Re: [Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[lindsay mcintyre]

Hi All,

I ended up with my hands on a weird little portable processor that would
have used a monobath (pics attached).  I have plans to create a monobath
recipe that might work with the machine and a given film stock once I
replace its filters.  I'd rather use an existing monobath, if possible, but
the machine currently has an adjustable 1.5 - 2.5 minute (maximum) dunk in
the bath and all still-existing monobaths I've been able to find require
much longer.  I could alter the speed of it, of course, but does anyone
have any other ideas? How long does this cinestill stuff need and with what
film stock? Also, I bought a book on monobaths  - the monobath manual by
Grant Haist, in case anyone needs some info from it - I could scan and send
recipes.

Best,

Lindsay


On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 4:07 PM Nicole Baker  wrote:

> Hi Scott,
> Thanks for your reply!  I think a significant source of my low con images
> the first time I used the film was due to underexposure.  The film was 4X
> 7277, probably from the 80s?  But I was told it had been stored well, so I
> only compensated by rating it for 200.  I used it again and rated it at 50
> iso, really blasting it with light when I shot the second time, processed
> it the same way (except with more agitation, and probably a higher temp
> come to think of it...) and have better pictures, low contrast but in a
> nice dreamy way instead.  The fog contributes to that dreami-ness I think.
> Thing is, I don't necessarily always want soft, you know?  Plus, doing
> bucket/bathtub processing makes the monobath a very attractive idea.  I was
> also looking at trying Rodinal.
> Since we are on the topic, I was wondering if anyone had experience
> processing color motion picture film with C41 chemistry?  I have
> successfully done remjet removal tests and developed my color film in the
> D76 I use for B, but of course I'd like to see my colors.  The kits seem
> to only make a small amount of developer, is it even enough to do a roll of
> 16mm?
> Thanks everyone!
> Nicole Elaine Baker
> MFA in Visual Studies, 2019
> Pacific Northwest College of Art
> Hallie Ford School of Graduate Studies
> *www.magiklantern.com *
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 3:10 PM Scott Dorsey  wrote:
>
>> > I often have issues with it coming out with very low
>> > contrast, would a monobath be useful in countering that?
>>
>> No, a monobath will make the problem worse because it will be
>> compensating,
>> that is it will develop more in the shadows than in the highlights.  The
>> developer and fixer are in a race with the developer turning exposed
>> halide
>> into silver while the fixer is removing halide at the same time.  So you
>> get
>> interactions that you don't get with normal development.
>>
>> Is your contrast low because the midtones are low or is your contrast low
>> because the fog level is so high?  Increasing your developing time or
>> using
>> a more active developer will increase contrast in the midtones... but it
>> will make fog worse.
>>
>> If you are using expired film that is partially fogged, you can add
>> benzotriazole (Kodak Anti-Fog #2) to the developer and it will reduce
>> or eliminate the aerial fog but it will require increased
>> developing time AND increased exposure.
>> --scott
>> ___
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[Nicole Baker]

Hi Scott,
Thanks for your reply!  I think a significant source of my low con images
the first time I used the film was due to underexposure.  The film was 4X
7277, probably from the 80s?  But I was told it had been stored well, so I
only compensated by rating it for 200.  I used it again and rated it at 50
iso, really blasting it with light when I shot the second time, processed
it the same way (except with more agitation, and probably a higher temp
come to think of it...) and have better pictures, low contrast but in a
nice dreamy way instead.  The fog contributes to that dreami-ness I think.
Thing is, I don't necessarily always want soft, you know?  Plus, doing
bucket/bathtub processing makes the monobath a very attractive idea.  I was
also looking at trying Rodinal.
Since we are on the topic, I was wondering if anyone had experience
processing color motion picture film with C41 chemistry?  I have
successfully done remjet removal tests and developed my color film in the
D76 I use for B, but of course I'd like to see my colors.  The kits seem
to only make a small amount of developer, is it even enough to do a roll of
16mm?
Thanks everyone!
Nicole Elaine Baker
MFA in Visual Studies, 2019
Pacific Northwest College of Art
Hallie Ford School of Graduate Studies
*www.magiklantern.com *




On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 3:10 PM Scott Dorsey  wrote:

> > I often have issues with it coming out with very low
> > contrast, would a monobath be useful in countering that?
>
> No, a monobath will make the problem worse because it will be compensating,
> that is it will develop more in the shadows than in the highlights.  The
> developer and fixer are in a race with the developer turning exposed halide
> into silver while the fixer is removing halide at the same time.  So you
> get
> interactions that you don't get with normal development.
>
> Is your contrast low because the midtones are low or is your contrast low
> because the fog level is so high?  Increasing your developing time or using
> a more active developer will increase contrast in the midtones... but it
> will make fog worse.
>
> If you are using expired film that is partially fogged, you can add
> benzotriazole (Kodak Anti-Fog #2) to the developer and it will reduce
> or eliminate the aerial fog but it will require increased
> developing time AND increased exposure.
> --scott
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[Scott Dorsey]

> I often have issues with it coming out with very low
> contrast, would a monobath be useful in countering that?

No, a monobath will make the problem worse because it will be compensating,
that is it will develop more in the shadows than in the highlights.  The
developer and fixer are in a race with the developer turning exposed halide
into silver while the fixer is removing halide at the same time.  So you get
interactions that you don't get with normal development.

Is your contrast low because the midtones are low or is your contrast low
because the fog level is so high?  Increasing your developing time or using
a more active developer will increase contrast in the midtones... but it
will make fog worse.

If you are using expired film that is partially fogged, you can add
benzotriazole (Kodak Anti-Fog #2) to the developer and it will reduce
or eliminate the aerial fog but it will require increased
developing time AND increased exposure.  
--scott
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[Nicole Baker]

Hey Scott and Rob,
I just started doing hand processing and have been working with a lot of
expired film.  I often have issues with it coming out with very low
contrast, would a monobath be useful in countering that?

Nicole Elaine Baker
MFA in Visual Studies, 2019
Pacific Northwest College of Art
Hallie Ford School of Graduate Studies
*www.magiklantern.com *




On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:40 AM Rob Gawthrop  wrote:

> Thanks Scott, really helpful, I will be using rewind/bucket.  Got some on
> order now!
>
> Rob
>
> > On 7 Mar 2019, at 19:52, Scott Dorsey  wrote:
> >
> > I have not but I have used other monobaths before.  They are convenient,
> > but allow no control over gamma or really any part of the characteristic
> > curve.  Most of them are inherently very compensating because the
> development
> > is limited by the fixation.  If you like that look, good.  Otherwise not
> so
> > good.
> >
> > The Air Force was very big on monobath processing for aerial film back in
> > Vietnam, because temperature and time were not very critical and for
> people
> > developing film in tents in the middle of a grassy field it reduced the
> > handling considerably and got film out to analysts faster.  Most of the
> > monobath technology we have today came out of the space program and the
> Air
> > Force.
> >
> > If you're in an environment where you can't get even processing, and I
> can
> > see a lot of folks hand-processing motion picture film by rewind or in
> > a bucket having that problem, the monobath could be a big help.  On the
> > other hand, so could a divided developer like Diafine.
> > --scott
> >
> > ___
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[Rob Gawthrop]

Thanks Scott, really helpful, I will be using rewind/bucket.  Got some on order 
now!

Rob

> On 7 Mar 2019, at 19:52, Scott Dorsey  wrote:
> 
> I have not but I have used other monobaths before.  They are convenient,
> but allow no control over gamma or really any part of the characteristic
> curve.  Most of them are inherently very compensating because the development
> is limited by the fixation.  If you like that look, good.  Otherwise not so
> good.
> 
> The Air Force was very big on monobath processing for aerial film back in
> Vietnam, because temperature and time were not very critical and for people 
> developing film in tents in the middle of a grassy field it reduced the
> handling considerably and got film out to analysts faster.  Most of the 
> monobath technology we have today came out of the space program and the Air 
> Force.
> 
> If you're in an environment where you can't get even processing, and I can
> see a lot of folks hand-processing motion picture film by rewind or in
> a bucket having that problem, the monobath could be a big help.  On the 
> other hand, so could a divided developer like Diafine.
> --scott
> 
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[Scott Dorsey]

I have not but I have used other monobaths before.  They are convenient,
but allow no control over gamma or really any part of the characteristic
curve.  Most of them are inherently very compensating because the development
is limited by the fixation.  If you like that look, good.  Otherwise not so
good.

The Air Force was very big on monobath processing for aerial film back in
Vietnam, because temperature and time were not very critical and for people 
developing film in tents in the middle of a grassy field it reduced the
handling considerably and got film out to analysts faster.  Most of the 
monobath technology we have today came out of the space program and the Air 
Force.

If you're in an environment where you can't get even processing, and I can
see a lot of folks hand-processing motion picture film by rewind or in
a bucket having that problem, the monobath could be a big help.  On the 
other hand, so could a divided developer like Diafine.
--scott

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

[Frameworks] Cinestill DF 96 Monobath

[Rob Gawthrop]

Has anyone used Cinestill DF 96 Monobath? If so any comments or advice?

Thanks

Rob

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks