[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 <nebaker at pnca.edu> 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&W, 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 <http://www.magiklantern.com>*
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 3:10 PM Scott Dorsey <kludge at panix.com> 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 at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20190311/8864133f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_9883.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 39325 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20190311/8864133f/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IMG_9884.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42601 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20190311/8864133f/attachment-0001.jpg>