Commercial Coffenol manufacturer?

[Tom Hoskinson]

Reducers in Caffenol are caffeic acid and ascorbic acid

I don't think Caffenol meets my definition. What is the actual developing agent, how much of it is contained in a given quantity of coffee, and how do you know? What is the chemical composition of coffee, and how do its components contribute to the working properties of a developer made with it? If these things are known with any certainty, I've never seen a published description. I understand the novelty of making a working developer from household ingredients, but I also understand the limitations of that approach, and frankly don't understand the persistence of the attraction beyond its novelty. Any and all of the developers listed at the bottom of your message are more effective and more reliable, and most are published formulae. Just calling a spade a spade.

I'm all in favor of calling a spade a spade.

Some of the developers I listed are open literature published formulae - others are proprietary. "more effective and more reliable" depends on the application and the results obtained, IMHO.

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)


http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions and Times.html#Caffenol_C

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[cahayapemburu]

Dr. Williams' paper illustrates my point very well,

"Coffee contains just about every type of molecule known to nature, including proteins, lipids and carbohydrates"

and among them several that might act as developers, but exactly which, and in what proportions, and the quantities of which, no one is saying, and the effects of the myriad other compounds are completely unaccounted for. Effectiveness can be quantified as the quantity of a sunbstance required to produce a given degree of development, and reliability depends on the ability to make a developer of known properties repeatedly from a developer's consituent chemicals. Those definitions would serve well enough for me, anyway.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Dr. Williams' paper illustrates my point very well,

"Coffee contains just about every type of molecule known to nature, including proteins, lipids and carbohydrates"

and among them several that might act as developers, but exactly which, and in what proportions, and the quantities of which, no one is saying, and the effects of the myriad other compounds are completely unaccounted for. Effectiveness can be quantified as the quantity of a sunbstance required to produce a given degree of development, and reliability depends on the ability to make a developer of known properties repeatedly from a developer's consituent chemicals. Those definitions would serve well enough for me, anyway.

Thus ignoring the inconvenient fact that film developers that rely on coffee and ascorbic acid as their developing agents actually work and produce very useful and repeatable results.

Caffeic Acid and Ascorbic Acid - two very interesting anti-oxidants - and both will develop film . Google them.

For recipes, see: http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions and Times.html#Caffenol_C

 

[Jim Noel]

The only time I decided to use coffee based developer, I used coffee which had been brewed and the remainder left in th pot for a few hours. You know, that stuff that smells so strong youthrow it away and brew fresh.

I did this prior to reading anything about using Folgers, or any other instant crystals. Also, I had not read much about ascorbic acid. As a result, I just simply added some carbonate to the coffee and developed a couple of sheets of HP5+ by inspection for 25 minutes. The resulting negatives were tanned, thin and very easily printable. subjects in deep shade were hardly visible on the negatives, but printed well. They made excellent prints with palladium.

Perhaps it is time I tried adding ascorbic acid to speed up the process.

 

[Jim Noel]

Tom,
I just looked at your Caffenol LC+C.

I think I will give it a try with lith film as it is simpler and cheaper than LC-1 or altered Rodinal. I like to use lith film in camera to test new lenses.

 

[cahayapemburu]

Tom, the fact that coffe can be used as a developer is not inconvenient for me, or ignored by me. My point was in comparing a coffee-based developer to those made from known, quantifiable chemicals. You've apparently taken offense to my implying cofee-based developers are not real developers, and for that I'm sorry. Coffee-based developers develop film, and that by definition, makes them real developers, so I retract that terminology, but my original question remains unaddressed; what advantages do coffe-based developers offer over developers made from known, quantifiable chemicals, apart from the novelty of being made of household ingredients? I can think of several disadvantages related to using an unknown, unquantifiable developing agent in combination with many, many unknown constituents of unknown properties and/or interactions to make a developer of limited usefulness and poor keeping properties. Put another way, what is the rationale for using cofee in place of a better quality staining developing agent, like catechol or pyrogallol? I mean, aside from the novelty?

 

[Brian Bullen]

cahayapemburu,
I know your question was directed to Tom, who has a much greater knowledge of developers, etc. than I ever will, but I think there are a number of reasons why one would choose to use coffee based developers.
1. experimentation
2. safe to use for people who might be sensitive to other developing chemicals
3. inexpensive
4. buy it at the local supermarket
5. easy to mix
6. fun
These are some of the reasons why I like to use Caffenol, others might have totally different reasons.

