CineStill Df96 Monobath - any experience ?

I tried this stuff in a Lab-Box last summer and got terrible results... mostly crossways marks on the film from uneven development. The developing action happens so quickly that even small irregularities result in non-uniform development. Tried it again more recently, though, and it was fine... the only thing I did differently this time is that now I soak the film in water for 1 min. before I start the developing process. My theory is that pre-wetting the emulsion makes it accept the developer more evenly. But I've never heard anybody else complain about non-uniform development, so it may just be another example of PCTHOM (Photography Curses That Happen Only to Me.)
 
I’ve been using Cinestill D96 Monobath liquid quite a bit recently. D96 was originally developed by Kodak to process motion picture films and so it’s not surprising that it seems to work best on black and white films that are from motion picture film stock, like Eastman Double X (5222), Cinestill Double X (rebranded Eastman Double X), and Lomography Berlin Kino and Potsdam Kino films. I’ve also used it with Tri-X and so far it’s been OK, where it’s noticeably grainier than, say, HC 110 but still gives nice tonality. I really like the tonality of Double X in Cinestill, although I’m finding that it’s best when the solution is 22C rather than 20C. Here are a few sample images:

Cinestill Double X in D96 Monobath, 6:30 mins. @ 21C:

Young oaks by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Cinestill Double X in D96 Monobath, 7:30 mins. @ 22C:

Alcove by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Cinestill Double X in D96 Monobath, 6:30 mins. @ 20C:

Lyell Fork by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr
 
Very nice results.

Seems like it’s most consistent with consistent temperature. Also, lower dev temperatures allow more control in agitation. I’ve heard of people with inconsistencies in development because they worked at 80°F and development was just too fast (3 minutes).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom