Caffenol-C, my blog

ntenny said:

It's a mass-market Vietnamese _robusta_ that Dead Link Removed sold as one of their "educational" offerings---a dollar a pound or so for an example of a coffee with something terribly wrong with it.

We roasted and sampled a bit once...*ONCE*. It tastes like the worst imaginable caricature of bad truck-stop coffee. I've never had a worse cup of coffee in my life, except in some hotels in East Asia...

-NT

Click to expand...

sounds like the perfect developer

YUM!

john

ntenny said:

It's a mass-market Vietnamese _robusta_ that Dead Link Removed sold as one of their "educational" offerings---a dollar a pound or so for an example of a coffee with something terribly wrong with it.

We roasted and sampled a bit once...*ONCE*. It tastes like the worst imaginable caricature of bad truck-stop coffee. I've never had a worse cup of coffee in my life, except in some hotels in East Asia...

-NT

Click to expand...

Some of the Filipinos I work with will make coffee for us. It is really bad. They take the most God-awful coffee, make it way too strong and then pour in enough sugar to give you a sugar high for a week. I don't think any of these guys knows what black coffee is. I brought in some really good coffee, and they managed to screw it up too. I'm not going to waste good coffee on these guys. They can have their mud.

This stuff they make would probably be great for film if you left out the sugar.

Reinhold,

I wonder if you would care to comment on your caffenol-C-M recipe. I notice that compared to the caffenol-c recipes commonly found online yours is considerably more concentrated. Yet the development time is about the same (or even a little longer). My instinct would have been that your brew would tend towards very dense negatives, but maybe that isn't the case? Is there something about the ratio of coffee/vitamin-c/soda that makes it less active, although perhaps having other benefits? It would be great to hear any insight on how you arrived at your recipe.

By the way, your blog is great! A wonderful resource for all of us coffee experiments.

Jeff

Nice Blog with a lot of information.

Best regards,

Robert

Hi Jeff,

thank you for your kind comment. When I started to experiment with Caffenol, I saw a lot of images f.e. at flickr that really didn't please me. Too flat in contrast, with filmspeeds mostly lower than boxspeed. Underexposed and underdeveloped. And I didn't want images with an "experimental" look. But I also saw some great images, and sometimes the recipe was given. Most of the images that really impressed me used a stronger brew than the well known recipe from digitaltruth. I read much and read more, and mixed all the information in my humble mind. My first brew was the one published on my blog, it turned out so good that I didn't feel the need to change anything. Good contrast, sharp, and enhanced film speed with extraordinary shadow rendering. I am used to developers that give more than boxspeed like Diafine or Promicrol, so I instantly liked what I made. Maybe there is to much Vit-C, but maybe the excess prevents the caffeic acid from oxidation. I don't know. Simply double the boxspeed and you're off fine for wetprints. Or slightly overexpose and reduce dev time slightly for even more contrast handling. The lights won't burn out too fast.

Scanning the negs is sooo easy, also pushed 2,3 or even 4 stops depending on film and object contrast works fine with little effort. No other developer gives me a wider tonal range. Pull 1 or 2 stops and get a real 14 stop contrast range even with my modest CanoScan 8800F.

Honestly, I never tried a weaker brew. And I never used Caffenol without Vit-C. But I tried to substitute the soda with borax, hoping to get finer grain and less fog with fast films, but failed. Massive underdevelopment, pH too low. So i decided to give bromide a try with the fast films and it works.

Cheers - Reinhold

I have granulated washing soda. Does anyone know if the granulated bit makes any difference? I have used it in caffenol & the results looked OK, just wondering if the might be better with non-granulated soda.

Reinhold, I just did up some Acros 120 in Caffenol-C -- the negs scanned easily, but there was considerable fog. On your blog you note that you can use C-H with KBr for slower speed films like Acros, but you don't seem to recommend it. Why not?

@ goldie: reading is helpful: http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2010/03/soda-myth-and-truth_07.html
If you are masochisticly predisposed, also read the comments :-D

@ trask: Acros100 as 35 mm is a film giving a low fog level in CCM. Maybe the lowest of all films I used so far. KBr simply isn't necessary, seems to make no unwanted effects either. The Acros100 as 120 film should not make any difference. If so, please anybody who knows more may report.

