caffenol c

[removed account4]

hi there

i am a big fan of using coffee-developer for film,
but want to use it with paper ...

i'm going on a trip and don't want to deal with
bringing photochemicals on a plane (for obvious reasons )
and figured coffee vit c and laundry detergent
area everywhere .. so what the heck ...

has anyone experience with this?

thanks in advance!
john

 

[Toffle]

Hi John;
I have printed quite a few shots with caffenol. Depending on the paper you are using, your results can be quite interesting. My "best" results are with some very (very) old Kodak Polymax semi matte. http://www.woophy.com/map/download.php?file=320120.jpg
On Kentmere Glossy the results are a very pleasant dark sepia tone.
I just use the straight Caffenol recipe, and develop for 3-4 min. (or until I like the look... or can't stand the smell any longer.)

Cheers,
Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

 

[htmlguru4242]

Toffle, I really like that print. Nice brown tone.

The contrast could be higher, but I'm sure that that could be fixed by adjusting the developer / printing timest, etc.

Did the developer cause that sort of wavy pattern across the image?

 

[laverdure]

weird, Tom. This came up here a little while ago, but without much practical result: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

good luck and if you get any good results I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Toffle]

I'm pretty sure the effect here is because the paper was so old. Prints on new paper just have more of a toned effect. Also, I suppose it makes a difference how thoroughly you mix the ingredients. I'm a musician, and I'm often drawn to John Cage's philosophy in that random/unpredictable elements can be effective artistic tools. That being said, if you want absolute control with repeatable results, use professional chemistry in your trays and drink your coffee.

I'm glad you like the shot. I'll see if I have something available online to show caffenol on regular papers.

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

 

[removed account4]

weird, Tom. This came up here a little while ago, but without much practical result: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

good luck and if you get any good results I'd love to hear about it.

hi laverdure

sorry, i missed that thread, and when i searched, i didn't find it

--john

 

[removed account4]

I'm pretty sure the effect here is because the paper was so old. Prints on new paper just have more of a toned effect. Also, I suppose it makes a difference how thoroughly you mix the ingredients. I'm a musician, and I'm often drawn to John Cage's philosophy in that random/unpredictable elements can be effective artistic tools. That being said, if you want absolute control with repeatable results, use professional chemistry in your trays and drink your coffee.

I'm glad you like the shot. I'll see if I have something available online to show caffenol on regular papers.

Tom, on Point Pelee, Canada

thanks tom!

that looks beautiful.

i also am drawn to john cage's philosophy.
entropy is quite helpful

john

 

[gainer]

We had some "modern" composers in Norfolk, VA. Those things are difficult to play. The good thing is that nobody in the audience can tell when a musicisn plays the wrong note. At one rehearsal the composer was sitting with a notepad. Whenever a musician made a mistake, he made a mark in his pad. We theorized that he was making the mistake a part of his final version. He never would tell.

 

[Toffle]

Here are a couple of examples of more traditional Caffenol printing. (That's the strangest oxymoron I've heard in a long time.) Caffenol printing on Kentmere VC Glossy RC paper.
http://www.woophy.com/map/download.php?file=328182.jpg
http://www.woophy.com/map/download.php?file=328183.jpg

These are fairly typical of my results printing with Caffenol. Developing times are usually 4-5 minutes.

Cheers,

 

[laverdure]

Tom,

Why do you suppose you got such quick (4-5m) results where most of us who posted in the last thread on this subject came in at around 20 minutes? It was the amount of time involved, rather than quality issues, which made me give up my own tentative research.

 

[Toffle]

Tom,

Why do you suppose you got such quick (4-5m) results where most of us who posted in the last thread on this subject came in at around 20 minutes? It was the amount of time involved, rather than quality issues, which made me give up my own tentative research.

I don't really know. I'm certainly not a skilled printer. (I only just bought my enlarger on ebay in March. I've done 200 prints tops... and not one that I consider fully toned) I read the previous thread when I first started investigating Caffenol printing, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. I used the straight Caffenol recipe - 4 tsp Folger's, 2 tsp Washing soda, 8 oz water. (no vitamin C buffer) Also, because I'm cheap, I used a water rinse between developing and stop bath, as Caffenol makes an awful mess in your trays.

I'd be very interested in seeing results from others.

By the way, the reason I chose to print with Caffenol instead of developing my film is that I figured that I was likely to mess everything up. You can always re-print; you can't always repeat a shot.

Cheers,

 

[laverdure]

Thanks, Tom, your results are really interesting. I'll have to give it another shot one of these days.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Is it a bad idea to use one stainless steel 35/120 tank for all your developers? (can you get one clean enough after using Caffenol?)

How about a plastic drum? Someone told me Caffenol prefers less a stationary development posture to drum/tube because of the short life and oxidization. But someone else's practice may be more interesting than someone else's theory.

Thanks