UPDATE. Thanks for all your comments. Today I played a bit more with the developer and started to get results with LESS agitation. For those interested I made a write up on my web blog with a couple of images from the tests. In a nut shell I had better results with Ortho 80, 6 minutes, 10 seconds inversions to start and ONE inversion each minute after at 27°. www.rogerlowe.co.uk/cinestill-monobath-df96/
More agitation gives LESS development, because it speeds up the fixing, which is going on at the same time as development. Generally, you'll get the best results with higher temperature (which accelerates development) and less agitation (which slows fixing) -- look at the instructions for the Push +1/2 or Push +1, which will have you increasing temperature or reducing agitation from "normal". Do remember the concern about bromide drag, especially after you've processed a few rolls in the batch of monobath; also don't forget to add that fifteen seconds for each additional film after the first (just as you would if you were reusing D-76/ID-11 or Xtol stock solution without replenishment -- in this case, it's the fixer slowing down as well as the developer). Also, note their "native speed" caveat. The native speed of six years expired FP4+ is probably (a little) less than 125, and your Rodinal development (to higher contrast) will compensate for that better than a "native speed" process. Finally, the pH of your water makes a difference. If your local water supply is soft, it'll be less alkaline, while if it's hard, it'll be more so -- and more alkaline water will give faster development with no change in fixing rate. The thing to remember with monobath is, it's a race between the developer (trying to bring up the latent image) and the fixer (trying to remove all the undeveloped silver halide). You usually lose a little true film speed (less than a stop, though), because the shadows are the last to fully develop, and the fixer steals the halide from those regions before the developer can turn it into image silver.
Thanks. It's definitely a developer you need to get a sweet spot and learn the hard way. Yes it says development is INCREASED by temp and DECREASED by Agitation. I developed as the instructions say. Interesting what you say about water. I may have to put that to a test with distilled water here.
Thanks for sharing your results Roger. It does seem like a compromise compared to standard developer and fixer processing. I won't be trying it, but I'm sure it has a place somewhere.
Another fun video! I've used the Df96 liquid for nearly two years with good results on FP-4, HP-5, and Ortho. Doing a pre-rinse & push 1 stop with temp (85°F (30°C) for at least 4 min • Intermittent agitation). Adding 30 second for each additional roll, not 15. Distilled water for everything. Inversions on the first minute, then crank handle for the remaining agitations. Only one roll failed to be well developed (my error loading the reel). The rest have been sharp and printable. 12 rolls per bottle or or a few more depending on how many are 120. Good for everyday shooting, --Doug
Just started developing my own film and I've only processed two rolls using Cinestill Dƒ96. In both instances the results were at least as good as negatives developed from a local photo lab. With Ilford Pan F Plus B&W especially I got good contrast and rich blacks. Fujifilm ACROS II 100 B&W shows a good range of gray mid-tones. I’m not sure why yours didn't turn out. All I did was follow the instructions. Fresh film. Nothing tricky.
I use DF96 as my goto developer and mostly at 27° Celsius for 3+ minutes with constant agitation. I really like the results and and how easy it is :) Once you get your head around the concept of pushing/pulling via increasing/decreasing the temperature for 6° Celsius per stop, this is very easy too. Oh and I should mention that I'm always using the liquid version.
Never got this to work properly. I've tried three different jugs of the liquid version, but even with constant agitation and double dev times, the negs just never came out right. Always looking underdeveloped, like yours. I gave up and went back to stand development if I want an easy job.
I got the cinestill starter kit that came with a developing tank and two rolls of the cinestill BwXx since I had been wanting to develop at home for a while. I absolutely butchered my first roll of film by misreading the instructions and developed it for three times what it recommended with the wrong amount of agitation and it turned out surprisingly alright. It seems to be fairly foolproof in regard to not following the instructions perfectly. I've developed Cinestill BWxX, HP5, Delta 100, and Arista EDU 400 with df96, and every time the negatives have been somewhat dense, although I'm not very experienced so maybe they are a bit thin and I just don't know it. I've been "scanning" my negatives by taping them to a lamp and taking macro shots (I did mostly macro way before starting film so it's not too difficult for me to freehand shoot the negatives). I'll upgrade to a three bath once I'm done with the developer, but I'm really glad they make this stuff, otherwise I wouldn't have made the jump to home developing. I love being able to shoot, develop, and scan pictures all in the same day without needing to send them out. My only complaint is that my latest roll had a fair deal of black specks on it which from what I can tell isn't dust since my other rolls are fairly dust free. I am wondering what could cause such a thing, but I suspect it might be the shed silver from other rolls of film or something like that. Am I supposed to filter my developer?
