[Cafenol] Where did i error?

[Guilherme Franco]

I tried caffenol development with a correctly exposed Kodak TriX 400.

I used a recipe with:

12 teaspoons of instant coffee.
6 teaspoons of sodium carbonate.
1 g of ascorbic acid.

The developing time was 1.6x the developing time of D-76 for the same film (TriX 400).

The room temperature was 25°, and making all the calculations, i was left with a time of 12 mins.

I presoaked, and then i accidentally developped for 16mins, with the correct agitation (constant inversions on the first minutes, and 3 inversions per minute after), then i washed 2 times with water, one with water and vinager, another with water and a drop of dish washer.

After all of that, the problem: The film was still opaque, and the photos seemes very underexposed.

What did go wrong?

Anyway, i now put it on a very saline solution to fix, and i'll let it for 36h to fix. I boiled water with salt until it got to the maximal saturation, and then filtered it.

Anyone now why did the film didn't turn out clear?

 

[Whiteymorange]

The film will not be completely clear with a caffenol developer at any time- the coffee stains the film base. Your fixing, however may also be the problem. I have never tried a saline solution to fix, but I doubt very much that boiled salt and water will do the job. Try a commercial fixer with a sample and see what you get.

I know that the first time I used caffenol, I got negatives that appeared to the naked eye to be unprintable- they were dense and dark brown. They printed like a charm.

 

[jp498]

Use a real fixer to be sure which portion of the process is causing you a problem.

 

[pdeeh]

It's difficult to know where to start:

you are mixing teaspoons and gram measures so it is impossible to know which recipe you are following.
1g of Ascorbic acid is far far too little (the basic caffenol recipe requires 16g Ascorbic acid for 1000ml of developer)
what kind of soda? Anhydrous or decahydrate?

Caffenol for 400-speed films usually include some Potassium bromide as well

Salt "fixer" just won't work properly as WHiteymorange says

Have a look at http://www.caffenol-cookbook.com/
and http://caffenol.blogspot.co.uk/search?q=recipes

 

[removed account4]

I tried caffenol development with a correctly exposed Kodak TriX 400.

I used a recipe with:

12 teaspoons of instant coffee.
6 teaspoons of sodium carbonate.
1 g of ascorbic acid.

The developing time was 1.6x the developing time of D-76 for the same film (TriX 400).

The room temperature was 25°, and making all the calculations, i was left with a time of 12 mins.

I presoaked, and then i accidentally developped for 16mins, with the correct agitation (constant inversions on the first minutes, and 3 inversions per minute after), then i washed 2 times with water, one with water and vinager, another with water and a drop of dish washer.

After all of that, the problem: The film was still opaque, and the photos seemes very underexposed.

What did go wrong?

Anyway, i now put it on a very saline solution to fix, and i'll let it for 36h to fix. I boiled water with salt until it got to the maximal saturation, and then filtered it.

Anyone now why did the film didn't turn out clear?

the whole salt water thing ... some think it works ( probably does )
but ... you should just use it in an emergency to stabilizes your film until you can get some fixer.
i have a huge jar of salt water i made for "fixing things" but haven't ever used it ( 2 years now )
because fixer is cheap, film is cheap, exposed film+negatives are pretty valuable ...

i'd try the caffenol again, whatever recipe you have, but use normal fixer and see what happens.
and if your film seems under developed ( or under exposed ) , develop it longer ( or rate your film a little slower )
that's what i do
have fun !

 

[jpreston]

The film will not be completely clear with a caffenol developer at any time- the coffee stains the film base. Your fixing, however may also be the problem. I have never tried a saline solution to fix, but I doubt very much that boiled salt and water will do the job. Try a commercial fixer with a sample and see what you get.

I know that the first time I used caffenol, I got negatives that appeared to the naked eye to be unprintable- they were dense and dark brown. They printed like a charm.

Whitey,

Do you recall how you printed those negs? As in what lens, f-stop, contrast filter and time? I have some that are very dark and was told they wouldn't be printable. They scan pretty well, though. I'm a darkroom novice and would love to print them optically.

Thanks,

Jeff

 

[Whiteymorange]

Do you recall how you printed those negs? As in what lens, f-stop, contrast filter and time? I have some that are very dark and was told they wouldn't be printable. They scan pretty well, though. I'm a darkroom novice and would love to print them optically.

Thanks,

Jeff

Jeff,
I printed them a long time ago, so the details escape me, but there was no magic to it. I was in a high school darkroom, working between classes. I usually stop down to f8 or f11 for my test strip and then go from there. I do remember that they took less time than I would have guessed, looking at them–certainly under 20 seconds, most likely 10 to 12. The lens was a EL Nikkor 50mm. I don't remember what filter I used. And I don't have any of them scanned, so I can't even show them to you. Sorry.