Your question basically boils down to this,"Why try something new and unknown when this works better?"
If we don't try, if we don't answer that question, how do we know for sure? Learning, trying, seeing is what makes photography worthwhile. At least for me.
It really comes down to choices that matter to each individual.

 

[Fotohuis]

Indeed, some arguments to use it but on the other hand the result is unpredictable due to a large variation of parameters in different coffee.
However if you're not satisfied with the used (brand) instant coffee you can still drink it

It will indeed work as low contrast developer and therefore even suitable to use it with the new Rollei ATP-V1.1 Tech Pan film.

One of the lastest Caffenol articles is in the new magazine from Mr. David Vickers:

Dead Link Removed

Enjoy also this new magazine ..... and your coffee

Best regards,

Robert

 

[cahayapemburu]

Brian, I understand the novelty of using coffee to develop film, which covers reasons 1,4, and 6 on your list. I don't think your reasons numbers 3 and 5 are at all valid regarding a comparison to standard developers, which leaves reason #2 as the only potentially relevant point, if in fact you use coffee developers because you're sensitive to, or wary of standard staining developers, and for some reason you're determined to use a staining developer instead of something like Xtol. As far as boiling goes, my question was definitely not ,"Why try something new and unknown when this works better?". As a user of 510 pyro I get a lot of that kind of commentary directed at me, but there's a big difference between innovation and novelty, and because this thread is concerned with the question of commercially producing a coffee-based developer, inquiring into the rationale for using one is not unreasonable. What my question really boils down to is this: if you were to commercially produce a coffee-based developer, how would you sell it? Would you market it based on the novelty of its origin, or on some property that makes it superior in some way to other commercially available developers? If the latter, what would that property be?

 

[cmo]

What does this developer do that a real developer couldn't do better?

Staining, not a poison, neither for the user nor for the environment - which is quite different from Pyro developers,

The simple developer recipe that we all know is quite good. Adding some knowledge, clean, reliable chemicals instead of Folger's coffee and perhaps some more addons might create a great developer. Is that possible? That's my question.

 

[cmo]

Pyrocat-HD, Moersch Tannol, PMK,WD2D, 510-PYR0, Prescysol, DiXactol, etc. are examples of commercially available staining and tanning developers.

"THE NEGATIVE SIDE OF PYRO DEVELOPERS

Staining developers have not been universally accepted by the photographic community for several reasons: 1) Pyrogallol is a very toxic chemical."

Source: http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PCat/pcat.html

 

[cmo]

Just to add a portion of cynism here:

My stomach says that Folger's, Nescafé and other coffee cremated in a factory are poisons as well. He prefers good, italian (french, spanish) Espresso, e.g. real coffee. Perhaps incinerated stuff is actually only good for developing films

 

[cmo]

if you were to commercially produce a coffee-based developer, how would you sell it? Would you market it based on the novelty of its origin, or on some property that makes it superior in some way to other commercially available developers? If the latter, what would that property be?

"1. See the first coffee based, non-toxic staining developer.

2. Here is a table of dev times that are perfectly tested, and we can guarantee, that every charge of our little bottles will contain exactly the same amount of all ingredients, so you can rely on the results, even if you are a spoiled large-format zone system user.

3. We added some ****** and ***** to make it faster, sharper, reduce the grain and achieve an effective increase in film speed. It even tastes better "

 

[Gatsby1923]

Newest Folger's Add

“We are here at New York’s Finest darkroom, where we've secretly replaced the fine D76 they usually use with Folgers Crystals. Let's see if anyone can tell the difference!"

Dave M

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Pyrogallol should be handled carefully, as should all developing agents, but it isn't obvious that it is harmful to the environment or any more so than coffee. It comes from trees, after all, and oxidizes very rapidly in an alkaline solution in contact with air, which is one of the reasons it fell out of favor for many years. As long as there are natural chemical pathways to break it down in the concentrations and quantities that we use, it's not necessarily an environmental hazard.

Coffee isn't likely to be a chemically consistent product. The large coffee manufacturers buy coffee beans on the international market based on price, so coffee beans grown in different soils and different climates exist in different proportions in different batches of coffee. If one starts purifying it to extract the caffeic acid in known quantities, then it seems not too different from using pyro.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

Caffeic acid, C9H8O4 (CAS 331-39-5)is a naturally occurring phenolic compound, (formerly called carbolic acid). Carbolic acid was succesfully used as a photographic developer during the 19th century.

Caffeic acid is also a very effective antioxidant.

Coffee (specifically instant coffee) is an inexpensive source of Caffeic acid. Of course, instant coffee also contains caffine (useless as a developer) and various other contaminants.

There are many commercial chemical suppliers around that will be glad to sell you Caffeic acid from high purity research grade on down.

Green Developer

Water
Instant Coffee (Caffeic acid)
Vitamin C (Ascorbic acid)

You can drink it as-is:

or add Sodium Carbonate (washing soda) and develop film or prints with it. A Green for Gold version with higher purity Caffeic acid is also available at a very high cost.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

I hope you guys are using organically grown coffee that pay the farmworkers living salaries for your Green Developers.

 

[Kirk Keyes]

By the way - tannic acid from wood and plant fibers will also develop film. Has anyone tried leaching the barkdust in their yard yet to see how that compares with the coffee? You get a nice stain very similar to pyrocatechol with tannic acid.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

By the way - tannic acid from wood and plant fibers will also develop film. Has anyone tried leaching the barkdust in their yard yet to see how that compares with the coffee? You get a nice stain very similar to pyrocatechol with tannic acid.

All the bark, wood chips, etc. belong to my horticulturist wife.

But she's ok with me using some of our Rosemary (loaded with caffeic Acid, BTW).

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you grow rosemary, you soon have way more than any normal person could use, and it smells better than D-76.

 

[Tom Hoskinson]

If you grow rosemary, you soon have way more than any normal person could use, and it smells better than D-76.

Oh yes! lots of Rosemary and she's just planted a 3 foot Ceiba pentandra sapling (leaves loaded with caffeic acid).

 

[removed account4]

If you grow rosemary, you soon have way more than any normal person could use, and it smells better than D-76.

and it smells better than caffenol C too!
my favorite reply too "how long do you develop your film in coffee based developer"
is "until you can't stand that foul smell anymore"

 

[Brian Bullen]

Brian, I understand the novelty of using coffee to develop film, which covers reasons 1,4, and 6 on your list. I don't think your reasons numbers 3 and 5 are at all valid regarding a comparison to standard developers, which leaves reason #2 as the only potentially relevant point, if in fact you use coffee developers because you're sensitive to, or wary of standard staining developers, and for some reason you're determined to use a staining developer instead of something like Xtol. As far as boiling goes, my question was definitely not ,"Why try something new and unknown when this works better?". As a user of 510 pyro I get a lot of that kind of commentary directed at me, but there's a big difference between innovation and novelty, and because this thread is concerned with the question of commercially producing a coffee-based developer, inquiring into the rationale for using one is not unreasonable. What my question really boils down to is this: if you were to commercially produce a coffee-based developer, how would you sell it? Would you market it based on the novelty of its origin, or on some property that makes it superior in some way to other commercially available developers? If the latter, what would that property be?

cahayapemburu, first let me apologize. I took your previous posts out context in relation to this thread. I am sorry for that.
Coffee based developers could I think be marketed as the others have mentioned on an environmentally safe platform, as well as a low contrast and easy to use developer. Granted there are many low contrast easy to use developers out there but one more wouldn't hurt.
Do I think someone should go to the expense of formulating, testing and marketing such a product? No. I wouldn't buy it.

 

[cahayapemburu]

Brian, no apology necessary. For what it's worth, I wouldn't buy a coffee-based developer either, and I don't understand the appeal for others. I think the green argument is specious, given the minute quantities of developing agent contained in dilute, low contrast staining developers, and the relative economy of a coffee-based developer is equally debateable. I guess I'm just glad I don't have to rely on coffee to develop my film, and can enjoy it in capuccino form instead. In fact, I think I'll pull a shot now, in honor of all our kitchen sink chemists. Cheers!

 

[DarkroomExperimente]

I used Rosemary recently...worked OK

smells soooooo much better than Coffee