeveloped. I'll stop at #8 in future.
My monobath shots are here.

Chris

 

[BobCrowley]

Today I finally got around to the experiment where I poured 80 degree monobath into a cold stainless container. The temperature dropped to 72 right away. The thermal mass of the tank, not to mention the reel and film, are enough to lower the temp here. The result was uneven development.

I have always used a plastic tank and warmed everything up.

History repeats itself! New55 don't ship outside the US, so I made my own monobath according to Donald Qualls' formula - which should be exactly the same. I got the same surge marks from sprocket holes - on both sides of the film if I inverted, but just on the lower edge if I poured it in and did no agitation as New55 recommended. I adjusted the pH, ensured my ammonia was exactly 5% with a hydrometer, but couldn't avoid the surge marks on 400ISO films. 100ISO films were tolerable. The eventual solution for me was to use my old Rondinax tanks, where the film reel is on its edge, and so any drag marks will run lengthways along the film and stay within the unused border. It works so well that I have stayed with the technique for several weeks now. I have also used a Rondix tank with no film reel with perfect results. Today I discovered the limit of a litre of monobath - the ninth film was underdeveloped. I'll stop at #8 in future.
My monobath shots are here.

Chris

 

[bvy]

Today I finally got around to the experiment where I poured 80 degree monobath into a cold stainless container. The temperature dropped to 72 right away. The thermal mass of the tank, not to mention the reel and film, are enough to lower the temp here. The result was uneven development.

I have always used a plastic tank and warmed everything up.

I wondered about temperature. I wonder if the OP recorded the temperature of the developer before and after development. It sounds like a tempering water bath may be in order.

 

[OptiKen]

I wondered about temperature. I wonder if the OP recorded the temperature of the developer before and after development. It sounds like a tempering water bath may be in order.

Temp is supposed to be 80F, per instructions.
Initial temp was 79.7F. Plastic tank and reel. Air temp was 81F.

Heat may have been a factor assuming that the chemical reaction of development would raise the temp.
Interesting.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Heat may have been a factor assuming that the chemical reaction of development would raise the temp.
Interesting.

NO Quoting Sherlock Holmes, "My dear Watson, assume nothing."

 

[calebarchie]

History repeats itself! New55 don't ship outside the US, so I made my own monobath according to Donald Qualls' formula - which should be exactly the same. I got the same surge marks from sprocket holes - on both sides of the film if I inverted, but just on the lower edge if I poured it in and did no agitation as New55 recommended. I adjusted the pH, ensured my ammonia was exactly 5% with a hydrometer, but couldn't avoid the surge marks on 400ISO films. 100ISO films were tolerable. The eventual solution for me was to use my old Rondinax tanks, where the film reel is on its edge, and so any drag marks will run lengthways along the film and stay within the unused border. It works so well that I have stayed with the technique for several weeks now. I have also used a Rondix tank with no film reel with perfect results. Today I discovered the limit of a litre of monobath - the ninth film was underdeveloped. I'll stop at #8 in future.
My monobath shots are here.

Chris

Chris,

I can still see some marks in some of your shots particularly in the sky on the lake photo.

But can you elaborate on your process with the rondinax? Timings? Agitation?

Cheers

 

[OptiKen]

I wrote to the manufacture this afternoon and already received a reply.

"Try filling the EMPTY tank with warm solution, then insert the loaded reel rapidly but smoothly into the full tank.

No movement at all."

I will try that...and hold my breath.(for 'no movement at all')

Kudos for excellent customer service.

 

[swhiser]

UPDATE on Agitation:

It's been demonstrated with 35mm in a Paterson tank that a gentle, swirling agitation in the first minute can eliminate the streaking. We are testing this out with rollfilms presently.

Careful temperature management is also encouraged. Uneven development can result from temperature differentials in the tank from pouring warm into cold.

Here's the new55.net -> Support -> FAQ link ...
https://new55film.zendesk.com/hc/en...ing-streaks-on-my-negatives-what-should-I-do-

-Sam

 

[drmoss_ca]

Chris,

I can still see some marks in some of your shots particularly in the sky on the lake photo.

But can you elaborate on your process with the rondinax? Timings? Agitation?

Cheers

Sorry, it's been a while since I was here. I use six minutes at 75-80º with continuous rotation of the Rondinax. I have also used a motorised version of the Rondinax, and a reel-less Rondix tank with success. With conventional tanks I have had stripes across the film with no agitation, and with lots of agitation. It is far more noticeable with a fast film than a slow one. Frankly, it is very frustrating, but when the monobath works it gives a lovely soft image with much less grain than is seen with conventional development. That has kept me at it so far, but I'm beginning to lose enthusiasm as it doesn't seem to be a reliable and reproducible process and I have lost a few films lately to it's vagaries. I'm sure it could be a dependable process, but it isn't quite ready for prime time yet. (It does amuse me when people tell me I'm being lazy by using it, and all I have to do to get good results is to buy some Rodinal.....if only they knew how much time and effort has gone into it so far!)

Chris

 

[Axle]

Some Tri-X is in the soup (homemade Monobath, HC-M as I'm calling it) as I type!

 

[jeffreythree]

I picked up some R3 Monobath since it was available locally. I have the same streaking as the OP using some 35mm Kentmere 100 to test the function of a little Contina IIa I picked up yesterday. I should have come back here and read the newer posts first since I see that some agitation could have helped, but just used the directions on the bottle for the first try. I really like how they turned out where the bromide drag is not noticeable.

 

[Axle]

Well I call it a success with my own mix of the Quall/R3 formula. I'm calling it HC-M







I noticed the drag marks as well, so next roll I run through I think I'm going to drop the time in the soup to maybe 9 minutes, and add a single inversion at the halfway mark (4:30) to see if it helps.