Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,901   Posts: 1,584,535   Online: 1019
      
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 160
  1. #31
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,282
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Gerald Koch
    I was commenting on Ole's post in which he says "... I've turned to "two-bath monobaths" - single shot developer, pour in a dash of rapid fixer concentrate at the end of development." While this may work it is not a monobath and will not produce the same results as a monobath.
    And that is why I've dropped the monobaths. I get far more predictable results with single-shot developers, at a far lower cost per developed film. Ammoniumthiosulfate is relatively cheap.
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  2. #32
    htmlguru4242's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sandy Hook, CT
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    973
    Wow - thanks for all of hte ideas, everyone - I'm impressed at the rapid rate of replies on this forum ...

    The "FX-6a" sounds interesting, although alll of the chemicals required can get a bit expensive (doesn't matter, though, as this is not going to be used for everyday practical use.)

    I'd like to try the idea of the HC-110 + Ammonia that someone mentioned and that I've read about here and there.

    Does anyone have scans of either negs. or prints developed with monobath developers?

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Quote Originally Posted by Ole
    ... my 5x7" negatives. ... topped up with 100ml 60%
    ammonium thiosulphate, ...
    That would do me five rolls of Pan + that 100ml of 60%.
    IIRC, T. Hoskinson routinely uses 30ml/roll. S. Thio. is slower;
    16 grams anhydrous or 24 penta per/roll Pan F+.

    As for mono-baths, I've not been able to justify their use.
    There is always a loss of film speed.

    My film goes directly from a least chemistry FX-1 - Rodinal
    type developer to my very dilute 1:24 A. Thio. fix. Dan

  4. #34
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by jking
    Donald Qualls (he's here on apug) came up with a monobath formulation using HC-110, and Ilford Rapid fixer, and household ammonia. He originally posted it on photo.net, and I referenced it in an 'pintoid' camera article here on apug in the how to article section.

    It works. My negatives were printable, but a bit low in contrast. I plan to experiment with the developer as a winter darkroom project to see if it can be optimized. I don't know if he has any refinements to it.
    If you wish to increase the contrast, you need to bias the monobath in favor of the developer. Two ways to do this, basically -- increase the amount of developer (already a lot) or increase the pH by adding a smidge more ammonia. Instead of the original 60 ml of household ammonia, try it with 70 ml, and adjust further as needed -- the beauty of sheet film is you can adjust on a per-image basis instead of having to shoot a whole roll, and you don't need a huge amount of soup for your Pintoid Processors, either.

    Making the soup more alkaline will increase the reaction rate of the developer, but won't affect the fixer; that will tend to increase contrast and will also (slightly) increase the film speed as more of the shadows get developed before the halide is fixed away. You MIGHT also be able to increase temperature with similar effect -- doing so will surely make both developer and fixer more active, but I'm not certain which will be more affected. Given the standard for this soup is already 75F, I'd recommend against going hotter -- just add more ammonia to raise contrast as needed (small increments, please).
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Willamette Valley, Oregon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,684
    Developer and fixer, all mixed together.
    Some would drop their jaw. Does physical
    development worry you at all? Dan

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    16,887
    i had a few long conversations with a chemist who used to do all the testing for the photo lab index( 40s-60s). he used to love to use monobath developers and told me a story about how he processed 9mm film in one of his invented developers, and made a rather big enlargement from the negative. it was really sharp and fine grained so much that when ansel adams visited the office he thought it must have been made with a large format camera.
    the chemist also suggested that newer films don't work as well as "olde fashioned films" because of their lack of silver and the amount of "poly-vinyl fillers" in the film. maybe some of the eastern european films j&c sells might work best ...

  7. #37
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Dan, no, physical development doesn't "worry" me at all. If I had seen dichroic fog with my HC-110 monobath, I'd be concerned to find the correct antifog agent to prevent it, but there was no evidence of it. Further, this same solution has been used with a few different films -- Tri-X, where I tested it originally, and also Efke 25 that I'm aware of. Mine works well, I think, because HC-110 already has a strong antifoggant to combat dichroic fog, since it uses ammonia as part of the alkali (ammonia, I've read, commonly would produce this symptom of physical development).

    In fact, monobaths were pretty common in the 1950s and 1960s, before Polaroid took over the "immediate results" market -- when a photojournalist needed to shoot, develop, and print in minimum time, especially in the field with limited or no ability to get to a formal darkroom, out came the coffee cup, monobath mix, and pencil. Use a rubber band to tie back the 35 mm leader (so it can't pull inside the cassette), drop the whole cassette into the coffee cup full of monobath, and agitate by rotating the cassette spool with the pencil's eraser. Wait a while (timing is non-critical, as long as it's long enough -- most worked in 6-10 minutes), pull the cassette out of the cup, pop the end, pull the film out, wash as much as you had time for, and slip the wet film strip into the enlarger (set up in the hotel bathroom, with a towel under the door). From camera to prints in under half an hour, better quality and bigger prints than Polaroid could manage in the day (which is why, until the Polaroid pos/neg materials came out, monobath still had a market).

    And dichroic fog was never a major problem -- these soups were formulated to prevent it, by one means or another.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian
    the chemist also suggested that newer films don't work as well as "olde fashioned films" because of their lack of silver and the amount of "poly-vinyl fillers" in the film.
    Haist in his book "Monobath Manual" comments that the newer emulsions at that time (1966) suffer from increased emulsion softness. He attributes this in part to the substitution of various polymers for part of the gelatine.

  9. #39
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,486
    Images
    20
    I found two threads on monobaths and merged them, and I thought I'd revive this topic in the wake of Polaroid's demise.

    Monobaths were one way of making quick proofs before Polaroid, and the Polaroid chemistry was itself a form of monobath. So is anyone using monobaths these days, or planning to in the not too distant future?
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  10. #40
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,544
    Images
    65
    I probably posted this elsewhere, but Grant Haist has published the "Monobath Manual" and his monobaths were used in the original two sheet monobath films in US space probes.

    PE

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567891014 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin