Home brew

[sojournerphoto]

Been brewing up a couple of new to me developers the last week or two.

After running a roll of Kentmere Pan 400 through Caffenol C-H, example in the Kentmere thread, I’ve brewed up 2 litres of bath A and B of some 2 bath D23 (A is 5g/l Metol and 100g/l Sodium Sulphite with 4.5g/l Sodium Carbonate for B) and just over 900ml of PC-TEA.

Some experimentation coming up🙂

 

[Freakscene]

Been brewing up a couple of new to me developers the last week or two.

After running a roll of Kentmere Pan 400 through Caffenol C-H, example in the Kentmere thread, I’ve brewed up 2 litres of bath A and B of some 2 bath D23 (A is 5g/l Metol and 100g/l Sodium Sulphite with 4.5g/l Sodium Carbonate for B) and just over 900ml of PC-TEA.

Some experimentation coming up🙂

Making your own developers and seeing the results is great. It can be a hazardous rabbit hole to go down though, and that’s without considering that some chemistry is toxic.

I found that caffenol didn’t provide enough shadow contrast, and attracted pests to my films. But others probably live in less buggy places than me.

 

[Moto-Uno]

I tried caffenol C-M(RSA) and C-H(RSA) , originally wasn't overly impressed , but they scanned just fine , and from
the Scottish side of me , it sure was cheap ! Peter

 

[Freakscene]

I tried caffenol C-M(RSA) and C-H(RSA) , originally wasn't overly impressed , but they scanned just fine , and from
the Scottish side of me , it sure was cheap ! Peter

This is another major difference; I do scan my films but I also need negatives that wet print well.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Making your own developers and seeing the results is great. It can be a hazardous rabbit hole to go down though, and that’s without considering that some chemistry is toxic.

I found that caffenol didn’t provide enough shadow contrast, and attracted pests to my films. But others probably live in less buggy places than me.

You mean bugs attacked the processed film? I would have thought that the fixing and washing would have removed any trace of developer that would attract insects.

 

[Freakscene]

You mean bugs attacked the processed film? I would have thought that the fixing and washing would have removed any trace of developer that would attract insects.

Yes, some sort of small insects nibbled the emulsion. Never had that happen before. I thought everything from processing would be gone too, but although it didn't smell, the emulsion was still ever so slightly brown. Maybe I should have washed for longer.

Instant coffee is also not as inexpensive in Australia as it is in other places.

 

[Moto-Uno]

After the caffeine consumption you'd think the bugs would've been buzzing all around 🙂 . Peter
ps; I washed for around 10+ minutes and the brown was still quite noticeable .

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I thought this thread might go down a different rabbit hole.... 😉

 

[Moto-Uno]

It'll help us focus ! Peter

 

[sojournerphoto]

Making your own developers and seeing the results is great. It can be a hazardous rabbit hole to go down though, and that’s without considering that some chemistry is toxic.

I found that caffenol didn’t provide enough shadow contrast, and attracted pests to my films. But others probably live in less buggy places than me.

Yep - I’ve reached an age where toxicity is a concern. No longer dipping my hands in baths of dev and fix it n the darkroom. There'll be no pyro for example and, likely, no hydroquinone.

Caffenol is interesting. In my test roll of Kentmere 400 I had a series of pictures of my wife, exposed from -2 to +2 in 1 stop increments. The best was +1 stop and next was at box speed. The film was probably slightly underdeveloped and these were inside, so perhaps a small downward adjustment in speed called for. However, I really don’t think of Caffenol as a push developer, because I also like something in the shadows.

I’ve also been catching up on some HP5 rolls that needed developing. I put them through Fomadon Excel (xtol clone) at 1+4 with ordinal added at 1+100 for 13 minutes/20C. That’s interesting. Fairly dense negs (@400) with very sharp grain, but make nice prints at 9x6 inches.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Yep - I’ve reached an age where toxicity is a concern. No longer dipping my hands in baths of dev and fix it n the darkroom. There'll be no pyro for example and, likely, no hydroquinone.

Caffenol is interesting. In my test roll of Kentmere 400 I had a series of pictures of my wife, exposed from -2 to +2 in 1 stop increments. The best was +1 stop and next was at box speed. The film was probably slightly underdeveloped and these were inside, so perhaps a small downward adjustment in speed called for. However, I really don’t think of Caffenol as a push developer, because I also like something in the shadows.

I’ve also been catching up on some HP5 rolls that needed developing. I put them through Fomadon Excel (xtol clone) at 1+4 with ordinal added at 1+100 for 13 minutes/20C. That’s interesting. Fairly dense negs (@400) with very sharp grain, but make nice prints at 9x6 inches.

There are gloves & tongs.....

 

[Freakscene]

Yep - I’ve reached an age where toxicity is a concern. No longer dipping my hands in baths of dev and fix it n the darkroom. There'll be no pyro for example and, likely, no hydroquinone.

Caffenol is interesting. In my test roll of Kentmere 400 I had a series of pictures of my wife, exposed from -2 to +2 in 1 stop increments. The best was +1 stop and next was at box speed. The film was probably slightly underdeveloped and these were inside, so perhaps a small downward adjustment in speed called for. However, I really don’t think of Caffenol as a push developer, because I also like something in the shadows.

I’ve also been catching up on some HP5 rolls that needed developing. I put them through Fomadon Excel (xtol clone) at 1+4 with ordinal added at 1+100 for 13 minutes/20C. That’s interesting. Fairly dense negs (@400) with very sharp grain, but make nice prints at 9x6 inches.

If you mean you’re getting older, you’re probably at less risk. It’s exposure when you’re young that does the most damage. Pyro and hydroquinone are less toxic than people make out; but it is always better to avoid exposure to all darkroom chemicals at any age.

Caffenol did all sorts of weird things in my trials, but maybe it’s because I’m not a coffee drinker.

Fomadon Excel is great; the only difference from ‘real’ (= pre-reformulation) Xtol is that the buffer is slightly different so the pH doesn’t increase as much with dilution. This suggests the alkali is differently buffered. It provides results essentially the same as Xtol straight and at 1+1, but higher dilutions provide somewhat different results. I like the Adox XT-3 best of the current powder ascorbate developers.

Marty

 

[Deleted member 65559]

Yep - I’ve reached an age where toxicity is a concern. No longer dipping my hands in baths of dev and fix it n the darkroom. There'll be no pyro for example and, likely, no hydroquinone.

Caffenol is interesting. In my test roll of Kentmere 400 I had a series of pictures of my wife, exposed from -2 to +2 in 1 stop increments. The best was +1 stop and next was at box speed. The film was probably slightly underdeveloped and these were inside, so perhaps a small downward adjustment in speed called for. However, I really don’t think of Caffenol as a push developer, because I also like something in the shadows.

I’ve also been catching up on some HP5 rolls that needed developing. I put them through Fomadon Excel (xtol clone) at 1+4 with ordinal added at 1+100 for 13 minutes/20C. That’s interesting. Fairly dense negs (@400) with very sharp grain, but make nice prints at 9x6 inches.

There's really no reason to dip your hands whether you're developing prints or film ... but it certainly doesn't hurt to make sure you have adequate ventilation in your darkroom. You mentioned developer and fixer, but breathing stop bath, (glacial acetic acid), and toner fumes isn't healthy either.

 

[Freakscene]

There's really no reason to dip your hands whether you're developing prints or film ... but it certainly doesn't hurt to make sure you have adequate ventilation in your darkroom. You mentioned developer and fixer, but breathing stop bath, (glacial acetic acid), and toner fumes isn't healthy either.

Digital is also not an automatic cure. If you print, you should ventilate your inkjet printer. Most inkjet solvents are neurotoxic.

 

[Coldkennels]

Digital is also not an automatic cure. If you print, you should ventilate your inkjet printer. Most inkjet solvents are neurotoxic.

...and laser printers kick out ozone, right?

I have one right behind my head as I type this, so it's always in the back of my mind (figuratively and literally). Still better than the totally unventilated CAD office I used to work in... I was stationed right next to the A0 plotter and the A3 laser printer. Oof.

 

[raydm6]

Everytime I see this thread title when opening the forum page, this song starts going through my head 🤣

Cream - Strange Brew (1967)​

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I used an Ascorbic acid/Phenidone mix for years -- loved the stuff and it was cheap to make. Ah for the days of the Photographer's Formulary! It was like a mad scientist's dream.

This article has a recipe that was close to what I was using:
Is it possible to develop film for 2 cents a roll?