Home brew

S

sojournerphoto

Veteran
Local time
4:45 PM
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,437
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:)
 
Last edited:
sojournerphoto said:
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:)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Moto-Uno said:
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
Click to expand...
This is another major difference; I do scan my films but I also need negatives that wet print well.
 
Freakscene said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 .
 
Freakscene said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sojournerphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
There are gloves & tongs.....
 
sojournerphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
sojournerphoto said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Deardorff38 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Digital is also not an automatic cure. If you print, you should ventilate your inkjet printer. Most inkjet solvents are neurotoxic.
 
Freakscene said:
Digital is also not an automatic cure. If you print, you should ventilate your inkjet printer. Most inkjet solvents are neurotoxic.
Click to expand...
...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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom