CineStill Df96 Monobath - any experience ?

SIM09669-2 by Olivier, on Flickr


Here's an attempt. Konica with 40mm f1.8 and Kentmere 400 in DF96. 3m30s continuous agitation at 27C with 300ml in an Agfa daylight tank. Scanned with a7ii with tone curve & contrast adjustment.

My first roll was a disaster (full tank 6m minimal agitation at 24C - wanted to push 1/2 stop). Second roll at 4m intermittent agitation and 24C looked better but exposure was off due to light leak. Based on this thread I went with warmer solution with continuous agitation, tank half-full. Looks much better. But honestly it's hard to tell... quite a few variables at play and I haven't developed film in 20 years.
 
OlivierAOP said:
My first roll was a disaster (full tank 6m minimal agitation at 24C - wanted to push 1/2 stop). Second roll at 4m intermittent agitation and 24C looked better but exposure was off due to light leak. Based on this thread I went with warmer solution with continuous agitation, tank half-full. Looks much better. But honestly it's hard to tell... quite a few variables at play and I haven't developed film in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Yep, definitely recommend only using the warmest recommended temperature for pushing film, it seems to respond best that way as it keeps the combined developer/stop functioning in good relation to each other.

I think the image you just posted looks great!
 
agentlossing said:
Yep, definitely recommend only using the warmest recommended temperature for pushing film, it seems to respond best that way as it keeps the combined developer/stop functioning in good relation to each other.

I think the image you just posted looks great!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the feedback. I'm guilty of vanity and showed one of the best scans. When post-processing in rawtherapee I found it hard to balance dynamic range with contrast; can't tell if exposure or development or neither are to blame.

I'm going to get standard developer + fixer to compare. The Agfa tank (Lab-box equivalent) specifies 200ml + nearly constant agitation so I think the DF96 at 80F process is the correct approach.
 
The scanning (whether with digital camera or dedicated scanner) also puts its own interpretation on things. I'm of the opinion that camera scans are especially guilty of this: scanners tend to produce much flatter images which can be "brought back" to a decent representation of the film characteristics. It may take some more experimentation with your camera settings to obtain an image that allows you to get contrast and levels to where you like.
 
Well digital sensors have generally a linear response to exposure and thus should faithfully reproduce the densities of the negative. I've been playing a bit more in post... by fine-tuning the contrast curves you can get a lot from the negative even if they are poorly exposed.
 
Olivier, it will be interesting to see your comparison between standard developer and Df96. Intermittent agitation (10-15 sec every half a minute) at ~25-26C has worked very well for normally exposed film. Have never tried push develepmont, but did pull once with TMax 400 mistakenly off by 2 stops, and used 18C and intermittent agitation. The negative came out surprisingly reasonable.
 
Just developed a few frames in Ilfosol 3 + rapid fixer. Less grain, and histogram looks more spread out on the scans. However after post results are similar contrast-wise. DF96 is easier to use. I don't mind trading grain for convenience, I think.
 
OlivierAOP said:
Well digital sensors have generally a linear response to exposure and thus should faithfully reproduce the densities of the negative. I've been playing a bit more in post... by fine-tuning the contrast curves you can get a lot from the negative even if they are poorly exposed.
Click to expand...

Even if digital cameras are capable of linear response, you either shoot JPEG where a camera curve is applied, or you shoot RAW and whatever software you bring it into applies some sort of curve. At this point, you need to learn how to get the file to the appropriately flat starting point. Scanners have a convenience factor in starting out very flat. Nothing that can't be replicated with some experience.
 
I've developed 4 rolls alternating monobath with duobath. Duobath wins in image quality hands down. Better tones, better grain. Monobath is still adequate, but I suspect it doesn't play well with the Agfa tank?
 
I've developed about 10 rolls now in DF96, using a Lab-Box. It's really terrific...you can't really screw up the dev time, as long as you know the temperature of the solution to start. It can't over-develop...the fixing takes place to stop development. It's perfect for impatient, sloppy film photographers like me (;)) who use a hybrid workflow.

I'll try to post a few recent examples.
 
Mackinaw said:
Monobaths have always puzzled me. What is so difficult about processing B&W film? It’s not like it’s hard to transfer film from developer, to stop bath, to fixer. I just don’t see the attraction.

Jim B.
Click to expand...

People always look for shortcuts and won't believe that normal way has estabilished itself for being the one that is reliable and delivering the best result or at least the best compromise. They think they are the geniuses who can cut it short. This is true not only for developing or photography.
 
This kind of thing might appeal to someone who wishes to travel with a film camera, purchase film on location, process that film, and then return with processed negatives through airport security thereby minimizing problems with fogging, TSA/Security mishandling, etc. You only need a simple tank and a changing bag, or, better, a Lab-Box and the will to do such a thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom