Author Topic: New55 R3 monobath developer (Read 17030 times)

tkmedia · « **on:** March 28, 2015, 10:38:16 PM »

Looks like Donald Qualls monobath is being bottled and distributed now, by New55.

R3 Monobath Developer Resource Page
http://new55project.blogspot.com/2015/03/r3-monobath-developer-resource-page.html

gallery
http://new55project.blogspot.com/2015/03/gallery-of-photographs-processed-in-r3.html

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

New55 store (CONTINENTAL U.S. ONLY)
http://new55-film.myshopify.com/products/r3-monobath-developer

Option 8 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2015, 11:38:47 PM »

Waaaat!? This stuff looks amazing to try.

edthened · « **Reply #2 on:** March 29, 2015, 03:01:38 AM »

Och nae deeliveries tae Scotland

tkmedia · « **Reply #3 on:** March 29, 2015, 03:11:09 AM »

you can always try making some.

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

Mixed by adding most of the water to the HC-110 concentrate, then ammonia, then fixer, then remainder of water to make up volume. Heated to 75 F in an external hot water bath.

Kayos · « **Reply #4 on:** March 29, 2015, 07:39:13 AM »

This certainly looks interesting, is there any difference between Hc110 USA and the stuff we get in the UK?

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** March 29, 2015, 01:51:21 PM »

Yes there is. The us version is more concentrated.

Kayos · « **Reply #6 on:** March 29, 2015, 02:06:00 PM »

In a rare moment of my small child actually napping I did a bit of research among my usual suppliers and it seems I can not only get US strength stuff (dilution B 1:31) it's also the cheapest

Mrs Kayos is picking some ammonia up on her way home and I've ordered the developer and fix, I've decided to initially follow the formula exactly

6cmsquare · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2015, 05:02:55 PM »

Quote from: tkmedia on March 29, 2015, 03:11:09 AM

you can always try making some.

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

Mixed by adding most of the water to the HC-110 concentrate, then ammonia, then fixer, then remainder of water to make up volume. Heated to 75 F in an external hot water bath.

Wow, it's that easy? Do you have any scans from any negatives you've processed this way? and thanks for the formula!

tkmedia · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2015, 05:51:10 PM »

Do not thank me especially if things go kay--otic.

The formula is on that linked blog posting from 5 years ago. based on Donald Qualls posting from photo.net from 2004ish. Never really tried it. I recall reading about it and thinking it might work well for tray development of sheet film. Never really gotten to it and promptly forgot about it. I never really liked monobaths in the past, but never tried one with these characteristics.

Kayos · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2015, 06:19:39 PM »

It's something I've been interested in for a while, I have a couple of formulas from the Film Developing Cookbook, but they are not recomended to be used.

The advantage of this is the developer and fixer are usefull on their own, worst case I ruin a film or 2 and waste a few pence in chems, I can do far worse without even trying

Adam Doe · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2015, 06:51:58 PM »

I'm tempted to buy a bottle. The only problem is that the room where I do developing isn't well ventilated and the ammonia could be annoying.

tkmedia · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:08:23 PM »

I wonder if type of water makes much of a difference, maybe deionized or distilled.

Francois · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2015, 08:34:59 PM »

I really don't think that water type has much to do in this formula.
All monobaths work in the same way in a sense. You have a very fast developer combined with a slower fixer. By the time the fixer has done its job, the developer has done its developing.

Kayos · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2015, 03:03:55 PM »

Just had a dispatch email for the dev and fix, should have some results this week

I will be using finest Yorkshire water so I'm not expecting any problems on that front

SLVR · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2015, 03:23:59 PM »

this is very interesting.

Francois · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2015, 08:41:15 PM »

Quote from: Kayos on March 30, 2015, 03:03:55 PM

I will be using finest Yorkshire water so I'm not expecting any problems on that front

As long as it doesn't come out of a little furball, you should be OK

Kayos · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2015, 09:58:00 PM »

Oh no, it's filtered naturally through sandstone so is very soft, then finally filtered before use in my dark room

Kayos · « **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2015, 05:06:58 PM »

The dev and fix landed today, however despite Mrs Kayos' best efforts she was unable to procure any household ammonia, seems it getting hard to find these days (not impossible, she found a bottle for £12 in a hardware store but knew I would have heart failure at that price) so a bottle is en route from amazon

Kayos · « **Reply #18 on:** April 01, 2015, 06:00:40 PM »

It works

In my haste to try this I realised I didn't have a film to develop, was just about to load some Tri-x and go for a walk when I found a roll of Retro 400s in the fridge, unable to quite remember why it was there I loaded it up and let it soak for 6 mins

Initially I thought the negatives had come out very thin, but when I hung it up to dry I rembered i had been testing a camera that under exposed everything, so the later shots are actually quite good looking

As soon as its dry I will throw some on the scanner and post them up

tkmedia · « **Reply #19 on:** May 03, 2015, 03:35:04 PM »

Review
Developing Film In One Step - Instant Processing by Ted Forbes The Art of Photography
Developing Film In One Step - Instant Processing

monkowa · « **Reply #20 on:** May 03, 2015, 07:09:16 PM »

I just ordered some as well, I can't wait to see the results.

irv_b · « **Reply #21 on:** May 03, 2015, 08:40:29 PM »

I do like contrasty pictures, so I cant wait to see the real life results.

Jack Johnson · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2015, 07:21:35 AM »

Quote from: irv_b on May 03, 2015, 08:40:29 PM

I do like contrasty pictures, so I cant wait to see the real life results.

Same here.

A lot of developers are hard to come by in the non-continental U.S., but I think I can get HC-110 locally and no problem at all on the Ilford Rapid Fixer. I may have to try this.

I'd be extremely interested to see some FP4+ results. Finding a lot of HP5+.

I don't mind the heavy contrast. I like Acros, and some of the examples I've seen have a very similar feel. I'll probably haunt Flickr (yes, even with the redesign) for some cloudy day shots.

monkowa · « **Reply #23 on:** May 14, 2015, 03:47:22 AM »

Yeah, I like the high contrast. It's very cool. The ammonia smell wasn't overpowering and processing the film was a cinch. Unfortunately my last two rolls had some pretty bad sprocket lines on the images and I'm not sure how to remedy this.

Jack Johnson · « **Reply #24 on:** May 14, 2015, 05:47:24 AM »

Boo. No HC-110 locally, though my pusher is seeing what he can do for me.

Quote from: monkowa on May 14, 2015, 03:47:22 AM

Unfortunately my last two rolls had some pretty bad sprocket lines on the images and I'm not sure how to remedy this.

Is that without agitation?

Francois · « **Reply #25 on:** May 14, 2015, 02:44:21 PM »

I'd err more on the side of too much agitation. These look like flow marks.

Kayos · « **Reply #26 on:** May 14, 2015, 03:08:04 PM »

When I tried it I did zero agitation and had a bit of uneven development on the edges, but not on the frame

SLVR · « **Reply #27 on:** May 14, 2015, 05:49:29 PM »

kind of looks like surge marks but if no agitation, Ive seen this effect before doing stand development on poorly exposed neg. Not sure how to remedy it. Perhaps a little agitation doesnt hurt. Could also try pre wetting.

Francois · « **Reply #28 on:** May 14, 2015, 05:52:30 PM »

A bit of agitation never hurts. It prevents bromide drag which is another thing.
Stand developing was invented mostly for sheet film that you develop horizontally in a tray. So processing film vertically introduces other artifacts. When you're lucky, they're invisible.

jharr · « **Reply #29 on:** May 14, 2015, 06:53:03 PM »

That's bromide drag and I almost always see it with 35mm film stand developed. Shorten your time and introduce a couple of inversions at 1/3 and 2/3 of your time (20min and 40min for a 60min cycle).

Indofunk · « **Reply #30 on:** May 14, 2015, 07:17:14 PM »

The problem with monobath is that they recommend AGAINST agitation. They don't specify why, but they indicate that it's important*. The time is only 10 minutes, but the HC110 is pretty concentrated, so I guess that's what's causing the bromide drag. That said, I don't see how a single inversion cycle halfway through would make things too much worse.

* my own theory, which I just invented now ... since the developer and fixer are working on the film at the same time, maybe agitation, which serves to bring more developer in contact with the film, will cause overdevelopment before the fixer has time to do its job?

Jack Johnson · « **Reply #31 on:** May 15, 2015, 06:44:55 AM »

Well, so far no luck getting HC-110 in Alaska. My local pusher's suppliers won't ship it here.

I bet if I found a real pusher they could hook me up.

I actually reached out to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to see if they could give me some guidance. I'd also like to get my hands on some Rodinal, but it's shipped the same as small arms. No lack of those in Alaska, yet I can't get a decent commercial developer. I suspect it all has to come by sea.

I might spam Craigslist to see if anyone has any sitting in their garage they'd be willing to part with. Anything since about 1985 should still be viable, yeah?

Francois · « **Reply #32 on:** May 15, 2015, 03:20:36 PM »

Are you far from the border?
I know there are often companies that rent their mailboxes for a small fee near those places. You can have it delivered there and simply carry it over the border by car.

Indofunk · « **Reply #33 on:** May 15, 2015, 03:21:53 PM »

DO YOU MEAN "SMUGGLE"??

Just kidding

Francois · « **Reply #34 on:** May 15, 2015, 03:34:42 PM »

Well... It ain't moonshine...

Bryan · « **Reply #35 on:** May 15, 2015, 04:30:07 PM »

Quote from: Francois on May 15, 2015, 03:20:36 PM

Are you far from the border?
I know there are often companies that rent their mailboxes for a small fee near those places. You can have it delivered there and simply carry it over the border by car.

It's only 400 miles to the Canadian border from Anchorage, a short drive by Alaska standards.

Indofunk · « **Reply #36 on:** May 15, 2015, 04:40:21 PM »

That's like a dozen states out East!

monkowa · « **Reply #37 on:** May 15, 2015, 06:29:03 PM »

It's taken me awhile to reply here... So yeah, no agitation, just stand develop for six minutes at 80 degrees. My first two rolls were perfect but these last two all have these drag marks. So what do you think? Slight agitation or no agitation? Longer or shorter development? I got nuthin'!

hookstrapped · « **Reply #38 on:** May 15, 2015, 07:09:41 PM »

Quote from: monkowa on May 15, 2015, 06:29:03 PM

It's taken me awhile to reply here... So yeah, no agitation, just stand develop for six minutes at 80 degrees. My first two rolls were perfect but these last two all have these drag marks. So what do you think? Slight agitation or no agitation? Longer or shorter development? I got nuthin'!

That example you posted looked underexposed and, based on SVLR's comment, that might explain it. If the first two rolls were perfect and the rec is to not agitate, it seems you could be creating new problems with agitation when the answer is to expose adequately.

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #39 on:** May 15, 2015, 07:30:07 PM »

I have made my own following the recipe..some may have difficulty finding the proper ammonia...

monkowa · « **Reply #40 on:** May 15, 2015, 08:46:43 PM »

Well dang, I'll watch my exposure and see what happens next time.

Kayos · « **Reply #41 on:** May 15, 2015, 09:15:50 PM »

Forgot to say what I used was home made, the ammonia was £3 from Amazon, available locally but I refused to pay £12

Some silver settled out so I filtered it, need to try it again, and possibly pre wet this time

Diane Peterson · « **Reply #42 on:** May 15, 2015, 10:33:14 PM »

Kayos, did you use the ammonia just out of the.container or did you cut it down?

Kayos · « **Reply #43 on:** May 16, 2015, 08:10:57 AM »

It was a 5% bottle so straight in

Ezzie · « **Reply #44 on:** May 16, 2015, 08:29:10 AM »

I find this interesting, especially since I am fond of Acros in R09 1:50

http://helino-photo.blogspot.no/2015/05/monobath-processing.html

hookstrapped · « **Reply #45 on:** May 19, 2015, 12:44:50 PM »

My experiment with monobath developing was a bit of a failure -- bromide drag, uneven development top to bottom, fogging. I did the 6 minutes stand at 80 F. I was able to reduce the bromide drag a bit with the second roll by doing a single inversion at 2 and 4 minutes, but still have it and the other problems. It must be the ammonia because I didn't use an ammonia hydrometer (which, BTW, is not easily available). I figured my dollar store ammonia would be the 5% rather than 10% that is also supposedly a common household formula, but maybe it's 10% (what value!). I'll cut the amount next roll.

Ezzie · « **Reply #46 on:** May 20, 2015, 06:54:40 AM »

The blog post I referred to in my previous post, contains a theory that when the ammonia is stated to be 5-10%, it is not because the manufacturer is sloppy when mixing it up, anything but (they want to save money, be efficient and consistent), but 5% refers to the amount of ammonia in the solution, and 10% refers to the weight ratio.

Regarding development issues. The blogger also states he performed a couple of inversions over the 15 minutes he let the Acros (in this case) stand. Letting it stand for so long seems a bit excessive, but works in his case most likely because at some certain point during the process, the fixer has overtaken the developer, so adding a few minutes may not harm the development much, but rather enhance the fixer's ability to do it's job.

Ezzie · « **Reply #47 on:** May 20, 2015, 07:00:43 AM »

Anyhow, New55 are restocking and supposedly going to be able to ship worldwide. I might get some, as I have invested (not much I must say) in getting som New55 film when it is ready. They are in financial trouble, $100.000 spent on unforeseen problems. If New55 were to launch the product, it would be the single most positive film related event in years. Instant B+W, and in large format. And with a top quality negative to boot. I have wet dreams.

tkmedia · « **Reply #48 on:** May 22, 2015, 03:38:24 PM »

looks like this developer will be shipping worldwide soon.

enitka · « **Reply #49 on:** May 23, 2015, 10:54:50 PM »

I too had great results on 120 Tri X but really disappointed with Fuji Neopan 400 - horrible sprocket banding. Only agitated for 10 sec at the beginning and then left to stand. I haven't had banding like this for 50 years. I don't see me using this developer. Also whatever time is saved with a monobath is spent getting it warmed to 80F.