cmedin
Well-known
Tried out caffenol. It's a little grainy. 
TriX at 200, dev'd in caffenol for 30 mins, inversion every minute.
http://www.beyondthematrix.com/caffenol.jpg
TriX at 200, dev'd in caffenol for 30 mins, inversion every minute.http://www.beyondthematrix.com/caffenol.jpg
ltketch
Established
I just looked up caffenol, and i'm impressed!
cmedin
Well-known
Should add the other stats: Leica IIf RD, Summar, yellow #2 filter. The base fog was pretty severe, so next time I try it I'll add some vitamin C to see if it helps reduce it (supposed to).
ltketch
Established
I was so impressed by this I tried it myself!
Minolta XD7, 320X flash, 50/1.4 MD Minolta Lens at 5.8 (as per flash), Ilford HP5. Caffenol "soup" for 30 minutes turned every 2. Fixed with Ilford rapid fixer.
Scanned using an old work scanner set at max 2400dpi - then saved from TIF to JPG!
Minolta XD7, 320X flash, 50/1.4 MD Minolta Lens at 5.8 (as per flash), Ilford HP5. Caffenol "soup" for 30 minutes turned every 2. Fixed with Ilford rapid fixer.
Scanned using an old work scanner set at max 2400dpi - then saved from TIF to JPG!
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Grainy, yes, but the tonality looks really nice to me.
georges h
Newbie
Hi,
I'm also impressed enough with your results in caffenol. Nice, for me, a little grainy. Probably also interesting with graphic subjects. If you try again with vitamin C, please post your comments.
Congratulations.
I'm also impressed enough with your results in caffenol. Nice, for me, a little grainy. Probably also interesting with graphic subjects. If you try again with vitamin C, please post your comments.
Congratulations.
cmedin
Well-known
ltketch: Did you shoot the HP5+ at 400, or at some other speed? Reading up on Caffenol experiments I see people often recommending going one stop faster than rated, sometimes two.
ltketch
Established
It was at 400 for this experiment!
Also, as I was just using up a film for this, the first 7 and last 7 are EXACTLY the same, so when I was loading the film into the developing container I cut it in half so I could develop one with the ascorbic acid and one without! The above is the one without, will do the other over the weekend!
Also, as I was just using up a film for this, the first 7 and last 7 are EXACTLY the same, so when I was loading the film into the developing container I cut it in half so I could develop one with the ascorbic acid and one without! The above is the one without, will do the other over the weekend!
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Vitamin C/Ascorbate will help you in 2 ways:
- More shadow detail
- Less stain in the base.
I have found the caffenol negatives to be actually quite grainless. BUt that was APX100 and FP4+ in 120
I have not scanned them though, just printed them in enlarger
- More shadow detail
- Less stain in the base.
I have found the caffenol negatives to be actually quite grainless. BUt that was APX100 and FP4+ in 120
I have not scanned them though, just printed them in enlarger
cmedin
Well-known
Going back and looking at the raw scans, I wonder if it's not my post-processing that makes them worse than they are... Anybody want to take a stab at post-processing the original? PM me and I'll send it to you.
ltketch
Established
I processed the 2nd half of my test roll in Caffenol C. Unfortunatly I had my flash facing up in the 2nd set, so it may not make a good comparison (plus I think i wasn't focussed very well...it was night time!) oh well its to late now! BUT I did prove to myself that I could make my own developing fluid!
Caffenol (Straight without C)
Caffenol C
Caffenol (Straight without C)
Caffenol C
Last edited:
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Looking really good those results.. lktech
The Caffenol C will be more friendl for scanners, but the stain of caffenol is great to reduce contrast in enlarger
Glad someone like to play with this.
The Caffenol C will be more friendl for scanners, but the stain of caffenol is great to reduce contrast in enlarger
Glad someone like to play with this.