Caffenol-C-M should be and stay as simple as possible made only with household ingredients.

Cheers - Reinhold

Thanks Reinhold, that helps me understand the thinking behind your particular concoction much better. As for my recipe, I am still tweaking. But like yours, my brew is tending towards a ratio of vitamin-C to coffee which is about double that of the "standard" (if there is such a thing!) recipe you see online. I am still a little uncertain as to how much soda I really need, or whether there is an optimum amount/concentration. I have purposely varied the amount of soda to to look for image quality issues, but so far haven't seen any obvious differences or experienced any failures from having too little or too much.

Overall I have been very impressed and happy with my caffenol-c results, with one main exception, which has to do with a kind of banding or enhanced development along the edges. This is with 120 roll film which I develop in stainless steel tanks and reels. So far this little issue has always manifested itself regardless of the recipe I have tried or variations in my agitation technique. When you look at caffenol-developed images online you will see quite a few images with this effect too. Oh well, once I get this issue licked I think I will have a really great film/developer combination on my hands.

Jeff

Hi Jeff,

I guess the soda itself doesn't have any influence on the image, it delivers the right pH and controls the activity of the developing agents. My recipe comes out with a pH of 9.6 to 9.7. With Borax and reduced Vit-C the pH is at 8.6 and I got massivly underdeveloped negs even with 30 mins dev time.

Uneven development around sprocket holes I had sometime. I saw this phenomenon often in the web. Since I use about 5-10 % more developer than minimum required for the tank the phenomenon is gone.

Cheers - Reinhold

grommi said:

Hi Jeff,

I guess the soda itself doesn't have any influence on the image, it delivers the right pH and controls the activity of the developing agents. My recipe comes out with a pH of 9.6 to 9.7. With Borax and reduced Vit-C the pH is at 8.6 and I got massivly underdeveloped negs even with 30 mins dev time.

Cheers - Reinhold

Click to expand...

That's what I was thinking, that there needs to be enough soda to bring the ph to some minimum value, and below that development just falls off a cliff. Still, I have seen some references to an "optimum" ph for some developers (caffenol and mint, specifically), but it is not usually specified what qualities are affected.

As for the "edge banding" (there is probably a better way to describe the effect), I think it is probably deserves its own thread so maybe I will start one.

I'll pipe in here with my recommendation... If you do darkroom printing, (and I hope you do) try printing with any of the caffenol recipes. I use strong Caffenol-c with Kbr and get some really good results, depending on the paper, wind direction and the whims of the photographic gods.

Cheers,

Denverdad said:

That's what I was thinking, that there needs to be enough soda to bring the ph to some minimum value, and below that development just falls off a cliff.

Click to expand...

That's consistent with what I saw when I experimented with using less soda (trying to control the problem with edge overdevelopment). I don't have the tools to measure the pH, so I was just tracking the amount of soda, and there seemed to be a fairly wide range within which the results showed no significant change, followed by a sudden crash in activity when the level got below a critical value.

My thinking was that a pH that was too high might make for a "hyperactive" developer in which local overdevelopment happened easily, but the results I saw didn't really bear that out.

As for the "edge banding" (there is probably a better way to describe the effect), I think it is probably deserves its own thread so maybe I will start one.

Click to expand...

I assume we're talking about the same thing, though I wouldn't describe it as "banding". One theory suggested when I brought it up on APUG is that we're getting more development at the edges because the dynamics of fluid travelling over an edge make the edges effectively get more agitation than the rest.

That was why I started reducing the soda, since it seems like lower developer activity would reduce such an effect. I've also tried tweaking my agitation regime in a bunch of different ways, but so far no luck.

-NT

ntenny said:

That's consistent with what I saw when I experimented with using less soda (trying to control the problem with edge overdevelopment). I don't have the tools to measure the pH, so I was just tracking the amount of soda, and there seemed to be a fairly wide range within which the results showed no significant change, followed by a sudden crash in activity when the level got below a critical value.

My thinking was that a pH that was too high might make for a "hyperactive" developer in which local overdevelopment happened easily, but the results I saw didn't really bear that out.

I assume we're talking about the same thing, though I wouldn't describe it as "banding". One theory suggested when I brought it up on APUG is that we're getting more development at the edges because the dynamics of fluid travelling over an edge make the edges effectively get more agitation than the rest.

That was why I started reducing the soda, since it seems like lower developer activity would reduce such an effect. I've also tried tweaking my agitation regime in a bunch of different ways, but so far no luck.

-NT

Click to expand...

It is good to know I am not alone! Actually, it sounds like we went through a similar thought process (that it must have something to do with the flow of developer around the reel on the edges). So, I tried pretty much everything you did. I started by agitating less and less - even stand development - but it made no difference. Then I went in the opposite direction with continuous development - still, no difference. Then I came up with the idea to add a spacer in the tank so that the reel couldn't "slosh" during inversion. But again, no difference.

Last night I came up with a completely different idea. Instead of the usual inversion agitation, I tried rolling the tank to agitate it, the idea being to try to avoid any top to bottom fluid motion and instead allow only motion around the tank axis - i.e., following the spiral. I don't really know what the fluid dynamics are like inside the tank when rolled, but I had high hopes for this technique. Unfortunately, what I found was that this also didn't really seem to help.

My latest crazy hypothesis is that maybe there is something about caffenol-c that gives it some affinity for the metal of the reel, such that it concentrates nearer the edges of the film, where it sits in the reel. Maybe there is some kind of separation that happens? If this is true then I suppose those who develop with plastic reels would never see the effect we are talking about (and maybe that's why many say they have never seen it?). Ok, I know that explanation is rather "out there," but I am running out of ideas! Perhaps I am just missing something simple. I hope so!

By the way you're right, edge "banding" isn't the best description, as that could easily be confused with other effects. Something like "edge overdevelopment" is fine as long as it is not actually the opposite which is going on - i.e., underdevelopment in the center! Perhaps "transverse differential development" would be more succinct, but it certainly isn't catchy.

Reinhold, just out of curiousity, does Caffenol also work with color film?

I also tried Caffenol-C about 2 years ago. Pictures were taken with an old Voigtländer camera. I never printed the negative, since it is 6x9 and my enlarger can only do up to 6x6. Here is a (crappy) scan of the neg: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandra-fielitz/2496323943/

Reinhold, you encouraged me to try your recipe. Keep up the good work!

Grüßle,
Sandra

swittmann said:

Reinhold, just out of curiousity, does Caffenol also work with color film?

Click to expand...

It doesn't form dyes, but you'll get a silver image.

I also tried Caffenol-C about 2 years ago. Pictures were taken with an old Voigtländer camera. I never printed the negative, since it is 6x9 and my enlarger can only do up to 6x6.

Click to expand...

Contact print! 6x9 is a perfectly good print size (you can even get cheap drugstore frames to fit it).

-NT

Thank you, Nathan!

Best regards,
Sandra

grommi said:

Hi Jeff,

I guess the soda itself doesn't have any influence on the image, it delivers the right pH and controls the activity of the developing agents. My recipe comes out with a pH of 9.6 to 9.7. With Borax and reduced Vit-C the pH is at 8.6 and I got massivly underdeveloped negs even with 30 mins dev time.

Uneven development around sprocket holes I had sometime. I saw this phenomenon often in the web. Since I use about 5-10 % more developer than minimum required for the tank the phenomenon is gone.

Cheers - Reinhold

Click to expand...

I have noticed some slightly uneven development on the top 1/3 of the 4X5 Tmax that I have developed in a open Combiplan aka tank development, the film is absolutely covered in more than enough caffenol and I agitate by lifting the filmholder up and out 3 times to really move the liquid around plus a slight shake when in again to release eventual bubbles, this I do every minute..

I did a batch with the same agitation only every 2nd minute instead to see if there´s any difference, but no.. same thing!

My first thought was that it was due to a density specific issue or oxidization making it less active on top.. But you guys are using closed tanks right? So that can´t be it..

So know I think that maybe its worth looking at the initial agitation of 30 secs, maybe its too vigorous for Caffenol,it might be worth trying with less or no initial agitation and then the 3 agitations every minute.

Anyway, I´ll be experimenting with my agitation timings, the acidity of the stopbath and concentration of the fixer to see if I can find a culprit!

FiatluX said:

I have noticed some slightly uneven development on the top 1/3 of the 4X5 Tmax that I have developed in a open Combiplan aka tank development....

Click to expand...

Hello Fiatlux,

thanks for your comments and response on my blog. The shown image (http://i48.tinypic.com/o0o0mc.jpg) is really impressive besides the uneven development. In contrast to your thoughts I guess there is not enough agitation. I have no experiance with sheet film, but with 135 film also the heavy Xtol agitation regime works well, maybe even better, with adjusted dev time of course.

Did you develop the sheet upright? There is some vertical streaking visible. Maybe these are caused by bromide leaking out of the emulsion. Adding some bromide like in Caffenol-C-H could also help. I would suggest this:
pre rinse for 3 minutes or no pre rinse at all (don't know), heavy lateral and vertical constant agitation in the first minute, then every 30 seconds. Maybe you should have a look at the Xtol data for sheet development. A lot of agitation at the beginning may be the key.

The film emulsion sets free bromide during development. At the beginning, when no or very few bromide is present, some fog appears and could cause uneven development if there is not enough agitation. So far my theory.

Good luck and keep us informed.

Cheers - Reinhold

I´ll do a test with both, 1 with no agitation for the first 30 secs and 1 with continuous agitation for the first minute!

It will be interesting to see the differences..

Update:

Adding 1g/l potassium bromide, KBr, prevents 100% from uneven development, even with sheet film or stand development. Reduces fog dramatically. The feedback is overwhelming. Freestyle US has it for little money, distributors of raw chemicals in Germany, pharmacies in Germany and - yep - Iceland!

Best - Reinhold

I agree, KBr is super effective in controlling uneven development.
I discovered this when I was getting bromide streaking with Pat Gainers PC-TEA developer.
A little KBr goes a long way.

By the way, you need an avitar with your photo so we can tell each other apart...

Reinhold

www.classicBWphoto.com

I tried plain caff-c once - interesting negs, but I couldn't get past the smell to try it again. Grommi, I think your next innovation should be a formula that's just as effective but smells like potpourri

At some point I do want to try Dead Link Removed - should smell better, at any rate

gainer said:

Has anyone tried NoDoz as a source of caffeine for developers?

Click to expand...

The developing agent in coffee is caffeic acid which is not chemically related to caffeine. Caffeic acid is found in almost all plants. A good source is said to be cucunbers. I wonder if you could take a cucumber, put it through a blender and use the filtered juice?

Anyhow, caffeic acid is a substitued catechol so why not try one of the many catechol formulas that were once popular. Many are compensating developers like the one below and produce very sharp grain.

Stock solution A

Potassium metabisulfite ....................... 12.0 g
Catechol ........................................... 80.0 g
Water to make ................................... 1.0 liter

Stock Solution B

Sodium hydroxide ................................. 35.0 g
Water to make ..................................... 1.0 l

Take 10 ml of A, 10 ml of B, and 200 ml of water. For under-exposed negatives increase the amount of solution B, for over-exposed negaives add 1 ml of a 5% solution of potassium bromide.

swittmann said:

Reinhold, just out of curiousity, does Caffenol also work with color film?

I also tried Caffenol-C about 2 years ago. Pictures were taken with an old Voigtländer camera. I never printed the negative, since it is 6x9 and my enlarger can only do up to 6x6. Here is a (crappy) scan of the neg: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandra-fielitz/2496323943/

Reinhold, you encouraged me to try your recipe. Keep up the good work!

Grüßle,

Sandra

Click to expand...

i processed both slide film ( sensia ) and color negative film ( fuji press 800 )
in caffenol C ( + ansco 130 ) a few weekends ago
and the film came out black and white, but with a yellow tint ( sensia ) and blue tint ( press 800 ).

if i were to go the hybrid route, it would not be a problem
but traditionally speaking, there would be "issues" ...