Monobath Developer

<p>New 55 recently released a pretty cool looking product, and published a home brew formula, for a monobath developer that can be used for Tri-X, and HP5 Plus. Has anyone tried it? If so, thoughts?</p>

<p>Got a link? The couplafew homebrewed monobaths I tried didn't work out so well. Could be because I used rapid fixer rather than traditional slower acting fixer.</p>

<p>Here is the link Lex. It looks like they based it on Donald Qualls Second formula.<br>

http://new55-film.myshopify.com/products/r3-monobath-developer </p>

<p>Ah, the MSDS says it's HC-110, rapid fixer and ammonia. I remember reading Donald's posts on that a few years ago. I should give it a try, I have all that stuff at home.</p>

<p>If I remember right, Donald tested it with Tri-X and Plus-X. Here is his second version<br>

http://www.photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/007cca</p>

<p>Thanks for that link, Larry. I'd missed it the first go 'round. That was right about the time my grandmother died and I was swamped wrapping up her estate for the next year.</p>

<p>I do remember that I'd tried a couple of homebrewed monobath developers in 2002-2003, with little luck. Then Donald was experimenting and said he may have found a solution that worked with modern emulsions.</p>

<p>I also recently re-found some of my negatives from those homebrew experiments, including one using Red Devil Lye. The Tri-X negs were ultra-murky, but the look was interesting. A bit like using Diafine on Tri-X under overcast skies or very low contrast lighting.</p>

<p>And the purpose would be???<br /><br />As somebody who loves film, I know I should be grateful that people are still coming up with new films and new developers and making a commitment to the technology. Once Kodak and Ilford drop out of the business, these smaller players may be all we have left.<br /><br />But I also worry that every roll of newly-announced film and every gallon of newly-announced developer sold is one less roll of Tri-X/HP5 or one less gallon of D-76/ID-11 sold by Kodak and Ilford. There is barely enough market for Kodak and Ilford to say in the business as it is. Every new film/developer product that comes on the market takes another slice out of that pie and brings us closer to the day that Kodak and Ilford will say it isn't worth it anymore.<br /><br />Small players might not individually sell much film compared with the big guys. But it can add up. How many rolls does a small manufacturer have to sell to make back their investment, let alone make a profit? Certainly more than 1,000. Maybe 10,000? And if there are four or five companies out there doing it, that starts to take a bit big enough for Kodak and Ilford to notice.</p>

<p>Yes it was using Household clear ammonia that allowed it to work better. I wonder how Donald is? I have not heard from him in 4 years now.</p>

<p>Craig. This was an offshoot of the New55 Project.</p>

<p>I don't subscribe to the finite pie philosophy. More interest in traditional photography creates a larger, healthier and more vibrant market. It doesn't steal customers from Kodak and Ilford. It creates more customers for everyone.</p>

<p>Also, this monobath uses Kodak HC-110. It appears to be easy to make, so it may influence others to buy Kodak HC-110 and make their own.</p>

<p>Nowadays anything that makes developing and printing more efficient is a good thing. If a monobath is regarded as saving someone a little effort, it may inspire them to give film a try, or resume using it.</p>

<p>Amen.</p>

<p>Good points. I agree that expanding interest in film is a good thing.</p>

<p>There are some things I might try once, just to see them work. I do remember reading about monobath many years ago, though now maybe not so interested.<br>

I more often use Diafine which is in the other direction, but not having to worry so much about time and temperature makes it easier.</p>

I am with Craig here but I think it is worse, one roll of "alternative producers" cost around 3 times the price of a roll from Kodak or Fuji. I really dont get why to spend that money for a product with deficiencies (like the CineStill) when you could get 3 rolls of an excellent, top of the tehnique product instead.

<p>I am pretty sure we have always had alternate processes and films. I see no need to worry about it now.</p>