Caffenol chemicals?

[titrisol]

It is. Caffenol is a relatively expensive developer and I wonder if an LCA would support the eco-friendliness often attributed to it.

Eco friendly? It was never the point

 

[koraks]

It's touted as such by many, though.

 

[AntonKL]

the controls are not very predictable

The pH can vary a lot depending on how exactly you mix it, if you dissolve the soda first, the CO2 formed during neutralization will make bicarbonate with the excess soda. If you dissolve the vitamin C first and slowly add the soda, the CO2 escapes and the final pH will be higher, especially if you use just a small amount of water for mixing and then fill up to the final volume.
You can avoid this entirely by using sodium ascorbate in place of AA, but then the pH might even end up too high.

 

[Greg_E2]

So the order to mix things is also important, not just the amounts of each?

I often see the coffee and the soda mixed together, then the vitamin C added to this, is this correct or should we really be splitting the water into thirds, dissolving each, then mix coffee with soda, then with vitamin C? Or a different order altogether?

 

[fs999]

It is. Caffenol is a relatively expensive developer and I wonder if an LCA would support the eco-friendliness often attributed to it.

At 17 € per 1Kg is not very expensive...

 

[fs999]

So the order to mix things is also important, not just the amounts of each?

I often see the coffee and the soda mixed together, then the vitamin C added to this, is this correct or should we really be splitting the water into thirds, dissolving each, then mix coffee with soda, then with vitamin C? Or a different order altogether?

I dissolve in hot water first the soda, vitamin C with Kbr as second and mix them together. Then with tap water dissolve the coffee and mix all together.

 

[koraks]

At 17 € per 1Kg is not very expensive...

One liter of caffenol is around €1.50 if I shop around in regular consumer channels. If I do the same for, let's say, pyrocat 1+1+100, it's around €0.15. That's 1/10 the cost. Store-bought Adonal/Rodinal is around €0.30 for 1l at 1+100.

I'm not so much talking about financial cost, but the bulk of stuff that goes into it. This comes at a cost, too. The material needs to be synthesized from feedstocks, purified, packaged, transported etc.

What's the point of caffenol, really? It's not particularly cheap. It's most likely not particularly environmentally friendly when compared to functionally similar alternatives. It stinks to high heaven and has a tendency to stain the emulsion (but not an image-wise stain that might be desirable). It's slow. It's unpredictable/non-standardized unless you ensure that you get the exact same coffee and the manufacturer doesn't change something about that product. It takes up more shelf space than alternatives. It needs to be mixed at time of use from dry ingredients and it's not possible to make some kind of concentrate that can be stored. And it has no image properties that are particularly unique or desirable.

Really the only thing I can see it has going for it is that there's a novelty/fun factor to it, and technically speaking, it gets the job done. Evidently, it's not my cup of coffee; I see why people would try it once or twice for the "hey, neat"-experience. But it's beyond me why people would stick with it. What's the point in using a product that's not particularly good at its job, is relatively expensive and comes with a couple of downsides in practical use?

 

[titrisol]

So the order to mix things is also important, not just the amounts of each?

I often see the coffee and the soda mixed together, then the vitamin C added to this, is this correct or should we really be splitting the water into thirds, dissolving each, then mix coffee with soda, then with vitamin C? Or a different order altogether?

Yes, like with every recipe, the order of addition is very important as that affects how the different chemicals interact with each other and finally with the material.
In general you have to dissolve the carbonate first, then the vitamin C (to allow time to react as ascorbate), calculation of how much carbonate is needed to neutralize the ascorbic acid should be in the consideration; then any other solubles, and the coffee at the end

I wish PE was around to explain this in more technical terms, even though he'd tell us to go and read Haist.
Donald Qualls might also chime in.... here are his recipes

 

[npl]

One liter of caffenol is around €1.50 if I shop around in regular consumer channels. If I do the same for, let's say, pyrocat 1+1+100, it's around €0.15. That's 1/10 the cost. Store-bought Adonal/Rodinal is around €0.30 for 1l at 1+100.

I'm not so much talking about financial cost, but the bulk of stuff that goes into it. This comes at a cost, too. The material needs to be synthesized from feedstocks, purified, packaged, transported etc.

What's the point of caffenol, really? It's not particularly cheap. It's most likely not particularly environmentally friendly when compared to functionally similar alternatives. It stinks to high heaven and has a tendency to stain the emulsion (but not an image-wise stain that might be desirable). It's slow. It's unpredictable/non-standardized unless you ensure that you get the exact same coffee and the manufacturer doesn't change something about that product. It takes up more shelf space than alternatives. It needs to be mixed at time of use from dry ingredients and it's not possible to make some kind of concentrate that can be stored. And it has no image properties that are particularly unique or desirable.

Really the only thing I can see it has going for it is that there's a novelty/fun factor to it, and technically speaking, it gets the job done. Evidently, it's not my cup of coffee; I see why people would try it once or twice for the "hey, neat"-experience. But it's beyond me why people would stick with it. What's the point in using a product that's not particularly good at its job, is relatively expensive and comes with a couple of downsides in practical use?

There's IMO two interesting things about caffenol, beyond being a fun experiment.

It's original point was to be a developper you can make with stuff that can be found in local markets. It's kinda true : instant coffee, sodium carbonate, salt are easely found. The only uncommon thing is ascorbic acid altought you can find it in some stores or can use vitamin C tablets from the pharmacy (bit of a waste IMO). If you can't ship photochemicals where you live, that's one option.

At the end of the day, caffenol is a general-purpose one shot developer with low toxicity, that isn't fine-grained like D76 or XTOL. It can have it's place in a darkroom. As an example, I don't print big and sometimes find that XTOL (XT-3 now) or even HC-110 work a little too well on solving the grain. For somes cases, caffenol was the solution for grittier prints.

It can be standardized. Pure ascorbic acid, anydhrous sodium carbonate, iodised salt and one of these Instant coffee brand that have been around forever. Always mix in the same order, check the PH to be extra-sure .. and you're good

 

[koraks]

Thanks; yeah, especially the ingredient availability I can understand to be a factor. If those for whom this is relevant also can locate a store that sells some sodium thiosulfate for use in swimming pools, they can process B&W film and paper without having access to photochemistry per se.

My remarks were mainly intended to help people approach the decision with a critical attitude. If they're trying to minimize cost or optimize ecofriendliness, I feel they should have a rational look at it instead of accepting common lore too readily. Whether such minimization/optimization in this particular area is such a relevant theme to begin with...well, that's a whole different story.

I still believe that the vast majority of caffenol users are in it for the fun factor and probably the satisfaction of the McGyver-like approach. Mind you, I think there's absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.

 

[Reginald S]

I still believe that the vast majority of caffenol users are in it for the fun factor and probably the satisfaction of the McGyver-like approach.

I'm not sure. Once have heard one of the Mc Gyver clones, Reinhold (imagesfrugales), saying this:

""That's not a game, I am not modest this time, that's state of the art!"

Caffenol

<b>Dedicated to the power of Caffenol and Caffenol-C film developer made of: <br><br>instant coffee, washing soda and vitamin-C.<br><br>Competes with the best developers available <br> <br> This developer deserves more attention. <br> <br> Time for a cup of coffee....</b> <br> <br> Ifyou are new...

caffenol.blogspot.com

ipernity: imagesfrugales' photos

The worlds largest non-commercial photo, video and blog sharing community - financed only by membership dues, without any intention of making a profit.

www.ipernity.com

 

[koraks]

Oh, I'm a romantic just like the next coffee-soda guy. It just manifests in different areas.

 

[Greg_E2]

The "low" toxicity is one of the big reasons for me, but the smell may be too much. Gearing up for working with the grandkids and don't want to cause problems with the parents. I know this issue can be mitigated, and probably will be with the use of a rotary processor (in the future).

But it also seems to be the right thing to do for rolls of pinhole photos. Might as well throw as many variables into a bowl and mix them up to see what comes out.

The cost difference to me is a non-issue, I'm not going to be running enough film to be a concern. Inkjet ink will dwarf the cost of caffenol ingredients for any single print that gets made. My process will be film to scanner to inkjet, so cost will be high on anything I print, especially the 6x18 pinhole stuff, lots of paper waste there.

 

[fs999]

One liter of caffenol is around €1.50

For me it's 0.39 € per litre. I have bought 4 Kg of soda back in 2019, I still have 2 Kg. The instant coffee costs 5 € per 400 gr.

It needs to be mixed at time of use from dry ingredients and it's not possible to make some kind of concentrate that can be stored. And it has no image properties that are particularly unique or desirable.

Is that really a problem to mix ingredients when you need it ?

and comes with a couple of downsides in practical use?

What downsides ?

but the smell may be too much

Use Caffenol CL it has no smell.

 

[koraks]

I have bought 4 Kg of soda back in 2019, I still have 2 Kg.

The soda is of course not a factor. It's something like 2.5% of the cost.

The instant coffee costs 5 € per 400 gr.

Not anymore around here at least. Coffee prices have risen sharply over the past few years or so. Supermarket prices are now at around €25/kg for the most generic instant coffee. I looked up ascorbate prices around here; they're about €20/kg. This is what you'd pay as a consumer for reasonable quantities; surely, you could drop costs further by buying bulk, but I think that's kind of antithetic to the nature of a 'supermarket developer'.

Even your €0.39/liter is still >2x as much as DYI Pyrocat or 10x as much as Parodinal, and 30% higher in cost than store-bought Adonal. This is all with consumer price levels if I purchase it here in Western Europe, in regular shops if available or through consumer-accessible online sources for those materials that aren't sold in supermarkets, drugstores etc.

Is that really a problem to mix ingredients when you need it ?

I find it inconvenient. Mind you, I'm used to it as it's what I do with ECN2 color developer and instant mytol B&W developer. This means I'm also acutely aware of how nice & easy it is to just dose some pyrocat etc.

What downsides ?

Mentioned earlier; read back, still valid.

Again, I don't intend to drive anyone away from this. Just advocating for a critical stance as to the supposed benefits. IMO there's nothing magical or special about caffenol beyond the fact that you can buy the ingredients in shops in any modestly sized town. That in itself has a bit of a neat-factor to it, although personally it doesn't do that much for me anymore. I've done a lot of drugstore & supermarket photochemistry; it makes sense for some stuff like carbonate and hydroxide, but beyond that, it's not that much of a real benefit.

Gearing up for working with the grandkids

It's a great project in that context; the notion that you can produce photos by throwing stuff from the supermarket together is magic! Have fun! And you're right about the inkjet ink (and paper) being more of a cost driver than the developer. Then there's the film to account for as well.

Anyway, I'm going to indulge some more in what this stuff is really good for - hot & black, no cream or sugar!

 

[npl]

My sense of smell might be shot (probably is) but i've never found Caffenol to be that bad, really.
It's the stains on the reel and the "contamination" of stop bath and fixer that is the bigger issue for me. To avoid this other sources of polyphenols can be used instead of instant coffee .. a few years back I experimented with dried thyme and posted my results here on photrio, it needed further adjustments but it works.

I've never done rigourous A/B tests, but I find caffenol to be close to HC-110 at high dilution (but with dev times closer to 1:31). Not the best developper available from a strict technical standpoint, but it works just fine.

As I've touched on earlier, it's one option if you want grain but can't ship rodinal or don't want to use it for some reason (toxicity, acutance too high that won't serve the composition..)

 

[ezphotolessons]

I'll start by saying that I do have the short Caffenol book, but I have questions before I start gathering all the chemicals.

Coffee - check
Vitamin C - check
De-ionized water - check

What about stopbath, fixer, and wetting agent? There are a bunch of different suggestions, but what works well and hopefully comes in a long shelf life version for storage.

Also, can the developer be reused or is it really best to be one time only?

One of the writers in the caffenol book makes a gallon batch using his own coffee beans, puts a spec of conventional developer in it and then reuses his caffenol developer. While It seems most people use it 1-shot, it can be reused, somewhere on this forum or his "blog" he suggests it costs one cent per roll or sheet of film and paper to use. one cent is pretty inexpensive.

 

[koraks]

One of the writers in the caffenol book makes a gallon batch using his own coffee beans, puts a spec of conventional developer in it and then reuses his caffenol developer.

This reminds me that someone reached out to me in response to this thread (they may still be reading it) and they shared a few remarks on caffenol with me that I asked if it was OK if I relayed them. I'll paraphrase their comments in my own words below:

The mixing order is not critical. Don't worry about it.
One reason I use caffenol is because it's cheap; like $0.01 per sheet of paper. I develop anything in it ranging from film, paper to even cross-processed color film and I'm experimenting with reversal processing with it, too. I reuse the developer for up to a year, then mix a new batch and season it. I do not use instant coffee, but instead buy raw beans, roast them and use them; this gives me control over what beans I use. I prefer pure c. robusta.

I wanted to relay the comments above for the benefit of those interested in this developer. I'm not the source of these suggestions.

 

[npl]

Thanks for relaying this info.

I'd be curious to know more about how caffenol can be reused so much. From what I gathered the solution degrade quickly and it's not suitable for more than a few rolls in a relatively short time span (like most un-replenished developers ?)

Is the working solution replenished, like a XTOL-R workflow ? @ezphotolessons mentionned that another developer was added to the mix ?

 

[koraks]

@ezphotolessons mentionned that another developer was added to the mix ?

I think I've heard the same person who relayed the info to me do the same thing. IDK when, how often, under what conditions etc.
I also don't know how they store the developer but I assume it must be in a properly sealed container.

 

[eli griggs]

Most people recommend cheap instant coffee.
Robusta preferred over arabica.
There are similar formulas with red wine, beer

Nescafe Robusta is my preference, from day one.

 

[pentaxuser]

If iodized salt can be used instead of KBr and the amounts are as per the table given by fs999 then this will presumably depend on the amount of Iodine in the salt?

So can I ask what amount of Iodine is in the 6-10g of salt in the iodised salt mentíoned in the fs999's table for some versions of Caffenol. I ask because while iodised salt in unusual in the U.K. there is now at least one supermarket that sells it, namely Lidl. Their salt appears to have about 4,460 milligrams per 100g so this is 4.4g and this you'd need about 135 g of salt

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[titrisol]

There were many good discussions between Pat Gainer and PhotoEngineer on the subject of Kbr vs Table Salt here in Photrio many years ago
Also there were a few artciles about it in unlblinking eye, and magazines in the early 2000s.

Depending on the country, Iodized salt contains 30-50 mg/kg of Iodine (per WHO)
In the US 45 mg/kg of Iodine is the norm, whcih seems to be the Lidl brand you found

 

[pentaxuser]

There were many good discussions between Pat Gainer and PhotoEngineer on the subject of Kbr vs Table Salt here in Photrio many years ago
Also there were a few artciles about it in unlblinking eye, and magazines in the early 2000s.

Depending on the country, Iodized salt contains 30-50 mg/kg of Iodine (per WHO)
In the US 45 mg/kg of Iodine is the norm, whcih seems to be the Lidl brand you found

Thanks for the answer. It sounds like a lot of salt is needed per roll compared to very little KBr and while I haven't done the comparative costs of each it looks as if the Potassium Bromide is by far the cheaper option for the number of applications it gives vis a vis the iodised salt

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

If I may ask another question: Is KBr only necessary for higher speed films i,e those above 100? I noticed that there is no mentíon of it for speeds of 100 and less

Are higher speed films susceptible to fog and if they are why are they? Might it be that KBr is not really necessary at all or only makes a marginal difference to the fog level which can be printed through when exposing faster films for darkroom prints?

pentaxuser