R3 Monobath: 1 bath film developer/stop/fixer

lynnb

lynnb

Veteran
Local time
11:44 PM
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
11,044
Bob Crowley of New55 has announced a new monobath developer called R3 that lets you develop, stop, and fix black-and-white photographic film with a single bath, according to a PetaPixel report.

It’s the “the most convenient black and white developer we know,” writes New55. “It can be used in the field, in the darkroom, in your bathroom, or in a dark-bag to conveniently develop your black & white negative film in a single pass.”
Click to expand...

The PetaPixel article goes on to say:
Instead of immersing your film in three different baths and agitating the tanks, R3 works without any agitation and will develop your film in just 6 minutes of soaking. You then rinse it off for 5 minutes, dry it, and you’re done.

New55 has confirmed that the developer works with New55 Atomic-X, Ilford Pan F, HP5 Plus, Kodak TMax, Tri-X, Efke 25, and Shanghai 100 so far, but it should work with any standard black-and-white film on the market, even “old exposed black and white film that has been sitting for years.”
Click to expand...

There are image samples also, on the New55 site. Pushing and pulling is done via temperature.

R3 Monobath is currently shown as sold out on the New55 site. It's only available in continental US.
 
I bought a bottle and have developed about five rolls of Tri-x and a few sheets of 4x5 in it. Contrasty, fun, fast and easy to use.
 
Nothing that new, indeed a principle that dates back to the first few decades of photography. Most books on darkroom chemistry down to the 19th century contain recipes, usually for very short-lived monobaths that had to be used within hours of mixing. But some makers already offered a liquid single-bath process back in the seventies - the most popular was Monotenal by Tetenal. The results from that were so-so at the very best, and very dependant on temperature and agitation.
 
Processed in recently acquired R3 monobath.

Baby Century Graphic, AG1 flashbulb, Efke PL 100 M 2-1/4” x 3-1/4” sheet film.

Quickie flatbed wet scan with Newton’s rings.

crackhead_101.jpg


Neighborhood crackhead listening to a battery-less radio.
 
Hey Chris... How’s that Harvey 777 Defender working out for you ?
I’d bet it doesn’t get any better.

Now I need to see what I’m looking at.
 
What is the verdict on this? I've never developed film but I'm planning to develop a couple of rolls of tri-x when I've finished them and bought all the equipment. Would this be a good place to start or should I go for the traditional method? Saying that it might only be available in the UK anyway.
 
No agitation?

No agitation?

Instructions say "immerse your exposed black & white film completely in the warm monobath for 6 minutes without agitation."

What if bubbles form on film?
 
Monobaths can work very well -- IF they are precisely matched to the film with which they are used. This doesn't just mean the speed: it also means the hardening, coating thickness. supercoating, wetting additives and whether there are development accelerators incorporated in the emulsion. Thus, for example, and from memory of the last time I was using both together (10+ years ago) Foma 200 and Ilford FP4 plus are just about identical in speed in most developers (100-200) but the Foma develops a lot faster.

In other words, find the right film and the results can be at least adequate. Use the wrong film and you'll have quite significant over- or under-development. You may also have significant speed variations or reduced sharpness or increased grain or any combination thereof.

Why do you suppose that they have never become universal?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Monobaths can work very well -- IF they are precisely matched to the film with which they are used. This doesn't just mean the speed: it also means the hardening, coating thickness. supercoating, wetting additives and whether there are development accelerators incorporated in the emulsion. Thus, for example, and from memory of the last time I was using both together (10+ years ago) Foma 200 and Ilford FP4 plus are just about identical in speed in most developers (100-200) but the Foma develops a lot faster.

In other words, find the right film and the results can be at least adequate. Use the wrong film and you'll have quite significant over- or under-development. You may also have significant speed variations or reduced sharpness or increased grain or any combination thereof.

Why do you suppose that they have never become universal?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Their FAQs state that they have found a "solution" to this. They don't say what it is though.
 
Last edited:
RMPoole said:
Their FAQs state that they have found a "solution" to this. They don't say what it is though.
Click to expand...
This would be interesting. A few years ago, I talked to Grant Haist about monobaths: Grant Haist as in Modern Photographic Processing, when I bought the book: see http://haistpress.com/orders-and-inquiries.html (reprint of the original). This is generally regarded as the greatest work on the subject, and yes, I have Glafkides, Clerc and Neblette as well as Haist. I based my reply on my own limited experience and his massive theoretical and practical knowledge.

If they explain what the solution is, and it makes sense, I'll REALLY be intrigued. Otherwise, it seems more likely that they are being saved by the massive flexibility of pos/neg B+W. Just as surprisingly many Zonies are: overexpose by a stop or two and it's quite hard to screw up B+W beyond repair.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
This would be interesting. A few years ago, I talked to Grant Haist about monobaths: Grant Haist as in Modern Photographic Processing, when I bought the book: see http://haistpress.com/orders-and-inquiries.html (reprint of the original). This is generally regarded as the greatest work on the subject, and yes, I have Glafkides, Clerc and Neblette as well as Haist. I based my reply on my own limited experience and his massive theoretical and practical knowledge.

If they explain what the solution is, and it makes sense, I'll REALLY be intrigued. Otherwise, it seems more likely that they are being saved by the massive flexibility of pos/neg B+W. Just as surprisingly many Zonies are: overexpose by a stop or two and it's quite hard to screw up B+W beyond repair.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

I couldn't paste this before as my phone wouldn't let me for some reason. Here is what they have to say:

Is R3 a universal monobath?

Q: I read in Haist that each monobath has to be tailored for the specific film?
A: Grant Haist wrote a good book from the point of view of Kodak films. It is an excellent book but generally avoids the solution that Qualls invented, which goes against some of "the rules". Hooray Donald!
Click to expand...

http://new55project.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/r3-monobath-developer-resource-page.html?m=1

This appears to be a description of how he does it:

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

I have never developed any film and GCSE chemistry was a long time ago so I can't comment.

Rob
 
RMPoole said:
I couldn't paste this before as my phone wouldn't let me for some reason. Here is what they have to say:



http://new55project.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/r3-monobath-developer-resource-page.html?m=1

This appears to be a description of how he does it:

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

I have never developed any film and GCSE chemistry was a long time ago so I can't comment.

Rob
Click to expand...
Dear Rob,

Thanks for the link, though in fact I was sufficiently intrigued that I had already found it via Google. Qualls does not even suggest that he has overcome the basic limitations: this appears to be an invention by New55.

Qualls says "... normal appearing negatives, within approximately 1 stop of rated speed at worst . . . to my eye contrast range appears normal and low light details are preserved" and New55 says "Grant Haist wrote a good book from the point of view of Kodak films. It is an excellent book but generally avoids the solution that Qualls invented..."

This might be because Grant applied serious sensitometry to what he was doing, instead of relying on "... normal appearing negatives, within approximately 1 stop of rated speed at worst . . . to my eye contrast range appears normal and low light details are preserved".

Friends at Ilford agree with what I said in my earlier post, "overexpose by a stop or two and it's quite hard to screw up B+W beyond repair."

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Rob,

Thanks for the link, though in fact I was sufficiently intrigued that I had already found it via Google. Qualls does not even suggest that he has overcome the basic limitations: this appears to be an invention by New55.

Qualls says "... normal appearing negatives, within approximately 1 stop of rated speed at worst . . . to my eye contrast range appears normal and low light details are preserved" and New55 says "Grant Haist wrote a good book from the point of view of Kodak films. It is an excellent book but generally avoids the solution that Qualls invented..."

This might be because Grant applied serious sensitometry to what he was doing, instead of relying on "... normal appearing negatives, within approximately 1 stop of rated speed at worst . . . to my eye contrast range appears normal and low light details are preserved".

Friends at Ilford agree with what I said in my earlier post, "overexpose by a stop or two and it's quite hard to screw up B+W beyond repair."

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

To me the argument is academic as they don't ship to the UK (and they're out of stock!) I think I shall go down the more traditional route for now. I am currently researching how to process 35mm on a website by some bloke called Roger Hicks!

Rob
 
I found a video explaining the R5 stuff today. Nice examples, except for the reviewer's admonition about blown highlights, which immediately put me off. Not just because of the verbal caution, but this was clearly visible in an otherwise nice sample image. Is this really common/to be expected? I kinda like HC110 on its own, and a simpler variant might be interesting.
 
L.P.Clerc.jpg


From what I understand this L. P. Clerc portrait was taken and processed by A. Seyewetz in a monobath solution in the late 20’s. The exact formula is vague, probably sodium sulphite, Amidol, sodium phosphate and hypo. However I’m confident the plate was well over exposed and standing in a bath at a lower than normal temperature for maybe up to an hour.

Monobath... it’s a crapshoot (unpredictable outcome).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom