Caffenol anyone?

[roscoetuff]

So I've been reading a lot about development, stand development and even caffenol. As a beginner, I've got too much learning to do to experiment, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious about the variety of approaches to these tasks. I'm going to follow the advice given here of keeping to a steady approach for the long interim ahead with as few variables as possible. But...

With Caffenol, I wonder whether folks pursue this to raise the quality of the output, or to hold it steady while "going green" or "going on the cheap" or whatever. Which is it?

With Stand Development it seems to this unschooled dude that the point is to get a different result that seems to pull more detail out of the shadows. I also read that it enables - through it's very long development times, a development in the same tank of film which may have been shot at different exposures. Have I got that right?

For my part, I'm going with Kodak HC-110 for now as a developer with the rest of the chemistry basically Ilford. Just ordered a bulk loader and a 100-foot roll of HP5+ ...so as much as I find some appealing other films, I think most of what I see are appealing shots others have taken, and it's those shots that sets the lure... which I'll just have to resist.

 

[shawn]

I can't speak to Caffenol but I have just started playing around with stand developing with HC110. I have tried a roll of Tmax 100 and 400 and TriX and they all developed well with the same mix. 1 minute pre-soak (at 68 degrees), HC-110 1:125 (roughly 68 degrees) with 15 seconds of agitation then sit for 60 minutes. Stop with water and then fix for 6 minutes with agitation every minute.

Four rolls done this way but I am encouraged with the results enough to keep using it. Mixing/matching film in the tank is nice. It also lets me setup quicker as I load the reels (stainless) and get the film developing before bringing the fixer up from the basement and letting it warm up for about an hour before needing it.

Prior to this I was running HC110 with the tank on a rotary processor with more typical development times.

BTW, get a bunch of small brown glass bottles to spread out the HC110. That way most of it is kept away from oxygen and you just are using from a small bottle as needed. The sealed bottles will last years. You will also need a small medicine syringe as the amount of HC110 you will need is tiny. It is about 2.2ml per roll at 1:125 to make 275ml for a stainless tank. You will need slightly more for plastic reels.

Shawn

 

[02Pilot]

I use Caffenol exclusively. My reasons are fairly simple: I'm on a septic system and I don't want to put any more chemicals into it than I have to, and I'm able to get results I'm happy with for cheap. Different formulas and techniques allow for standard or stand, push or normal development. I can't say if it raises the quality over other developers, but it's perfectly adequate for my needs.

 

[Daryl J.]

Caffenol: Industrial grade powdered Ascorbic acid is much better that grinding up a Vitamin C tablet. Tablets have a lot of other reactive chemicals in them. And one best not skip the KBr.

 

[maddoc]

This is not sufficient for developing one roll of 135-36. You need about 6 ml HC-110 syrup for one roll 135-36, therefore a 600 ml tank for one roll in 1:100 HC-110. When doing some stand developing in HC-110 I used MaSuKo (Japanese brand, now gone) stainless steel tanks, which use 500 ml for one roll 135. Alternatively you can develop in a two roll tank and leave one reel (the upper one) empty.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

It is about 2.2ml per roll at 1:125 to make 275ml for a stainless tank. You will need slightly more for plastic reels.

Shawn

 

[maddoc]

My experience also. Powdered Ascorbic acid and KBr solution to prevent high base fog.

Caffenol: Industrial grade powdered Ascorbic acid is much better that grinding up a Vitamin C tablet. Tablets have a lot of other reactive chemicals in them. And one best not skip the KBr.

 

[charjohncarter]

http://www.caffenol.org/recipes/

I would recommend your own beginners approach, get some development knowledge with known products. And then go to the grocery store and buy some Folgers Instant.

 

[znapper]

I would certainly stay away from recipes not using grams and liters.
The term "one rounded teaspoon" works for a cake, but not for chemistry.

Only used (semi) stand with caffenol a couple of times, never full stand, I don't like the risk of uneven development.

kBr is normally only needed for films faster than ISO100, so its not a necessity if you shoot slower type films

http://caffenol.blogspot.com has a lot of tests and discussions, as well as the three basic recipe-variants and they use metric all the way for consistency and repeatability.

