NEW55 Monobath Developer? What?

[StoneNYC]

Saw this today.

http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/r3-monobath-developer

How can this work? It develops, stops, and fixes, all in one bath in 6 minutes and can be viewed with safelight after 2?

This can't be archival can it?

How does it work?

~Stone

[photonsoup]

All polaroid instant films were a monobath. So with the proper mix it should be as archival as Polaroids were��

I mixed some up with a thickener and it develops quite well.

I think I've see Donald Qualls on this forum. He developed this, hopefully he will add his insight

[Tobias Key]

I guess if it was any good all film would be developed like this. That we all use separate dev, stop and fix speaks volumes.

[IanG]

I did a lot of commercial work in Monobaths in the late 1970s and if balanced correctly they worked very well. Ilford used to sell Monophen.

Ian

[Oren Grad]

The monobath concept has been around for a very long time. It's not magic; just as with two-bath development, it has quirks which make it not quite so "automatic" nor so widely useful as the idea might imply at first blush.

More (rambling) discussion here:

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/18177-monobath-developers.html

[Michael R]

Stone,

On a simplified level, a monobath combines a fast-acting developer with the fixing agent in a single solution. The idea is to balance the actions of development and fixation such that the developing agents can develop enough image silver density before the fixing agent has dissolved too much silver halide. As the fixer continues to dissolve silver halides (exposed and unexposed), development will slow and then stop since there is eventually no silver halide left for it to develop. Quick wash and you’re done.

The formula has to be carefully balanced, using concentrations, pH and thiosulfate levels as the primary controls over contrast and emulsion speed. In the literature the point is made that a monobath really needs to be customized for a particular film. This is why representative monobath formulas often specify ranges for some of the compounds, rather than fixed quantities.

As a side note, the monobath mechanism highlights why particularly with print processing, it is best to use a stop bath and/or a thorough running water rinse before fixation when using an alkaline fixer. Depending on the developer composition, if the developer is not neutralized or thoroughly washed out before fixation, it is possible for development to restart in the fixer.

[Tin Can]

From my readings, I believe Monobath development was driven by Press photographers who needed a simple quick field process that could be done in a hotel room.

They didn't worry much about archival, as the fastest to newspaper printing won the prize. Cash!

Since a member here invented this formula, and published it, one may as well mix your own.

The bigger question is not storage but capacity. Is it One shot?

I don't normally like powders, but a powder formula would be most convenient for travel. Simply add water...

[Taija71A]

... Since a member here invented this formula, and published it, one may as well mix your own...__

http://new55project.blogspot.ca/2010/01/donal-qualls-successful-monobath.html

Regards,

-Tim.
_________

[StoneNYC]

From my readings, I believe Monobath development was driven by Press photographers who needed a simple quick field process that could be done in a hotel room.

They didn't worry much about archival, as the fastest to newspaper printing won the prize. Cash!

Since a member here invented this formula, and published it, one may as well mix your own.

The bigger question is not storage but capacity. Is it One shot?

I don't normally like powders, but a powder formula would be most convenient for travel. Simply add water...

Thanks everyone, makes sense.

Randy, I can see your point, could be useful for long trips.

[IanG]

From my readings, I believe Monobath development was driven by Press photographers who needed a simple quick field process that could be done in a hotel room.

They didn't worry much about archival, as the fastest to newspaper printing won the prize. Cash!

Since a member here invented this formula, and published it, one may as well mix your own.

The bigger question is not storage but capacity. Is it One shot?

I don't normally like powders, but a powder formula would be most convenient for travel. Simply add water...

No the Press use of Monobaths wasn't common there were attempts to sell monobaths for press use but their main uses were in applied photography.

All monobaths are one shot, they are relatively temperature insensitive and work to completion so timing isn't a critical issue.

Ian

[chrism]

There's a link to the recipe on their blog:

16 ml HC-110 USA concentrate
50 ml household ammonia (ammonium hydroxide, probably 5% solution)
10 ml Ilford Rapid Fixer concentrate
water to make 256 ml

Time to go and buy some ammonia as I have the other two items in the fridge.

Chris

[StoneNYC]

There's a link to the recipe on their blog:

16 ml HC-110 USA concentrate
50 ml household ammonia (ammonium hydroxide, probably 5% solution)
10 ml Ilford Rapid Fixer concentrate
water to make 256 ml

Time to go and buy some ammonia as I have the other two items in the fridge.

Chris

Cool, wonder if Hypam would work just as well, I'm switching to that soon

[chrism]

It probably would, but it might take some experimentation to get the quantity right.

[BetterSense]

I think Hypam is a different pH. Something about hardener.

I want to try developing 4x5 xray negatives in a black plastic bag, loaded in a changing bag, as a "poor man's Polaroid".

[Tin Can]

I think Hypam is a different pH. Something about hardener.

I want to try developing 4x5 xray negatives in a black plastic bag, loaded in a changing bag, as a "poor man's Polaroid".

I have developed X-Ray in ZipLocks and it works real well, but you use a lot of baggies.

[StoneNYC]

I think Hypam is a different pH. Something about hardener.

I want to try developing 4x5 xray negatives in a black plastic bag, loaded in a changing bag, as a "poor man's Polaroid".

Just that Hypam doesn't work with hardners (which I don't use anyway)

[Andrew O'Neill]

I tried monobath developing years ago in Japan, and was quite impressed with the results. By playing around with the ratio between developing agents and fix, I could get different contrasts. I also used a monobath developer for the bleach and redevelopment process for extreme N minus development.

[IanG]

I think Hypam is a different pH. Something about hardener.

I want to try developing 4x5 xray negatives in a black plastic bag, loaded in a changing bag, as a "poor man's Polaroid".

Hypam & Ilford Rapid fixer are very similar, around the same pH 5.2-5.4, the only real difference is Hypam is buffered differently to allow the use of an optional hardener which has to work at a pH of around 4.5.

Ian

[jnantz]

the guy who did all film, paper and chemistry tests for
teh photo lab index ( jerry katz ) used to love mono bath developers
and invented quite a few of them including some that were ultra fine grained.
he told me a story about how he he processed some 16mm film in one of these fine grained ones he concocted
and enlarged a frame to 16x20 and had it on the wall at some sort of gathering ...
AA and others were there commenting on the image, and how he must have been joking
that it was 16mm film because the grain was so small, they insisted it was a LF negative
( until he showed them the film ) ... he also told me that some modern films aren't suited
for monobaths ( this was in about 2000 when i was in touch with him, maybe 2001 )
because the emulsions were full of poly vinyl fillers ... he and i had planned on working on a few projects
together but unfortunately he died about a year after our last conversation ...

[Michael R]

Just that Hypam doesn't work with hardners (which I don't use anyway)

Other way around. See Ian's post. Ilford Hypam and Rapid Fixer operate in the same pH range, and one can be substituted for the other UNLESS hardening is desired, in which case you use Hypam. Hypam is formulated with different buffering so that its pH is properly lowered when the optional hardener is added.

[chrism]

I bought a bottle of 'Old Country' ammonia (concentration unknown) and mixed up the goop. Two sheets of HP5+ tray developed, and currently drying. The first looks grand, the second one has come out positive! I turned on the light at three minutes (they say two minutes is OK), and it was already a positive. It must have had a re-exposure somewhere to do that, but I don't see how. Maybe the ammonia fumes have erased my memory of opening the door or something. You need a better extractor fan than I have to make this process pleasant!
I'll scan them this evening, as I have jobs to do this afternoon.

C.

[StoneNYC]

I bought a bottle of 'Old Country' ammonia (concentration unknown) and mixed up the goop. Two sheets of HP5+ tray developed, and currently drying. The first looks grand, the second one has come out positive! I turned on the light at three minutes (they say two minutes is OK), and it was already a positive. It must have had a re-exposure somewhere to do that, but I don't see how. Maybe the ammonia fumes have erased my memory of opening the door or something. You need a better extractor fan than I have to make this process pleasant!
I'll scan them this evening, as I have jobs to do this afternoon.

C.

That's really... Odd, you must investigate, almost sounds like you're fibbing, if you only ran 2 sheets and one is neg and one positive, then something REALLY backward is happening.

Also, all the people DESPERATE to make B&W positives will want to know how to do it on purpose...

[Tracy Storer]

I bought a bottle of 'Old Country' ammonia (concentration unknown) and mixed up the goop. Two sheets of HP5+ tray developed, and currently drying. The first looks grand, the second one has come out positive! I turned on the light at three minutes (they say two minutes is OK), and it was already a positive. It must have had a re-exposure somewhere to do that, but I don't see how. Maybe the ammonia fumes have erased my memory of opening the door or something. You need a better extractor fan than I have to make this process pleasant!
I'll scan them this evening, as I have jobs to do this afternoon.
C.
Thanks for the report, and please do let us know the details when you have a chance? Did you develop them together in the same tray, one at a time, separate trays, same temp, any changes or differences that may have occurred in your process?

[Tin Can]

I would think this process would be better for can shaker developing, far less surface area for fumes to waft from.

I will try it soon, but will use Nikor roll film cans with 2x3 sheet adapters.

All I need is Ammonia and grocery shopping is next week.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I did it in trays, and I wore a respirator. The respirator was designed for the Asian face, so my higher nose prevented a good seal. This was in my "darkroom" in Japan that had only a window for ventilation. I did all my work at night.

[Dinesh]

...almost sounds like you're fibbing, ..

Ouch!

[chrism]

Here you go. 256ml of solution made and placed in a small plastic Tupperware-type box (I thought my 10x8 trays would result in too shallow a depth of solution) Negatives developed separately, one after the other. My Paterson triple timer isn't very reliable, and when I had waited in the darkness for what was at least six minutes I used my phone as a flashlight and saw that it hadn't even started the timer when I pressed the button. So I washed it and it came out a bit contrasty but OK. Very fine grain for HP5+.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7585/16688291000_e5629d08ef_c.jpg

The second one is much different. I set the timer for three minutes and turned the light on at that time. The image was already a positive, with three obvious spots that slowly shrank over the next three minutes as I watched. I believe I must have looked at the timer with my phone again just before the two minutes were up. It also looks like I have palm prints (?) on it. This is scanned as a positive and not inverted:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8598/16849810596_337bd47a9b_c.jpg

Anyway, it belongs in the 'Post your mistakes' thread! I'm pleased with the first one for a first try. Question is - is it worth the effort? I have to mix up chemicals, gas myself with ammonia, use a tray rather than a tank, and spend more on fixer. I think it will remain a curiosity process for me, but then again, I do love curiosities!

Chris

[Tin Can]

It could be useful in the field. Wherever that is!

I will try it in 10 days in Nikor cans.

And you can bet I will use Tiny Format X-Ray first.

Which means my results cannot be posted here, but will be posted in http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?120897-Tiny-Format-X-Ray-images :)

[jnantz]

Here you go. 256ml of solution made and placed in a small plastic Tupperware-type box (I thought my 10x8 trays would result in too shallow a depth of solution) Negatives developed separately, one after the other. My Paterson triple timer isn't very reliable, and when I had waited in the darkness for what was at least six minutes I used my phone as a flashlight and saw that it hadn't even started the timer when I pressed the button. So I washed it and it came out a bit contrasty but OK. Very fine grain for HP5+.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7585/16688291000_e5629d08ef_c.jpg

The second one is much different. I set the timer for three minutes and turned the light on at that time. The image was already a positive, with three obvious spots that slowly shrank over the next three minutes as I watched. I believe I must have looked at the timer with my phone again just before the two minutes were up. It also looks like I have palm prints (?) on it. This is scanned as a positive and not inverted:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8598/16849810596_337bd47a9b_c.jpg

Anyway, it belongs in the 'Post your mistakes' thread! I'm pleased with the first one for a first try. Question is - is it worth the effort? I have to mix up chemicals, gas myself with ammonia, use a tray rather than a tank, and spend more on fixer. I think it will remain a curiosity process for me, but then again, I do love curiosities!

Chris

its too bad this recipe doesn't work with PAPER .. to make positves ;)
......... or does it ? ...

[chrism]

Don't tempt me (I cut up a sheet of 10x8 paper today and loaded the four quarters into 4x5 film holders. I think I should do the first lot conventionally!) Wasn't it used in photobooths that used direct positive paper? We've all had passport photos taken that way in the days before one's nose had to occupy a precise percentage of the image height etc. I believe that's what they did: direct positive paper instead of film, monobath, wash and dry.

Oh, I see you mentioned positives. Sure, you can sort of do it by, in effect, solarising it as I did accidentally, but better go the whole reversal processing route for best results. If direct positive paper were still available (I can't find any) I'm sure it would work.

C.

[photonsoup]

You can use lye drain cleaner instead of ammonia. It doesn't smell as bad.

[Tin Can]

Don't tempt me (I cut up a sheet of 10x8 paper today and loaded the four quarters into 4x5 film holders. I think I should do the first lot conventionally!) Wasn't it used in photobooths that used direct positive paper? We've all had passport photos taken that way in the days before one's nose had to occupy a precise percentage of the image height etc. I believe that's what they did: direct positive paper instead of film, monobath, wash and dry.

Oh, I see you mentioned positives. Sure, you can sort of do it by, in effect, solarising it as I did accidentally, but better go the whole reversal processing route for best results. If direct positive paper were still available (I can't find any) I'm sure it would work.

C.

A while back someone posted here a video of how a Photo Booth worked. It was multibath, but very quick., very Rube Goldberg.

[richardman]

They didn't worry much about archival, as the fastest to newspaper printing won the prize. Cash!


Be that as it may, what is the best guess on the archival quality of the negs?

[Tin Can]

Be that as it may, what is the best guess on the archival quality of the negs?

I know my work will last as long as I live. I am an unhealthy 64, maybe 20 minutes, maybe 10 years.

I have lived on borrowed time since 21, it's all gravy now.

You will have to try it. :)

[StoneNYC]

Don't tempt me (I cut up a sheet of 10x8 paper today and loaded the four quarters into 4x5 film holders. I think I should do the first lot conventionally!) Wasn't it used in photobooths that used direct positive paper? We've all had passport photos taken that way in the days before one's nose had to occupy a precise percentage of the image height etc. I believe that's what they did: direct positive paper instead of film, monobath, wash and dry.

Oh, I see you mentioned positives. Sure, you can sort of do it by, in effect, solarising it as I did accidentally, but better go the whole reversal processing route for best results. If direct positive paper were still available (I can't find any) I'm sure it would work.

C.

I was going to say, that looks like solarization to me. Lol

[Michael R]

Be that as it may, what is the best guess on the archival quality of the negs?

There is nothing inherent in the monobath process which makes it less archival. It just has to be done properly, and the monobath has to be properly formulated.

Depending on the film and monobath, the quality of the negative can vary from terrible to excellent, although there can still be differences between multiple bath and monobath negatives, particularly in image structure. As good as it can be, I still wouldn't refer to it as an optimum process. It is a compromise.

Haist's Monobath Manual and some other sources are good reading for those wishing to experiment. Generally, formulas used a hydroxide alkali to achieve a high pH, and a sodium thiosulfate fixing agent. Hardeners were sometimes added depending on the emulsion type. There are variables to be considered and balanced. For example, if an ammonium thiosulfate (ie rapid) fixing agent is used (which can be preferable for high iodide and/or tabular grain films), fixing could be too fast in relation to development unless the amount of fixing agent is lowered substantially, or development is accelerated. Fog levels, emulsion stress (much less of a problem than it once was) and physical development effects should be considered.

Also, not to be an alarmist, but I'm reading some things in this thread which are a little concerning regarding things like ammonia and sodium hydroxide (lye). Please do some reading about these before having them in your darkroom, take proper safety precautions, and be careful.

[IanG]

A while back someone posted here a video of how a Photo Booth worked. It was multibath, but very quick., very Rube Goldberg.

Photo booths were (are) quite crude dunk dip B& reversal processing, 1st Developer, rinse, Bleach, clear, rinse, 2nd "Fogging" re-developer, rinse, squeegee.

Ian

[chrism]

I'd be more concerned about improper handling of lye than ammonia. I keep NaOH and KOH around in pellet form to make soap. Nasty stuff at the best of times but very nasty indeed if you add water to lye instead of lye to water. The ammonia was strong enough that if I had asthma I might have wheezed.

C.

[Tracy Storer]

There's a link to the recipe on their blog:

16 ml HC-110 USA concentrate
50 ml household ammonia (ammonium hydroxide, probably 5% solution)
10 ml Ilford Rapid Fixer concentrate
water to make 256 ml

Time to go and buy some ammonia as I have the other two items in the fridge.

Chris
I tried this recipe yesterday with EfkePL100 and Ilford HP5+. They were both a bit thin, the Efke moreso than the Ilford. Further, the Efke had a greenish sludge on the emulsion side that I was able to rub off under running water. Scans attached, I did a couple other sheets I will scan and add later where I did the same shot on both films and developed together. I will add that the negs are printable, but if I were serious about them I would probably intensify them in Selenium toner.

[Tracy Storer]

Chris, is it possible that those "Palm Prints" are marks from some static discharge? They are not dissimilar from marks I got waayyyy back when working with some X-ray film.


Here you go. 256ml of solution made and placed in a small plastic Tupperware-type box (I thought my 10x8 trays would result in too shallow a depth of solution) Negatives developed separately, one after the other. My Paterson triple timer isn't very reliable, and when I had waited in the darkness for what was at least six minutes I used my phone as a flashlight and saw that it hadn't even started the timer when I pressed the button. So I washed it and it came out a bit contrasty but OK. Very fine grain for HP5+.

The second one is much different. I set the timer for three minutes and turned the light on at that time. The image was already a positive, with three obvious spots that slowly shrank over the next three minutes as I watched. I believe I must have looked at the timer with my phone again just before the two minutes were up. It also looks like I have palm prints (?) on it. This is scanned as a positive and not inverted:

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8598/16849810596_337bd47a9b_c.jpg

Anyway, it belongs in the 'Post your mistakes' thread! I'm pleased with the first one for a first try. Question is - is it worth the effort? I have to mix up chemicals, gas myself with ammonia, use a tray rather than a tank, and spend more on fixer. I think it will remain a curiosity process for me, but then again, I do love curiosities!

Chris

[chrism]

I can't quite figure out whether static on a solarised image should be white, black, or could be either one!

C.

[IanG]

Personally I'd prefer to use Crawley's FX6a monobath which works well and can be fine tuned to match specific films. L F A Mason in Photographic Processing Chemistry lists a typical Monobath formula. Mason was head of Research at Ilford, his editor was G I P Levenson who held a similar position at Kodak Ltd (UK).

Typical Monobath

Sodium Sulphite (anhyd) 50g
Hydroquinone 15g
Phenidone 10g
Potash Alum 18g
Sodium Hydroxide 18g
Sodium Thiosulphate (5H20) 210g
Water to 1 litre

Water must be sftened or deionised/distilled to prevent precipitates.

Use 1+1, 600ml working solution will process 6 rolls of 35mm/120 film, minimum Development time 7½ mins between 15.5ºC/60ºF and 26.5ºC/80ºF

I've not tried this particular monobath but suspect it's similar to Ilford's Monophen which they sold commercially.

Ian

[Jim Andrada]

Anybody who made blueprints in the "old" days never got a head cold because the Ozalid process was Ammonia based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozalid_process

I was lucky because the place I worked had a Bruning machine that DIDN'T use an Ammonia process.

[chrism]

I did this as a comparison shot (I was comparing with a paper negative) using FP4+ in Don Quall's monobath:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7652/16732052650_d9bab2f18a_c.jpg

[lesliekris]

Saw this today.

http://shop.new55.net/collections/frontpage/products/r3-monobath-developer

How can this work? It develops, stops, and fixes, all in one bath in 6 minutes and can be viewed with safelight after 2?

This can't be archival can it?

How does it work?

~Stone

I guess if it was any good all film would be developed like this
http://rockbullet.tk/86/o.png