Dev time for Fomapan 200 in Caffenol?

[02Pilot]

I grabbed a few rolls of Fomapan 200 in 120 (Arista-branded from Freestyle), and I'm trying to figure out a starting point for development in Caffenol; I can't find anything definitive online. My normal variants, the ones I'm accustomed to working with, are C-M (RS), C-H (RS), and C-L. I'm assuming I should go with C-H (RS) rather than C-M (RS) due to the speed. The other films I've done in C-H (RS) (Tri-X and HP5+) have worked well at 15min@20C, but those are 400 rather 200, and fully traditional grain structure vs. the hybrid grain structure of the Fomapan 200 (from what I've read, at least). Anyone using this film and developer combo, and if so, what times are you using? Thanks.

 

[removed account4]

hi O2

have you looked at the mdc yet ? or gone to the caffenol blogs ?
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=Fomapan+200&Developer=Caffenol&mdc=Search&TempUnits=C
http://caffenol.blogspot.com/
http://www.caffenol.org/

not sure if that is any help or not ...
i use my own variant of caffenol c ...
( it has to do with sumatra beans and a teensy bit of ansco 130 )
so my suggestions or results won't be
useful/or helpful...
but when i made teaspoon caffenol c with instant coffee
i used to process fomapancreativ200 for 20mins

john

 

[02Pilot]

Yep, I looked at those (and others), but Caffenol-C is different from the blends I'm accustomed to using. I know it's a bit of a long shot, finding someone using exactly the same formulae that I am, but I figured I'd ask before I started experimenting.

 

[removed account4]

hi again

good luck with that !
when you get your results, i hope you come back and post them to this thread
or to the "coffee developer group"
coffee is fun, but unfortunately because of the ingredients it is difficult
for a "definitive" coffees, sodas and "c" are always so different depending on
where you get it, how it is stored and the brand ...

i'm sure no matter what you do it will work well, i love foma films in coffee, its like they were made for eachother

best
john

 

[pdeeh]

and even if someone else is using the same recipe, they aren't using your camera, your exposure metering, your water, your agitation ...

 

[02Pilot]

and even if someone else is using the same recipe, they aren't using your camera, your exposure metering, your water, your agitation ...

It's a valid point. I'm not looking for perfection right off the bat, just a slightly more precise starting point than I seem to be able to find from the usual online sources.

 

[removed account4]

hi O2pilot

do you have a dark green safelight ?
you could always develop by inspection if you do ...
at about 15mins take the film out of the can, peek at it
under the dark green safelight, look for the highlights ...
if they aren't there, keep processing until you find them...
i have done this with sheet film for years ..
the hard part is having the green safelight ...
john

 

[pdeeh]

The thing is, by the sounds of things you're not a beginner with either film or Caffenol, so in your position I'd be trying the 15 minutes we know works with many films, seeing how it looks and then adjusting from there if needed.

 

[02Pilot]

No green safelight here.

Besides the time, the other question is whether or not to use the KBr restrainer; it's hard to know with 200-speed film whether it will be needed or not. I'll likely default to either 12.5 or 15 minutes if I don't find anything more precise to start with (the former if I go with C-M (RS) and the latter if I go with C-H (RS)).

 

[removed account4]

hi 02
i have never used restrainers &c
but i would err on the side of over development ... rather than under.
caffenol ( no matter what the strain ) can yield a beautiful negative
even if the film is a few minutes over developed,

as you know it is very forgiving ...

 

[wblynch]

Time for Freestyle to rename the film to Barista 200.

 

[02Pilot]

Just to follow up here, I developed my test roll of Arista/Fomapan 200 in Caffenol-C-H (RS) for 15 minutes at 20degC. There's a little base fog, but nothing terrible, and the development otherwise looks good. It may benefit from slight tweaking, but it's entirely satisfactory with this scheme.