 

[Thatspec]

Agree that you should develop a dozen rolls or more in standard chemistry so you have a base line to shoot for before experimenting mixing your own.

In my vast two role experience mixing Caffenol I can at least say it's been great fun and I'll continue looking for the ideal mix as a low contrast solution for microfilms. Not ready to throw the Acros into it yet though. It's nice to have a proven process to come back to you can count on.
Take a look at some of these links if you haven't already.
http://www.caffenol-cookbook.com/hi-res/hires.php
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144324&highlight=caffenol
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156250&highlight=caffenol
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=159845&highlight=caffenol

 

[roscoetuff]

Yes, not looking to do this for a long, long time. I tend to subscribe to commercial formulations as much as possible in these things where precision can make a difference.
I'm just curious about the degree to which Caffenol is commercialized and adopted into broad use. And I am especially interested in the extent to which Stand Development is getting used to derive a higher level of detail in our negatives.

 

[HHPhoto]

So I've been reading a lot about development, stand development and even caffenol. As a beginner, I've got too much learning to do to experiment, but that doesn't mean I'm not curious about the variety of approaches to these tasks.

As a beginner you should stay away both from Caffenol and stand development!
Concentrate your efforts first on learning and mastering the standard development techniques with the trustworthy, proven, easy to learn and excellent results delivering standard methods.

Go for easy to handle developers like Adox Rodinal/Adonal, Adox FX-39, Tetenal Ultrafin; Ilford DD-X etc.
And use normal agitation development.

With Caffenol, I wonder whether folks pursue this to raise the quality of the output, or to hold it steady while "going green" or "going on the cheap" or whatever. Which is it?

It has nothing to do with quality, because in most cases you get significant lower quality with Caffenol compared to standard developers.
Concerning "going green": There are lots of other very environmentally friendly developers like Moersch Eco, Adox Neutol Eco, XTOL, FX-39 etc. which you can use for ecological reasons.
Caffenol is more used because of 'fun' with experimentation (personally I disagree on the fun part because this stuff smells so ugly ).

With Stand Development it seems to this unschooled dude that the point is to get a different result that seems to pull more detail out of the shadows. I also read that it enables - through it's very long development times, a development in the same tank of film which may have been shot at different exposures. Have I got that right?

With stand development there is a big danger of getting uneven development. That looks very ugly.
As said above, stay away from it at least until you are really good at doing your standard developments.
Go step by step.

Cheers, Jan

 

[shawn]

This is not sufficient for developing one roll of 135-36. You need about 6 ml HC-110 syrup for one roll 135-36, therefore a 600 ml tank for one roll in 1:100 HC-110. When doing some stand developing in HC-110 I used MaSuKo (Japanese brand, now gone) stainless steel tanks, which use 500 ml for one roll 135. Alternatively you can develop in a two roll tank and leave one reel (the upper one) empty.

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

Yes, I have read that but that is not my experience.

TriX at 125:1 and about 2.1 ml per roll

TMax 100 at 125:1 and about 2.1 ml per roll

My Tmax 400 sample is 120 that I haven't scanned yet. Negatives look fine though.

If you think about it the developer in contact with the film is identical wether you have 300ml or 600 if you are stand developing without agitation.

I've also developed more traditionally with dilution H (less than 6ml per roll) and with dilution B rotary at 150ml which is less than 6ml per roll. Again, no problems with developing. I'm sure there is a lower limit to how much developer you can use but I've seen examples of HC110 stand going as low as 250:1.

Shawn

 

[znapper]

Just a few comments and questions.

As a beginner you should stay away both from Caffenol and stand development!
Concentrate your efforts first on learning and mastering the standard development techniques with the trustworthy, proven, easy to learn and excellent results delivering standard methods.

If the guy want's to have fun, why not? It is indeed quite fun making something from scratch and getting _something_ .
I say, have at it, but he should stick to formulas that use the metric system, as it is much easier to debug his process that way.

It has nothing to do with quality, because in most cases you get significant lower quality with Caffenol compared to standard developers.

What do you base this conclusion on exactly?
I have developed several films in Caffenol and I've always gotten excellent results. As a developer, I find caffenol to be an in-the-middle developer concerning speed, grain and sharpness. Considerably less grain than Rodinal for example and although I don't have a densimeter, I've found the resulting negatives to have excellent contrast and density for printing normally.

There are myriads of reports on most available fins on the marked at http://caffenol.blogspot.com - with comments and 'peer-reviews'.
My impression is that there are very few films that doesn't work or deliver bad results in Caffenol. Done right, Caffenol can be a cheap and very usable developer.
Done wrong (like they did in the past), mucked up most films they were tried in, and since there were inconsistent measuring going on, some films worked for some, while not for others.
Consistency and accuracy is the key.

Caffenol is more used because of 'fun' with experimentation (personally I disagree on the fun part because this stuff smells so ugly ).


Cheers, Jan

I know several people who use caffenol more often than other developers, so this isn't entirely true.
I did it for fun, for a while, but find HC-110 to suit by needs better, less hassle mixing and it doesn't smell like death. ^^

 

[Daryl J.]

Robusta bean instant coffee is better than Aribica bean coffee as there's more caffeic acid in the former. And that's important. Like with any chemical reaction, precise measurements, temperatures, and timing are important. We had consistently great results in the Pete Gomea taught class at Newspace Photo with several different kinds of film.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I did Caffenol years ago. Have to come twice to local pharmacy, because first pharmacist was lazy to order Vitamin C for me in the powder.
HC-110 is cheap, Rodinal even cheaper and both are superior to Caffenol, IMO.

 

[HHPhoto]

What do you base this conclusion on exactly?

1. On my own scientific tests for many years with lots of different films in Caffenol and in standard developers.
I do exact testing with a densitometer, so I get the real, effective ISO speed and the characteristic curve.
Both is absolutely essential to get optimal results with BW film.
2. I've discussed my own test results with lots of other experienced photographers who are also doing a proper testing (with densitometer).
They have all got the same results as I have.

........although I don't have a densimeter, I've found the resulting negatives to have excellent contrast and density for printing normally.

If you would do a proper testing of your BW film-developer combinations with a densitometer, you would immediately see the weaknesses of Caffeenol in comaprison to standard developers.

There are myriads of reports on most available fins on the marked at http://caffenol.blogspot.com - with comments and 'peer-reviews'.

I know the blog. And I have a critical view on it. Lots of esoteric there, mostly no proper tests with a densitometer and characteristic curves, almost no real prints, lots of manipulation in the hybrid workflow.
I cannot recommend this blog.
I know the founder from several German photo forums. He has very little knowledge about photography and the physical basics.

The problem today is that most of todays BW film shooters don't have the basic knowledge of how BW film and developers really work.
They don't know the basics of sensitometry.
I bet the majority don't know what a densitometer or a characteristic curve is.

Cheers, Jan

 

[znapper]

The guy behind the blog is a chemist, which no or few photographers are.

Feel free not to use it, but you really should think twice about slogging caffenol these days.

 

[HHPhoto]

The guy behind the blog is a chemist,

No, R. G. is not a chemist.

Feel free not to use it, but you really should think twice about slogging caffenol these days.

I have used and scientifically tested it for years, see above.
And because of my results I prefer other developers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[roscoetuff]

Thanks guys. Yes, have my hands full just beginning. Picked up Ilfotech DD-X at my local shop 'cause they didn't have any HC-110. After some more reading, went ahead and ordered HC-110 and will just shoot pics, scan, etc. until that comes in before beginning.

Experiments in Stand Development... hmmmm.... intriguing, but not necessarily a place I want to go (yet). Caffenol... seems more like something they might have used in WW2 in the press corps on the front lines. FWIW, I am decidedly not chemist.

 

[Daryl J.]

What I like about Caffenol is that everybody asks the same question: So it's stained brown?

Um, no.

It's just an alternative developer. An offbeat one. The end.