 

[removed account4]

hi jeff

i've enlarged nearly bulletproof caffenol negatives and thin ones too, contact printed as well.
im not too picky, and used a durst 601 nikon 50 open all the way the enlarger was pretty high up ( plane ),
it was maybe a 15-20second enlargement ... cold light enlarger stopped down and film contact printed on fb paper,
probably 10 seconds ? or less (granite pier ) stopped down a few stops ( 3 ) and 4x5 film i couldn't see though and
the contact print was the only way to reveal the negative ...a 300w lightbulb + contact printed onto rc paper ( field )
maybe a 10-15second exposure ...
sorry it took me so long to find the images, had to remember when i took them and dig through
folders of images ... these are all scans of prints, not film scans ...

...
michael, the only thing improper about the OP's setup was the fixer,
he had a stab, not a fixer ...

YMMV

 

[gone]

If it's opaque, it's probably the fixer. I would suggest you use something similar to Kodak Rapid fixer, and it may not be too late to give it a shot. Try refixing them in that for 5 or 6 minutes w/ constant agitation.

 

[Guilherme Franco]

I already solved the opacity problem, the saline fixer worked like a charm with 26 hours of fixing and sporadic agitation. But still, the photos are way too transparent, i don't think i can either scan or print them

 

[cliveh]

I already solved the opacity problem, the saline fixer worked like a charm with 26 hours of fixing and sporadic agitation. But still, the photos are way too transparent, i don't think i can either scan or print them

Is 26 hours of fixing a realistic practical procedure?

 

[removed account4]

I already solved the opacity problem, the saline fixer worked like a charm with 26 hours of fixing and sporadic agitation. But still, the photos are way too transparent, i don't think i can either scan or print them

not sure what went wrong in your process, if your negatives are too thin, either process them more
or rate your film at a slower iso ... or you might check is that you are actually using robusto coffee ..
sometimes arabica is blended in with the instant (to make it taste better? ) you are in brazil
some of the best arabica coffee in the world is from there, just make sure it is robusta you are using for your developer

 

[Guilherme Franco]

it also seems that de recipe i were using was made to ease the calculations, once the dev time was based on the D-76 dev time for that same film, but it didn't say anything about the dilution. D-76 for TriX 400 is used with 1+1 dilution. Is that the most common dilution for D-76?

 

[pdeeh]

D-76 and Caffenol have nothing in common. You can't use the data for D-76 and apply it to Caffenol.

If you want to use Caffenol, read the links I posted so that you understand what's required for consistent, repeatable and good results, if that is what you want.

If you just want to throw spoonfuls of this and that into a pot and mix it up and hope something comes out OK, that's fine too, but you may end up wasting a lot of film that way, and it's not cheap stuff these days ...

 

[jpreston]

Thanks.

Jeff,
I printed them a long time ago, so the details escape me, but there was no magic to it. I was in a high school darkroom, working between classes. I usually stop down to f8 or f11 for my test strip and then go from there. I do remember that they took less time than I would have guessed, looking at them–certainly under 20 seconds, most likely 10 to 12. The lens was a EL Nikkor 50mm. I don't remember what filter I used. And I don't have any of them scanned, so I can't even show them to you. Sorry.

Thanks for the info. I normally use Caffenol or Obsidian Aqua pyro to develop my 4x5 and 120 film. Didn't even try to contact print the negs that my darkroom mentor said wouldn't print very well.

Jeff

 

[jpreston]

hi jeff

i've enlarged nearly bulletproof caffenol negatives and thin ones too, contact printed as well.
im not too picky, and used a durst 601 nikon 50 open all the way the enlarger was pretty high up ( plane ),
it was maybe a 15-20second enlargement ... cold light enlarger stopped down and film contact printed on fb paper,
probably 10 seconds ? or less (granite pier ) stopped down a few stops ( 3 ) and 4x5 film i couldn't see though and
the contact print was the only way to reveal the negative ...a 300w lightbulb + contact printed onto rc paper ( field )
maybe a 10-15second exposure ...
sorry it took me so long to find the images, had to remember when i took them and dig through
folders of images ... these are all scans of prints, not film scans ...

...
michael, the only thing improper about the OP's setup was the fixer,
he had a stab, not a fixer ...

YMMV

Thanks for the details! I will try to contact the negs that I was told wouldn't print well and see what I get.

Jeff

 

[removed account4]

yeah, you'd be surprised now nice bullet proof negatives print.
( i've been told not to do most of the things i do, and it all turns out fine .. )