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.