Speed and development test. HP5, FP4, Caffenol-C

E

elerion

Member
Local time
12:08 AM
Joined
Nov 20, 2016
Messages
24
Hello everyone.

I'm doing some development and EI tests on Ilford FP4+ and HP5+ films, using a densitometer, developing with Caffenol C-H, but I got some results, that I don't know how to interpretate.

I shoot at a grey card, with uniform, difuse light, with a shutter speed tested camera. I shoot zone 0, I, II, III, V, VII and VIII, for a certain EI. I develop right away after exposure.

After a few tests, to nail down the EI, my last test densities were:

HP5+. EI 250
Caffenol C-H. 10' @ 21ºC
Base + fog: 0,48
Zone - Density
I - 0,08
II - 0,13
III - 0,17
V - 0,57
VII - 1,09
VIII- 1,37

FP4+. EI 125
Caffenol C-H. 10' @ 21ºC
Base + fog: 0,44
Zone - Density
I - 0,10
II - 0,19
III - 0,22
V - 0,61
VII - 1,23
VIII- 1,56


- Zone I, seems correct. I read that a value between 0.09 and 0.11 confirms the EI.
- The weird thing is that zone VIII exhibits quite a high density. FP4 but also HP5, seem pushed (overdeveloped). I'd like to get a 1.25 zone VIII, but also a higher zone V (around 0.7). Thus, decreasing developing time will not work (I tried already to play with development time), because it also decreases a litte bit zone V, which I want to increase.
- Dark zones ( I to III ) are very thin, also zone V is weak, but then, in a few zones up to VIII, the density scales up so fast.

I repeated the test several times. Same result.

I thought on setting a lower EI, so I get denser darker zones, but then HP5+ will have an EI which is 200 or lower, when its box speed is 400.

Anyone could help me on how to proceed from this point?

I learnt mainly (but not only) from these sources:
http://stephengrote.com/teaching/courses/files/storage/Zone System.pdf
and
http://www.zone2tone.co.uk/zone-system-film-testing.htm


Thanks!
 
Your data are telling you that your EI needs to be lower to achieve the curve you want. You shouldn't expect box speed from any caffenol variant. You can get a much more normal curve, with higher toe density and without excessive contrast, with a range of home made and commercially available developers containing better developing agents than instant coffee and ascorbate overactivated by an excessively alkaline pH. For example, HP5+ gives a normal curve with an EI of 650 in Ilford DDX or Kodak TMax or TMax RS, or at EI 400-500 in Xtol.

Marty
 
I wonder if the results you are getting are native to Caffenol. Your HD curve seems to be getting steeper (positively accelerated) at the right end of the curve. Can you do something to retard the development in the denser areas. What about using stand development? Or at least reducing agitation? Maybe playing with dilution would help.

Of course, there's always D-76 an ID-11. :D
 
Thanks guys for your proposals.
I'll try with Rodinal next, and see how the curve changes. I will post the results.

I always used Rodinal prior Caffenol, and I like the results very much, but I wanted to use a less toxic product, and Caffenol seemed great. I developed some rolls and the images came out apparently almost as nice as with Rodinal. But not exactly the same. Thus, I decided to do some tests to get solid base.

I never tried other developers. Don't want to mess with powder based ones. HC-110 seems like a great alternative or complement to Rodinal, as well as Ilfotec LC. But they might be as toxic, as Rodinal. And I just wanted to experiment with Caffenol to see if it fits, or if it just cannot replace all the other developers.
 
elerion said:
I always used Rodinal prior Caffenol, and I like the results very much, but I wanted to use a less toxic product, and Caffenol seemed great.

I never tried other developers. Don't want to mess with powder based ones. HC-110 seems like a great alternative or complement to Rodinal, as well as
Click to expand...

XTOL is your less toxic developer. And It is a liquid. HC110 is not really ideal for miniature negatives (but that doesn't mean it won't give the results you want).

Edit: XTOL is not a liquid, it is packaged in dry form. Disregard!
 
elerion said:
Thanks guys for your proposals.
I'll try with Rodinal next, and see how the curve changes. I will post the results.
Click to expand...

Rodinal produces a normal-ish curve at about +1 stop for most films - so EI200 for HP5+. I say normal-ish because it also produces lower midtones than a lot of other developers at the same effective speed.

The 'toxic' component of Rodinal is para-aminophenol, thousands of tonnes of which is released to the environment per year from hair dye. Your input in comparison in minimal, and further, the aminophenol degrades fairly quickly.

If you like Rodinal, stick with it.

Marty
 
Freakscene said:
Your data are telling you that your EI needs to be lower to achieve the curve you want. You shouldn't expect box speed from any caffenol variant. You can get a much more normal curve, with higher toe density and without excessive contrast, with a range of home made and commercially available developers containing better developing agents than instant coffee and ascorbate overactivated by an excessively alkaline pH. For example, HP5+ gives a normal curve with an EI of 650 in Ilford DDX or Kodak TMax or TMax RS, or at EI 400-500 in Xtol.

Marty
Click to expand...

+1.

My experiences with Caffeenol are the same: In most cases lower real speed compared to standard developers, and worse characteristic curve (often too steep in the highlights).

As for environmental aspects: The current modern wastewater treatment plants in our cities are degrading developer ingredients to unproblematic substances.

If you want an acutance / sharpness developer similar to Rodinal with less problematic substances Adox FX-39 is an alternative.

Cheers, Jan
 
Freakscene said:
Rodinal produces a normal-ish curve at about +1 stop for most films - so EI200 for HP5+. I say normal-ish because it also produces lower midtones than a lot of other developers at the same effective speed.
Marty
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'll try it.

The 'toxic' component of Rodinal is para-aminophenol
Click to expand...
How is it compared to hydroquinone?
As far as I know, all developers except Rodinal and XTOL use it.

HHPhoto said:
If you want an acutance / sharpness developer similar to Rodinal with less problematic substances Adox FX-39 is an alternative.
Click to expand...

Isn't it based on hydroquinone?
 
It would be wise to keep a list of exact ingredients.
For instance, Nature Made Vit C is NOT Vitamin C. It is many reactants, only one of which is vitamin c. And as such will alter your results.
Folgers Instant Coffee is not Nescafé Instant Coffee. The caffeic acid levels are markedly different.

Etc.

I love seeing studies on Caffenol done, please keep them coming.
 
Last year I used mainly Caffenol (CM, CH, RS).
I think I tuned the process - anhydrous Na2CO3, pure Vit C, KBr, use of scale.....but now slowly coming back to Rodinal.
The main reason for me is convenience, but I like to see a more "scientific" comparison.
 
HHPhoto said:
.........

As for environmental aspects: The current modern wastewater treatment plants in our cities are degrading developer ingredients to unproblematic substances. ......Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

Coming from the water/wastewater treatment industry, I can tell you that the most pervasive chemicals found in wastewater and even in groundwater recharged with recycled water are: CAFFEINE, then IBUPROFEN, cancer treatment products, and even hormones, etc. Most of those coming as a waste eliminated through human urine. After hearing that hair dye has more toxic chemicals than Rodinal makes me feel better when dumping 5 cc of Rodinal once in a while. I have three hair dying women at home. :)
 
I've just done a test using Rodinal.

As Freakscene said would happend, I got a better curves.

I missed the correct development time (too short; 7' @ 20.5ºC, 1+25), but contrast index is lower on both films.

HP5 shot at EI 250 (nearly one stop slower, as suggested). Contrast index down to 0.46.
Zone I is 0.11. Great.
Zone V is 0.57, a bit low.
Zone VIII is 1.07, bit low too.

And the lower zones grow up in a more uniform way.
I just need to increase dev time by 1'30''.

FP4 was shot at box speed.
Zone I is low, but zone II is 0.12, and so, it EI seems around 80 (again, as Freakscene said, around a stop slower).
Zone V is 0.59. A bit low.
Zone VIII is 1.26. Perfect I'd say.

With this guy I suppose I have to shot at EI 80, then lower development time. Shouldn't I? Any advide on this point?

Strange, as Ilford recommends 9' for Rodinal-FP4 (far too much) and 6' for Rodinal-HP5 (far too little, according to my test).

Thanks!
 
elerion said:
Isn't it based on hydroquinone?
Click to expand...

It is a metol-hydrochine based developer. But on a very low concentration level. The toxity is very low. So low, that this developer has no shipping restrictions.
And as said above: Modern city wastewater systems degrade that to unproblematic substances. There were tests in Switzerland some years ago confirming that.

Cheers, Jan
 
pepeguitarra said:
After hearing that hair dye has more toxic chemicals than Rodinal makes me feel better when dumping 5 cc of Rodinal once in a while. I have three hair dying women at home. :)
Click to expand...

The same toxic chemical, just in higher concentrations.

The endocrine disruptors and various persistent organic pollutants are very much more difficult to deal with - the former because they function at extremely low concentrations, the latter because, well, they persist...

elerion said:
How is it compared to hydroquinone?
Click to expand...

Toxicity is difficult to compare because it varies between taxa, environments etc. But essentially 4-aminophenol and hydroquinone are roughly equally toxic.

Consider the dose - a few grams. In the context of wastewater treatment it is tiny. But you may live somewhere where there are tight restrictions on release and putting it down the sink is not permitted, or you may have a septic or other site based or local treatment system. Maybe then you should consider alternative disposal or less toxic products.

elerion said:
As far as I know, all developers except Rodinal and XTOL use it.
Click to expand...

There are lots of developers without any phenols. You may have to mix some yourself. There aren't any that are appreciably better than Xtol (I tried them all) in terms of sharpness, grain size and toe speed. Xtol is not, however, great for pushing.

img242a.jpg


Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tri-X @ EI400 in Xtol 1+3, Summilux 35 ASPH, yellow filter.

Marty
 
Although small concentrations, we should do our part to protect Mother Earth

Although small concentrations, we should do our part to protect Mother Earth

Pacha Mama (or Mother Earth) for sure will appreciate if we do not discharge any pollutant where it can be carried to our water sources. It is a good idea of dumping them in a bucket and placing it later on gallon containers and taking it to special places that the cities have for hazardous materiales. They will dispose off in proper places.
 
"the most pervasive chemicals found in wastewater and even in groundwater recharged with recycled water are: CAFFEINE, then IBUPROFEN, cancer treatment products, and even hormones...."

Thank you for this very important information. Having worked for a research firm that investigated toxic and hazardous chemicals in the workforce for OSHA, I am not concerned about my photographic chemicals going into the sink drain because they really aren't that toxic (OK, the fixer has silver in it, but my usage is very small). The amounts I use are also miniscule compared to industrial contaminants. However, it's spooky knowing that cancer drugs (meaning chemo) are being passed into the water. All chemo drugs are toxic, and some are even cancerous. I assume that the amounts being found in municipal water supplies are insignificant, but one has to ask what exactly IS an insignificant amount of poison in our bodies?

The EPA states that there are no sewage treatment systems specifically engineered to remove pharmaceuticals, and some treatments, such as adding chlorine to city water, can make some drugs even more toxic.

Time for me to ditch my Bria jug and go to bottled distilled water. It turns out that General Ripper was smart to insist on drinking only distilled water, rainwater, and pure grain alcohol. Crazy as an outhouse rat, but smart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom