Karim Ghantous Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 The FPP released their own monobath last week: Darkroom Supplies - FPP Super Monobath BW Developer (1 Liter) This is by no means a panacea, and certainly not a new thing. But it got me curious because b&w processing became easier and simpler, at least for casual shooters or those who just got into b&w film. So, what do you folks think? Would you use it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikheilrokva Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 If I was an inexperienced or a lazy lad who doesn't want to fiddle with three different liquids I would. I believe historically monobaths were designed for extreme conditions where time and storage was of the essence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 (edited) A monobath relies on the developer being faster in action than the fixer component. Energetic developers tend to give coarser grain and more contrast than slower-working developers. Therefore all monobaths give inferior image quality compared to a conventional developer, and the fixing action may also be inferior WRT archival permanence. Developer and fixer also do not play nicely in the same solution, so economy of use is compromised. If monobaths had no drawbacks, they'd be the norm. They do, and they're not! "A monobath is a developing solution that contains developer, stop bath and fixer all in one solution" - That's a lie. There's no acid stop bath incorporated. And I'd question their claims about archival quality. This is obviously a product aimed at the lazy, who just want to 'dabble' with film with the least effort. Edited May 5, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_darnton2 Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 Lots of self-righteous judgmentalism going on here about how other people should act! With something like this if you are interested, you try it. If it works for you, it is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodeo_joe1 Posted May 5, 2018 Share Posted May 5, 2018 "Lots of self-righteous judgmentalism going on here about how other people should act!" - Not at all. Just trying to balance the very one-sided hype put out by FPP. With their transparent agenda of making film-processing appear more simple and appealing in order to increase their market. Even if that gives sub-optimal results. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moving On Posted May 6, 2018 Share Posted May 6, 2018 (edited) With something like this if you are interested, you try it. If it works for you, it is good. Nothing is so enlightening and liberating as finding what you thought was "good enough for you" isn't...... Facts are useful in judgement. Edited May 6, 2018 by Moving On 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I don't do film anymore, but have for many, MANY years! I wouldn't use monobaths for a variety of reasons, some of which are: 1) I usually would pair a developer with a specific film/purpose 2) I wanted to be in total control of dev. time, dilution, etc.. 3) I wanted to be in control of stop bath and fixing bath type, duration, etc... 4) If I wanted to push or pull a film I couldn't do it without a dedicated developer mixed for that purpose. The "fun" of doing film was being able to have control by choosing chemicals/film combination to achieve different results and effects. If one wants convenience and it comes at the loss of control, IMO it's not worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted May 15, 2018 Share Posted May 15, 2018 I have to admit to some skepticism on this also. 20 years ago, I could see newspaper photographers snapping it up for the times when they had to deliver a usable image as quicky as possible. Sometime around 1999 when the Nikon D1 and other practical DSLRs came out, that use went away pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_kuzenski Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 I bought a bottle out of curiosity. I thought I followed the time/temp/agitation instructions very carefully, but I came out with underfixed film. The most likely explanation is certainly "user error," but I am satisfied with separate solutions. One very tiny datapoint, your mileage may vary, close cover before striking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJG Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 I bought a bottle out of curiosity. I thought I followed the time/temp/agitation instructions very carefully, but I came out with underfixed film. The most likely explanation is certainly "user error," but I am satisfied with separate solutions. One very tiny datapoint, your mileage may vary, close cover before striking. Don't sell yourself short--I have developed thousands of sheets of 4x5 and rolls of 35 and 120 B&W conventionally with almost perfect results; my limited experience with mono baths has been very poor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 I mostly do film photography for fun (well, digital, too). Trying out monobath would be fun. But it is obviously a compromise. The fixer will start working before the developer is done, so at least some developable grains won't be developed. So, you either get lower speed than normal, or push effects to get back to box speed. As my mom used to say at the grocery store: try anything once. For most of my film photography life, I have been using Diafine. That makes four solutions (including the water rinse for stop bath), but no worry about time, and minimal worry about temperature. There was one many years ago (maybe 1960's) in popular science that developed 35mm film (probably 20 exposure rolls) in the cartridge. The cartridge went into a little tank that had a knob to turn the spool. As well as I know, you turn the spool to get solution to move into the cartridge and around the film. Seems likely to get scratched or otherwise cause problems with the film, but simplifies the processing even more. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Marcus Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 The monobath gained popularity in situations where rapid access to the images was vital. We are talking X-Ray processing machines in hospitals and dental offices etc. Some other applications were machine-processed microfilms, and specialized motion picture processes employing a procedure known as diffusion transfer. Monobath developers were also bottled and sold in camera shops for use in home darkrooms. This single solution method relies on the fact that developing and fixing can proceed at different rates. Concentrated hydroquinone is a developer that works quickly. A restrainer is included to restrict interaction with the fixer. Potassium alum is added to harden the film. This is used to adjust infusion time, which controls the speed solution as it enters and exits the emulsion. The bad news is -- monobaths generally cause a speed loss (ISO decrease) plus they elevate the film’s fog level. This higher fog level reduces contrast. In short, the monobath delivers a substandard negative. Things that modify the process have both pluses and minuses; we use them when the good outweighs the bad. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denny_rane Posted February 17, 2019 Share Posted February 17, 2019 Two process' i have never had a need for, and frequently cause a stir on Forums.....Monobath and Stand developing. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glen_h Posted March 4, 2019 Share Posted March 4, 2019 Stand and Diafine are two ways to make a compensating developer. That is, one that will develop the shadows long enough, without overdeveloping the highlights. I learned about Diafine from my grandfather 50 years ago, and thought it was amazing. That it allows a much higher EI, which I completely believed at the time. On the other hand, I did read about monobath in Popular Science many years ago, and never got interested in it. If I found a bottle of one in a store, I might have, though. -- glen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henricvs Posted March 10, 2019 Share Posted March 10, 2019 Tried it. Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now