50 year old idea

[john_cooper9]

Back in the early 1970's I recall reading about, in maybe Modern Photography, an RFP from the US Military for a "one-shot" developer/fixer for Tri-X that could be used in the field. A contract was given to the winner and the resulting product was favorably compared to traditional develop and fix. Since it was funded by the US government the resulting formula was in the public domain. There were several other "one-shot" developer/fixer products available at the time, but all were found lacking compared to the traditional process. What happened to the US Military version? And, was it as good as the magazine article claimed. 

[Niels - NHSN]

1 hour ago, john_cooper9 said:

 What happened to the US Military version? And, was it as good as the magazine article claimed. 

Don't know, and it probably wasn't as good as the regular dev/stop/fix process - but good enough for it's intended pourpose.

From what I have seen Cinestill's Monobath is capable of acceptable results - although I don't understand why people will bother with film and not go the whole mile: https://cinestillfilm.com/products/df96-developer-fix-b-w-monobath-single-step-solution-for-processing-at-home?variant=7367677247522

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by Niels - NHSN

[john_cooper9]

I agree, but going the whole mile is more difficult when you are travelling. I plan to develop B/W film in 120, 5x7 and 4x10. Looking more for convenience than best results, i.e. small amount of chemicals that operates in a range of temperatures.

[conrad_hoffman]

Still trying to grasp the use of the words "120, 5x7 and 4x10" in the same sentence as "convenience". Monobaths were always a bit of a balancing act and there's a reason they never caught on. "Convenience" reminds me of the old Kodak Tri-Chem Pack, that actually was kind of handy.

[glen_h]

Monobath can never be "as good", but often enough, "good enough".

The fixer starts fixing while the developer is developing.  Some exposed grains get fixed too soon.

The 1 quart D-76, according to the official capacity, is enough for four rolls.

I am not sure about powder fixer, but four might not be so bad.

 

I believe that monobaths can be made with the developer and fixer acting

such that it is, more or less, temperature independent.  Or maybe not.

 

First I remember hearing about monobath was a Popular Science article, along with

a system for developing 35mm film in the cassette.  (Likely on 20 exposure rolls.)

Monobath would be useful, as it won't get to all parts of the film at the same time.

(I don't think I figured out that when I read about it.)

That would also be convenient for travel processing.

The system had a small tank, and then knob that would couple to the

film spool, the same way as rewind cranks.  You (slowly) turn the knob,

back and forth, eventually sucking enough chemical inside.

 

That also seems not to have caught on.

[glen_h]

This is NOT the one I remember.  Way too early.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ny0DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA220&lpg=PA220&dq=monobath+"popular+science"&source=bl&ots=1vOgYVPhvl&sig=ACfU3U0NyJbC6FyCXqR-y-1bPY50k_JFMg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiplI7wo-T9AhU2GTQIHTYQDRAQ6AF6BAgcEAM#v=onepage&q=monobath "popular science"&f=false

[glen_h]

This is the one:

https://books.google.com/books?id=zikDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=monobath+"popular+science"&source=bl&ots=ul7ddWyutL&sig=ACfU3U2f3Ly1RWQdl1eP69VJxT_hlIGltQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinhoDnpOT9AhVqAjQIHfJ_BSk4FBDoAXoECAMQAw#v=onepage&q=monobath "popular science"&f=false

[Bill C]

Hi, I posted this one before - from 1966, a 4-second monobath. Published in one of the SPSE journals:

[Bill C]

For more practical purposes, though, you might look at the modern monobath sold by Cinestill - Df96, I believe. 

See here:  https://cinestillfilm.com/products/df96-developer-fix-b-w-monobath-single-step-solution-for-processing-at-home?variant=7367677247522

I don't know anything about it other than what their website says, but if you're dead set on a monobath, well... here's a commercial product. 

Personally I'd probably stay with separate developer and fixer, ones that I'm already familiar with. 

[rodeo_joe1]

What's that whirring noise?

Oh, it's just Ansel Adams spinning in his grave at the thought of monobaths, and the fact that they allow no control over development time and hence negative contrast. 

If - big IF - monobaths gave the same quality of results, the same economy of use and the same archival permanence as separate developer and fixer, then don't you think they'd be the norm by now? 

[glen_h]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

(snip)

Oh, it's just Ansel Adams spinning in his grave at the thought of monobaths, and the fact that they allow no control over development time and hence negative contrast. 

(snip)

 

Yes, but we have Diafine that does the same thing.

Diafine is supposed to, as well as I remember, develop to optimal contrast.

Who could want more than optimal contrast?

[Dustin McAmera]

As has been said above, more or less, monobaths were for situations where skill and care weren't available or weren't needed: where the film and the scene were always the same, like mug-shots or document microfilm. Fairground ferrotype cameras used a monobath, in a chamber at the bottom of the camera. The exposed plate dropped straight into it.
Especially given the cost of film now, I wouldn't process my own medium or large stuff like that.
There's a formula for a monobath 'MM-1' in the Ilford Manual (p581 of my 7th edition, ISBN 0 240 50957 9 )
Sodium sulphite anhydrous  50g; Phenidone  4g; Hydroquinone  12g; Sodium hydroxide  4g; Sodium thiosulphate crystalline  110g; Glutaraldehyde 25% solution  8ml; and water to make  1 litre.
There's a note on the order of making it. 'After the addition of the phenidone, add a pinch of hydroquinone followed by the sodium hydroxide. The phenidone will then dissolve completely, and the small amount of hydroquinone helps prevent the oxidation of the phenidone. Then add the remainder of the hydroquinone and other chemicals in the order given.'
It says to process for 7 minutes at 24°C. You can adjust the contrast up (add alkali) or down (acid). It doesn't say anything about the capacity of that litre of solution.

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Dustin McAmera

[rodeo_joe1]

21 hours ago, Dustin McAmera said:

Sodium sulphite anhydrous  50g; Phenidone  4g; Hydroquinone  12g; Sodium hydroxide  4g; Sodium thiosulphate crystalline  110g; Glutaraldehyde 25% solution  8ml; and water to make  1 litre.

Wow! That's a lot of Phenidone to waste for just one litre of developer. 

My Phenidone-Ascorbate substitute for D-76 uses only 0.5g of the stuff, and can develop 8 films per litre. 

I guess some people just get a kick out of pointlessly burning money.

Edited March 19, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[rodeo_joe1]

21 hours ago, glen_h said:

Yes, but we have Diafine that does the same thing.

What's this "we"? 

You can actually vary the contrast of a two-bath developer by re-dunking the film in the first bath, or varying the time in the first and 2nd baths. Or so I'm told.

D-76, HC-110, Tmax or other one-shot developers have always served me well. (Apart from Acutol that proved quite unreliable - least said about that the better) 

[Dustin McAmera]

37 minutes ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Wow! That's a lot of Phenidone to waste for just one litre of developer. 

My Phenidone-Ascorbate substitute for D-76 uses only 0.5g of the stuff, and can develop 8 films per litre. 

I guess some people just get a kick out of pointlessly burning money.

 

Well, I said my book gave no idea of the capacity of that litre of 'MM-1': may it's high. If you were processing a lot of (say) oscilloscope-trace pictures every day, you wouldn't want to have to stop to make new developer all the time.

The point to monobaths seems to be as much the fast turnaround (four seconds! and since it's going to completion, you don't even have to time that precisely) as the simplicity, both for the fairground portrait shooter and the spy-plane photographer. So even if it does work out expensive, it's not pointless, if the speed's worth it to you.

As far as I can see, nobody in the thread is advocating monobaths for general use. Some of us have said 'maybe good, for some purposes'. Even the OP is only saying, more or less 'I've heard of this, and it might make my processing on the road easier; what do you know/think?'

[glen_h]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

What's this "we"? 

You can actually vary the contrast of a two-bath developer by re-dunking the film in the first bath, or varying the time in the first and 2nd baths. Or so I'm told.

D-76, HC-110, Tmax or other one-shot developers have always served me well. (Apart from Acutol that proved quite unreliable - least said about that the better) 

We is the world of photographers.

For many years, when I was young, and after I learned about Diafine from my grandfather, it was my favorite.

Now I have Diafine, HC-100, and TMax.

I got TMax, as it seems to be the favorite for TMZ,

but it also seems to be a nice developer for many films.

 

As well as I understand it, the whole Ansel Adams thing was for sheet film,

where you can develop each shot differently.  For roll film, not so easy.

In any case, I mostly never tried to develop for specific contrast.

The only exception is Technical Pan film, where I sometimes try for

lower contrast.

[rodeo_joe1]

4 minutes ago, glen_h said:

For roll film, not so easy.

One of the reasons for having interchangeable backs (film magazines). 

You could have 3 backs on the go for the Zone system - one back for N development, one for N-1, and another for N+1.

Not that I've known anyone do that, but you could. I'm sure that was one reason for AA's use of the Hasselblad's system. 

9 minutes ago, glen_h said:

The only exception is Technical Pan film

Ugh! Technical Pan. I never did get a roll of acceptable normal-contrast negatives out of it. It was easier to just shoot medium format than try to squeeze better results out of a 35mm camera. 

42 minutes ago, Dustin McAmera said:

If you were processing a lot of (say) oscilloscope-trace pictures every day, you wouldn't want to have to stop to make new developer all the time.

I note the use of Sodium Hydroxide, and caustic soda developers aren't known for their long keeping properties once part-used. 

There's most likely a similar recipe in Jacobson's book 'Developing'; and probably with more detail. I'll have a look later. 

[Dustin McAmera]

I've never used Diafine (I'm a Brit. None of my usual suppliers keep it). I was taught with Paterson chemicals, and nowadays I have HC110 and a Rodinal clone in the fridge. I have a pack of ID-11 in the cupboard (but it's been there a while) and a few other things I bought out of curiosity.

I've always been more Fester than Ansel.

 

 

[Dustin McAmera]

1 hour ago, Dustin McAmera said:

None of my usual suppliers keep it

(Diafine, that is). I find that's only sort-of true. AG Photographic in Birmingham list it but have it as out of stock for now. Silverprint list a thing called Bellini BWDF2 described as 'liquid diafine', which is a two-part liquid concentrate.

 

'Analogue Wonderland'* list that Cinestill monobath. I do kind of see why this would be attractive to someone who's trying out film photography because it's cool 😎 (I'm not mocking that: I did stuff because it was cool, once). Most films use the same time, so you can develop mixed batches; and it's a short time. You get to do old-school stuff without much risk of it going wrong. Anyhow, it's sold out for now.

 

* Now I have a dilemma: do I hate these people for using the 'A' word, or like them for spelling it 'correctly' (with the -ue)? 🤔

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by Dustin McAmera

[glen_h]

5 hours ago, Dustin McAmera said:

 

(snip)

 

😎Most films use the same time, so you can develop mixed batches; and it's a short time.

You get to do old-school stuff without much risk of it going wrong.

(snip)

 

 

Diafine also uses the same time for all films, and also a wide temperature range.

But two baths, so the opposite of monobath.   Also, not so much agitation.

Even more, it lasts close to forever.  You should still keep air out, but the developing

agents (in part A) don't oxidize so easily with out the alkaline part B.

 

But HC-110 concentrate also lasts a long time.

[glen_h]

7 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

(snip)

I note the use of Sodium Hydroxide, and caustic soda developers aren't known for their long keeping properties once part-used. 

There's most likely a similar recipe in Jacobson's book 'Developing'; and probably with more detail. I'll have a look later. 

As well as I know it, the Polaroid developers are also sodium hydroxide based.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 3/19/2023 at 11:38 AM, rodeo_joe1 said:

There's most likely a similar recipe in Jacobson's book 'Developing'; and probably with more detail. I'll have a look later. 

Nope. Surprisingly the formulae given in Jacobson's 'Developing' (old or new editions) are pretty short on details like developing times and keeping qualities. 

The nearest Jacobson's formula to the above is one attributed to Kodak Research Labs, using a similar quantity of Phenidone, but using formaldehyde as the hardening agent. A hardener helps to equalise the development and fixing times, apparently, as well as prevent the necessary strong alkali from lifting the emulsion clean off the base!