Coffee developers are staining developers, so the negs look less contrasty than they really are, compared to negs of similar contrast made with a non-staining developer.
This looks pretty good.
Now I want to know how you measure a 40% improvement in laundry detergent performance.
Also lost a LOT of speed on this, by my estimate over two stops. Part of that is due to the Folgerol, part of it is the use of a single 60W as the light source (i.e. tungsten lighting). And I'm pretty sure I didn't give enough extra exposure to overcome the reciprocity failure either.
As I understand the way the developer (caffic acid and maybe some other phenols in the brew) is working, it isn't a true staining developer like Pyro. The stain from the coffee (tannins probably) is uniform. Pyro gives a proportional stain.
Still, a niffty trick. Need to set up some better tests, outdoors but I'll wait until it isn't -11F windchill outside!
I have my notes at home but I looked up a few things in a Merck Index and caffic acid was very similar to catchetol or hydroquinone. Can't remember now which it was. It wasn't quite a mirror image, more like a little bit of a rotation and an extra nitrogen or something simple.
"That may be a better use for Folger's than actually drinking it."
So true.
I have tried the folgernol developer before and found that it requires a very long development time (about 1/2 hour) and still produces a rather thin, flat neg. Perhaps reducing the amount of sodium carbonate, which I believe is a restrainer, could remedy all three problems.
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.