Great you're developing at home. Black specks I am not sure. I get the odd trapped bit of dust that sticks in the emulsion whilst drying but not common for me. It's all trial and error and once you get past the blips you move on and gain more understanding of what's going wrong and what makes it right.
Cheers for the mention, Roger. DF96 can be tricky, but once you find your sweet spot it's great. It likes higher temperatures and quick development times rather than cold n slow.
I used Ars-Imago mono-bath and well, it worked! There is for sure a reason for monobath solution, for instance you are a film-photo-reporter and got a shot of an event before newspapers go to press, well, you save time (not really much anyway) and send/sell your photos in time! IMHO, if you are trying to go fine-art photo prints, you use all the time you could to perform it at your best. You try different prospectives, different lights, color filters... This mean you are not looking for a short-path, you climb your way the hardest way. It's a time consuming process.
DF96 is perfect for someone like me. I decided I wanted a couple plastic "toy" cameras to play with and realized how much trouble and cost having numerous rolls developed would me. I bought a dark bag, tank, and this solution. I've been using Ilford HP5+ and I'm pleased with the results. I did find out the hard way that Fomapan film does NOT like this stuff though. I used one roll and it came out underdeveloped. Turns out others had same issue and I didn't know beforehand. Lesson learned.
I use Cinestill 2 bath for C41 (Colour) negs and found it fairly reliable (any problems have been traceable to user error). Previous to this I used Bellini foto (C41) with variable results every time. Sticking to ID-11 for B&W and trying to iron out user error. Not really tempted by monobaths, always felt that alkali's and acids in the same bottle would logically have a neutralising effect. I'm presuming your 'hard' water is going to speed development, maybe the acid element of the one bath couldn't hold it in place on the emulsion, leaving a thin neg. I'd plump for increasing agitation first, which in theory should make the neg more contrasty, failing that longer in the soup, failing that a warm prewash of the film - I do this as standard - failing that distilled water. Unfortunately we both know that any part of this chemical equation may have multiple variables. Darn science, its supposed to help us !!!
I just started developing my own film a month ago and this product was one of the reasons I decided to try it as it's so easy to use. I have so far developed 2 rolls of Kentmere Pan 400 in 35 mm and 2 rolls of HP5 Plus 400 in 120 and I think the negatives are just fine as long as the exposure is ok (I've had some underexposed frames in 120 though as I'm still learning to use a camera with no built-in light meter). Maybe I'll try the traditional 3 chemical method at some time too but so far I'm quite happy with the monobath. I've also got myself a Durst M600 enlarger, Ilford Multigrade filter set, paper and chemicals (I believe the same stop bath and fixer can be used for film too, so i'll only need to get some film developer if and when I decide to try the 3 bath method?) and set up a darkroom in the cellar. Tomorrow I'm intending to try to make my very first prints (so far I have just scanned my negatives) so quite excited.
Great to hear you have your darkroom underway! Yes you can use the same Stop and Fix as you use for film. Although try to keep your re-used bottles separate instead of using the used film fixer for your prints.
Made my first prints today. I'll have to get a lower wattage bulb for my enlarger, now it seems to be 150W and it's way too bright. I get good exposure with the lens stopped all the way down and 2 seconds for 120 and 3 for 35mm which obviously are too short and diggicult to time manually. I was quite confused when the first test strip came out completely black. First I thought it was my safelight but the margins were white so I concluded it must be the exposure and after a few tries I managed to find usable settings and started getting nice prints. They sure look a lot better on paper than scanned and wieved on screen.
I have used this quite a bit as a quick uncomplicated way to check out whether the cameras I buy are working ok.I find it works well with acros 100 but with tmax400 it is so grainy. The thing that I don’t understand is the necessity to remove the film after the three or siX minutes. In the instructions it says feel free to leave it in longer to clear the film of its purple tinge or to fix it more. The developer automatically cuts out at a certain point and then the fix takes over like in a Polaroid shot. I have had no problems ignoring the add 15 seconds per film and have regularly left film in for 8 minutes and all seems ok.
Enjoyed the vid, think your idea of using the liquid is a must just to give it a fair shot... as you say you may have messed up the chems, so another Wednesday wonder.
Roger -- when I was a scientific Photographer for Geology Dept UCL Gower Street from 1962-70 ( finishing up at £27 a week!) I could order any Chemicals I liked as I use to make up al my own Film Developers and had unlimited supply of Distilled water from Chemistry Lab opposite my Darkroom /studio. I TRIED FX6a Geoffrey Crawley's formula -- it has Phenidone + Hydroquinone as developing Agents and Sodium Hydroxide as the alkali and Sodium Thiosulphate as the Fixer . My results were rubbish I thought, very grainy negs and poor 'Acutance' as the Fixer starts eating away at edges of images quickly. I still make up most of my Film developers and all my BW Print developers even today.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Ha Ha YES --- The Sodium Hydroxide is very 'Hydroscopic; so I squirt some Butane Gas Light Fuel in on top of it and it keeps it as dry pellets.
I like to only spend 3 minutes developing film and I'm on my 3rd bottle of cinestill and use for 3 minutes at 80 degrees F and it works as good as my negatives I developed 50 years ago with D76
The water on the Island Is quite hard. I have to make up some more Monobath soon will try some different water will let you know if it improves the results I find 35mm film always OK some times 120 I do have different results.
I would love to see a video comparing different developers, ie the same shot developed in eg rodinal, hc-110 and Ilfosol. You can read descriptions online but I find it hard to imagine the actual difference.
The error You made is using minimal agitation. As of my expirience for lets say HP5+, you go contant agitation for +2 more minutes then instruction at +2 more degrees and it works ok.
LOL - you look good in a tutu :D. Never knew about the monobath developer... might give it a try - thanks! :) Wonder if the impurities in the water might of had an effect on the chemicals... maybe that is why they are asking for distilled water.
Interesting experiment. Doubt I'll be giving it a try, though. It took me long enough to get used to developing correctly with traditional chems... Have you ever used HC-110?
You have a lot of variables here including out of date film with no info as to how it was store. As well, the developer called for use of distilled water - possible contaminants in tap water had an effect? I’ve watched other reports on the liquid version on some other channels and their results did not show thin and low contrast results.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss yes - but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that some element in the tap water had a negative effect on how the mono bath functioned. Perhaps that’s why the instructions stipulated distilled water. As well, the rodinol was used for a different roll of film.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss it was powder. Honestly I don't remember the color when I mixed it. I'll check what it looks like this weekend I have another roll to develop.
For me, don't see the point in a single bath developer (other than being a way to develop on the quick). Ilford's simplicity film starter kit seems to be a better alternative for the beginner. Sure, you can't develop as much film as you could with d96. but the knowledge gained from using the full 3 bath setup will be invaluable for the beginner.
I'd be interested in seeing a video on dual bath print development (one with higher dilution) - apparently it can help with really low contrast negatives
"But this is the first time I am using it" That's not an excuse I would say, especially for someone that is as experienced as you are. I developed my first roll ever (a 15 years expired roll of Delta 100) in Rodinal and it turned out much better than what you are showing here.
I have never tried that developer. I have heard good things about it. I usually use XTOL, D76 (ID-11), Rodinal and Perceptol. Each for various films and scenes.
You got the same results I did....poop compared to Rodinal. I think the liquid is poop as well. I tried distilled, tap.. poop. Followed direction to a tee than started experimenting...poop. at the end of the day, its a turd.
Monobath is the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. B&W even in its most basic form is just 2 chemicals. Developer, and fixer. It’s not that hard!
Hi Roger, these Monobath developers don't convince me at all. Never tried them and after your video I won't either. I would rather stick with the Developer, Stop and Fix variant. So I have full control over the development of my b / w films. Greeting Rolf www.bildgestalter.ch
Just watching one of my favorite channels and hear my weird first name, what a surprise AND you got it right! I just did 3 rolls in liquid Df96, and one roll wasn't great but that was a broken camera I am working on so I don't know. The HP5 with an orange filter came out decent though: flic.kr/p/2kqtjsy. Again, I'm no pro so don't trust me.
Monobaths seem like a solution to a non-existent problem. If people are that time strapped they'll shoot digital. Once you're playing with chemistry, one more soak in fix is unlikely to be a deterrent. Your washing regime worries me, I'm not convinced water circulation is sufficient from a running tap into a closed tank lid. I'd use a forced wash pipe into the centre column, or change your water more frequently. OTOH if you're not suffering any negative discolouration after a few years, you're probably ok.
What monobath is really aimed at is two rather different audiences: home workers who'll scan their negatives, but don't have room or don't want to deal with storing separate developer and fixer, or disposing of multiple chemicals -- and people who might want to shoot film on a vacation, and not have to worry about airport X-ray scanning damaging their exposed film. Buy film locally or mail it ahead to your hotel. Take along a bag of Df96 powder (or ship that to the hotel along with the film), buy a pitcher and a liter of distilled water at a Dollar (or Pound) store at your destination, mix the monobath, develop your film (in the tank you also brought), hang in the hotel shower, cut and sleeve -- and no danger to your images at the airport. In most locations, you can legally and safely dispose of this quantity of used developer and fixer in public sewer systems like the one the hotel is connected to, but otherwise, the hotel can most likely dispose of it properly in the bottle the distilled water came in.
Washing is fine. I either use that tap or Shove the shower pipe into the tank in the bath. Years of negs look fine either way. Thanks for the info though.
The design of the Paterson tank funnel lid lets you get good through flow just by running water into the core. That water will flow up through the spiral and out the pouring slots, easily confirmed by the fact the water doesn't back up in the funnel.
UPDATE. Thanks for all your comments. Today I played a bit more with the developer and started to get results with LESS agitation. For those interested I made a write up on my web blog with a couple of images from the tests. In a nut shell I had better results with Ortho 80, 6 minutes, 10 seconds inversions to start and ONE inversion each minute after at 27°. www.rogerlowe.co.uk/cinestill-monobath-df96/
More agitation gives LESS development, because it speeds up the fixing, which is going on at the same time as development. Generally, you'll get the best results with higher temperature (which accelerates development) and less agitation (which slows fixing) -- look at the instructions for the Push +1/2 or Push +1, which will have you increasing temperature or reducing agitation from "normal". Do remember the concern about bromide drag, especially after you've processed a few rolls in the batch of monobath; also don't forget to add that fifteen seconds for each additional film after the first (just as you would if you were reusing D-76/ID-11 or Xtol stock solution without replenishment -- in this case, it's the fixer slowing down as well as the developer).
Also, note their "native speed" caveat. The native speed of six years expired FP4+ is probably (a little) less than 125, and your Rodinal development (to higher contrast) will compensate for that better than a "native speed" process. Finally, the pH of your water makes a difference. If your local water supply is soft, it'll be less alkaline, while if it's hard, it'll be more so -- and more alkaline water will give faster development with no change in fixing rate.
The thing to remember with monobath is, it's a race between the developer (trying to bring up the latent image) and the fixer (trying to remove all the undeveloped silver halide). You usually lose a little true film speed (less than a stop, though), because the shadows are the last to fully develop, and the fixer steals the halide from those regions before the developer can turn it into image silver.
Thanks. It's definitely a developer you need to get a sweet spot and learn the hard way. Yes it says development is INCREASED by temp and DECREASED by Agitation. I developed as the instructions say. Interesting what you say about water. I may have to put that to a test with distilled water here.
I have been playing again today SilntObsvr. You can see the results on my blog. Thanks for the info. www.rogerlowe.co.uk/cinestill-monobath-df96/
Thanks for sharing your results Roger. It does seem like a compromise compared to standard developer and fixer processing. I won't be trying it, but I'm sure it has a place somewhere.
Another fun video! I've used the Df96 liquid for nearly two years with good results on FP-4, HP-5, and Ortho. Doing a pre-rinse & push 1 stop with temp (85°F (30°C) for at least 4 min • Intermittent agitation). Adding 30 second for each additional roll, not 15. Distilled water for everything. Inversions on the first minute, then crank handle for the remaining agitations. Only one roll failed to be well developed (my error loading the reel). The rest have been sharp and printable. 12 rolls per bottle or or a few more depending on how many are 120. Good for everyday shooting, --Doug
Just started developing my own film and I've only processed two rolls using Cinestill Dƒ96. In both instances the results were at least as good as negatives developed from a local photo lab. With Ilford Pan F Plus B&W especially I got good contrast and rich blacks. Fujifilm ACROS II 100 B&W shows a good range of gray mid-tones. I’m not sure why yours didn't turn out. All I did was follow the instructions. Fresh film. Nothing tricky.
I use DF96 as my goto developer and mostly at 27° Celsius for 3+ minutes with constant agitation. I really like the results and and how easy it is :) Once you get your head around the concept of pushing/pulling via increasing/decreasing the temperature for 6° Celsius per stop, this is very easy too. Oh and I should mention that I'm always using the liquid version.
Never got this to work properly. I've tried three different jugs of the liquid version, but even with constant agitation and double dev times, the negs just never came out right. Always looking underdeveloped, like yours. I gave up and went back to stand development if I want an easy job.
I've been using it for a while, I use the pre mixed at 24° with minimal agitation. I find that's better than the lower temperature
I got the cinestill starter kit that came with a developing tank and two rolls of the cinestill BwXx since I had been wanting to develop at home for a while. I absolutely butchered my first roll of film by misreading the instructions and developed it for three times what it recommended with the wrong amount of agitation and it turned out surprisingly alright. It seems to be fairly foolproof in regard to not following the instructions perfectly. I've developed Cinestill BWxX, HP5, Delta 100, and Arista EDU 400 with df96, and every time the negatives have been somewhat dense, although I'm not very experienced so maybe they are a bit thin and I just don't know it. I've been "scanning" my negatives by taping them to a lamp and taking macro shots (I did mostly macro way before starting film so it's not too difficult for me to freehand shoot the negatives). I'll upgrade to a three bath once I'm done with the developer, but I'm really glad they make this stuff, otherwise I wouldn't have made the jump to home developing. I love being able to shoot, develop, and scan pictures all in the same day without needing to send them out. My only complaint is that my latest roll had a fair deal of black specks on it which from what I can tell isn't dust since my other rolls are fairly dust free. I am wondering what could cause such a thing, but I suspect it might be the shed silver from other rolls of film or something like that. Am I supposed to filter my developer?
Great you're developing at home. Black specks I am not sure. I get the odd trapped bit of dust that sticks in the emulsion whilst drying but not common for me. It's all trial and error and once you get past the blips you move on and gain more understanding of what's going wrong and what makes it right.
Cheers for the mention, Roger. DF96 can be tricky, but once you find your sweet spot it's great. It likes higher temperatures and quick development times rather than cold n slow.
I used Ars-Imago mono-bath and well, it worked! There is for sure a reason for monobath solution, for instance you are a film-photo-reporter and got a shot of an event before newspapers go to press, well, you save time (not really much anyway) and send/sell your photos in time!
IMHO, if you are trying to go fine-art photo prints, you use all the time you could to perform it at your best. You try different prospectives, different lights, color filters... This mean you are not looking for a short-path, you climb your way the hardest way. It's a time consuming process.
Can you mix an intensifier and run the thin negatives through it? Would love to see the results!
DF96 is perfect for someone like me. I decided I wanted a couple plastic "toy" cameras to play with and realized how much trouble and cost having numerous rolls developed would me. I bought a dark bag, tank, and this solution. I've been using Ilford HP5+ and I'm pleased with the results. I did find out the hard way that Fomapan film does NOT like this stuff though. I used one roll and it came out underdeveloped. Turns out others had same issue and I didn't know beforehand. Lesson learned.
One thing about film. You learn a lot by your mistakes. Tip. Write all your experiences down. I "Usually" do and often look back on them.
I use Cinestill 2 bath for C41 (Colour) negs and found it fairly reliable (any problems have been traceable to user error). Previous to this I used Bellini foto (C41) with variable results every time. Sticking to ID-11 for B&W and trying to iron out user error.
Not really tempted by monobaths, always felt that alkali's and acids in the same bottle would logically have a neutralising effect. I'm presuming your 'hard' water is going to speed development, maybe the acid element of the one bath couldn't hold it in place on the emulsion, leaving a thin neg. I'd plump for increasing agitation first, which in theory should make the neg more contrasty, failing that longer in the soup, failing that a warm prewash of the film - I do this as standard - failing that distilled water. Unfortunately we both know that any part of this chemical equation may have multiple variables. Darn science, its supposed to help us !!!
I have had pretty good luck with the mono-bath. I have only used the constant agitation method.
I tried it a couple years back (the liquid version) and had almost the exact same experience as you found. These days I stick to Ilfotec HC and DD-X.
I just started developing my own film a month ago and this product was one of the reasons I decided to try it as it's so easy to use. I have so far developed 2 rolls of Kentmere Pan 400 in 35 mm and 2 rolls of HP5 Plus 400 in 120 and I think the negatives are just fine as long as the exposure is ok (I've had some underexposed frames in 120 though as I'm still learning to use a camera with no built-in light meter). Maybe I'll try the traditional 3 chemical method at some time too but so far I'm quite happy with the monobath.
I've also got myself a Durst M600 enlarger, Ilford Multigrade filter set, paper and chemicals (I believe the same stop bath and fixer can be used for film too, so i'll only need to get some film developer if and when I decide to try the 3 bath method?) and set up a darkroom in the cellar. Tomorrow I'm intending to try to make my very first prints (so far I have just scanned my negatives) so quite excited.
Great to hear you have your darkroom underway! Yes you can use the same Stop and Fix as you use for film. Although try to keep your re-used bottles separate instead of using the used film fixer for your prints.
Made my first prints today. I'll have to get a lower wattage bulb for my enlarger, now it seems to be 150W and it's way too bright.
I get good exposure with the lens stopped all the way down and 2 seconds for 120 and 3 for 35mm which obviously are too short and diggicult to time manually.
I was quite confused when the first test strip came out completely black. First I thought it was my safelight but the margins were white so I concluded it must be the exposure and after a few tries I managed to find usable settings and started getting nice prints.
They sure look a lot better on paper than scanned and wieved on screen.
I just got a bottle of the Monobath, It looks ok so far.
I've used the liquid constantly and never had any problems. Tried with several film stocks and they've all developed well with Df96.
I had better results next day. Took a bit of testing away from instructions
I have used this quite a bit as a quick uncomplicated way to check out whether the cameras I buy are working ok.I find it works well with acros 100 but with tmax400 it is so grainy. The thing that I don’t understand is the necessity to remove the film after the three or siX minutes. In the instructions it says feel free to leave it in longer to clear the film of its purple tinge or to fix it more. The developer automatically cuts out at a certain point and then the fix takes over like in a Polaroid shot. I have had no problems ignoring the add 15 seconds per film and have regularly left film in for 8 minutes and all seems ok.
Cheers Peter.
Enjoyed the vid, think your idea of using the liquid is a must just to give it a fair shot... as you say you may have messed up the chems, so another Wednesday wonder.
Roger -- when I was a scientific Photographer for Geology Dept UCL Gower Street from 1962-70 ( finishing up at £27 a week!) I could order any Chemicals I liked as I use to make up al my own Film Developers and had unlimited supply of Distilled water from Chemistry Lab opposite my Darkroom /studio. I TRIED FX6a Geoffrey Crawley's formula -- it has Phenidone + Hydroquinone as developing Agents and Sodium Hydroxide as the alkali and Sodium Thiosulphate as the Fixer . My results were rubbish I thought, very grainy negs and poor 'Acutance' as the Fixer starts eating away at edges of images quickly. I still make up most of my Film developers and all my BW Print developers even today.
You still have those chems in your darkroom cupboard still Pete I bet!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Ha Ha YES --- The Sodium Hydroxide is very 'Hydroscopic; so I squirt some Butane Gas Light Fuel in on top of it and it keeps it as dry pellets.
I’ve only used the liquid developer. I got good results but I don’t use it anymore. I get better results with HC-110
I tried a different brand of monobath once and got the same results as you. I didn't care for it and haven't used it since.
I like to only spend 3 minutes developing film and I'm on my 3rd bottle of cinestill and use for 3 minutes at 80 degrees F and it works as good as my negatives I developed 50 years ago with D76
I think you should have tried fresh film for the mono bath. I use the liquid never tried the powder
I found a sweet spot for Me. I pinned it in the comments. Yes it was fresh film too!
Very thorough, and fun to watch.
The water on the Island Is quite hard. I have to make up some more Monobath soon will try some different water will let you know if it improves the results I find 35mm film always OK some times 120 I do have different results.
I would love to see a video comparing different developers, ie the same shot developed in eg rodinal, hc-110 and Ilfosol. You can read descriptions online but I find it hard to imagine the actual difference.
The error You made is using minimal agitation. As of my expirience for lets say HP5+, you go contant agitation for +2 more minutes then instruction at +2 more degrees and it works ok.
Mines always the liquid never had a problem
LOL - you look good in a tutu :D.
Never knew about the monobath developer... might give it a try - thanks! :)
Wonder if the impurities in the water might of had an effect on the chemicals... maybe that is why they are asking for distilled water.
Interesting experiment. Doubt I'll be giving it a try, though. It took me long enough to get used to developing correctly with traditional chems...
Have you ever used HC-110?
I've never tried that one
Thanks for doing this. I want to try it! (I am a newb)
Just wondering that do you mount and frame your prints yourself or do you use some local business
I buy my own frames and cut mounts to fit. They are not expensive. The big square ones you see are about £8 each!
You have a lot of variables here including out of date film with no info as to how it was store. As well, the developer called for use of distilled water - possible contaminants in tap water had an effect? I’ve watched other reports on the liquid version on some other channels and their results did not show thin and low contrast results.
Did you not see the rodinal develop Edwin?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss yes - but that doesn’t rule out the possibility that some element in the tap water had a negative effect on how the mono bath functioned. Perhaps that’s why the instructions stipulated distilled water. As well, the rodinol was used for a different roll of film.
I’ve used mono 3 times with fresh ilford film stock and had no problems with thin negatives 🤷🏻♂️
Powder or liquid? If powder was it the same colour as mine or clear?
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss it was powder. Honestly I don't remember the color when I mixed it. I'll check what it looks like this weekend I have another roll to develop.
I wonder if adding part A, dissolving it then part B and dissolving it before (MTM) making to the mark, makes a difference.
Who knows without trying Anna.
Rather thenbwaste more chemicals and film, I think the liquid option was the best, can't wait to see your results
I just got a different monobath by Bellini, cheaper and works just great. My first negatives came from it
What about the sneak peak of your film in the begining?? Is it real or just a nice render ?
Just a bit of fun!
I love DF96! Its really simple and its made letting my little brother help me with processing really easy
Thanks trying!
For me, don't see the point in a single bath developer (other than being a way to develop on the quick). Ilford's simplicity film starter kit seems to be a better alternative for the beginner. Sure, you can't develop as much film as you could with d96. but the knowledge gained from using the full 3 bath setup will be invaluable for the beginner.
Going the other way, how about a 2-bath developer video?
I'd be interested in seeing a video on dual bath print development (one with higher dilution) - apparently it can help with really low contrast negatives
"But this is the first time I am using it"
That's not an excuse I would say, especially for someone that is as experienced as you are.
I developed my first roll ever (a 15 years expired roll of Delta 100) in Rodinal and it turned out much better than what you are showing here.
My expired film turned out better than your expired film... Brilliant! Lol
Very informative video, I will avoid this developer. Have you ever tried Pyrocat MD or HD ? I have ordered some and looking forward to using it.
I have never tried that developer. I have heard good things about it. I usually use XTOL, D76 (ID-11), Rodinal and Perceptol. Each for various films and scenes.
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss I will let you know when I get it.
Roger, don’t change a running system 😉. I will use 3 bad some normal
Your heart sinks when you see thin negatives come out of the tank.
It does! Not so bad when you're experimenting but when you're not it can be upsetting. Always reshoot I say, unless it's an event! Ouch
looks like a non-started to me but each to their own :)
You got the same results I did....poop compared to Rodinal. I think the liquid is poop as well. I tried distilled, tap.. poop. Followed direction to a tee than started experimenting...poop. at the end of the day, its a turd.
I used the liquid and was less than impressed with using it ... but your video was fun!!!
This developer is light sensitive I normally mix it in the dark room under red light
Monobath is the solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. B&W even in its most basic form is just 2 chemicals. Developer, and fixer. It’s not that hard!
Another great vid
I tested, more grain, less control, very flat like you...
I’ve tried two times and never again.
Someone had an accident? Smashed glass....
Yes it fell off the wall!
Hi Roger, these Monobath developers don't convince me at all. Never tried them and after your video I won't either. I would rather stick with the Developer, Stop and Fix variant. So I have full control over the development of my b / w films.
Greeting
Rolf
www.bildgestalter.ch
No harm in trying something new. Best always stick with what works though!
I now know that "Street" is the same in German as it is in English! Nice website. I like the pinhole work Rolf!
Just watching one of my favorite channels and hear my weird first name, what a surprise AND you got it right! I just did 3 rolls in liquid Df96, and one roll wasn't great but that was a broken camera I am working on so I don't know. The HP5 with an orange filter came out decent though: flic.kr/p/2kqtjsy. Again, I'm no pro so don't trust me.
Glad I got your name right!
Monobaths seem like a solution to a non-existent problem. If people are that time strapped they'll shoot digital. Once you're playing with chemistry, one more soak in fix is unlikely to be a deterrent.
Your washing regime worries me, I'm not convinced water circulation is sufficient from a running tap into a closed tank lid. I'd use a forced wash pipe into the centre column, or change your water more frequently. OTOH if you're not suffering any negative discolouration after a few years, you're probably ok.
What monobath is really aimed at is two rather different audiences: home workers who'll scan their negatives, but don't have room or don't want to deal with storing separate developer and fixer, or disposing of multiple chemicals -- and people who might want to shoot film on a vacation, and not have to worry about airport X-ray scanning damaging their exposed film.
Buy film locally or mail it ahead to your hotel. Take along a bag of Df96 powder (or ship that to the hotel along with the film), buy a pitcher and a liter of distilled water at a Dollar (or Pound) store at your destination, mix the monobath, develop your film (in the tank you also brought), hang in the hotel shower, cut and sleeve -- and no danger to your images at the airport. In most locations, you can legally and safely dispose of this quantity of used developer and fixer in public sewer systems like the one the hotel is connected to, but otherwise, the hotel can most likely dispose of it properly in the bottle the distilled water came in.
Washing is fine. I either use that tap or Shove the shower pipe into the tank in the bath. Years of negs look fine either way. Thanks for the info though.
The design of the Paterson tank funnel lid lets you get good through flow just by running water into the core. That water will flow up through the spiral and out the pouring slots, easily confirmed by the fact the water doesn't back up in the funnel.
Geez seems like a shitty product, unless shit is what you want. I am sure some like it because why?
Time saving for film shooting journalists on the go I've read seems a good idea for that.
I'm sorry to say that but it looks like s***. I'll stick with my good old soup (HC-110).
Stick with what works Alexei!
@@ShootFilmLikeaBoss Oh yes I will ! HC-110 and HP5 has been my daily bread for 4 years now. I won't change it for anything. :)