Double X with Caffenol

laingsoft · Nov 3, 2020

I recently shot a roll of Cinestill Double X and developed with Standard caffenol with a 1g/l KBr added as an antifoggant. I developed for 12 + 2 minutes, but the negatives came out super thin and hazy.

I've used this formula before and gotten decent results, is Double X different in some way? The only thing I can think of was that it may have been under 20 degrees, I noticed this and added an additional 2 minutes of development, but I guess it wasn't enough.

Anyone have experience with Double X and Caffenol?

Pentode · Nov 3, 2020

laingsoft said:
I've used this formula before and gotten decent results...

Are you saying you've used this formula with Double-X before, or just used this formula of Caffenol before?
Every film/developer/EI combination takes a little bit of time to dial in. There is no set time for any developer that works for every film and at every exposure index.* Because Caffenol is not a commercially manufactured product, it's a bit harder to find reliable, well-researched data to use as a starting point. You need trial end error to dial the process in.

*Actually, there are a few developers that will work for almost all films using the same time, but that's the exception and not the rule.

laingsoft · Nov 3, 2020

I've used this formula with other films - Hp5 and Fomapan mostly.

Donald Qualls · Nov 3, 2020

I've used Double-X, one roll (second is in my camera bag); I've used Caffenol a fair amount (between 2003 and 2007, in several variations), though I haven't used them together.

Depending what version of Caffenol you used, 12 minutes might be on the short side for Double-X. Yes, that's the time I used to use for Caffenol C with Tri-X and Fomapan 400, and get good negatives -- but if your Caffenol had less vitamin C, or a lower pH, or your coffee was weaker in developing agent (no longer thought to be caffeic acid, it seems), this might be too little time. I'm not sure what you mean by 12+2 minutes, either. I suspect, however, that the KBr you added has slowed things down (antifog agents often do that) and you'll need more than 12 or even 14 minutes. I never used an anti-fog with Caffenol; I just accepted the fog (and the stain, before I started adding ascorbate) and scanned/printed through it.

laingsoft · Nov 3, 2020

Yeah, I'm thinking that it was a mix of time, restrainer and temperature. It seems as though the leader didn't get as black as I was expecting, so I think that's the smoking gun. By 12+2 I was meaning that my original SOP for the development was 12 minutes, however during agitation I realized that I was lower than 20 degrees, so I added 2 minutes to the total dev time. So in total it spend 14 minutes in developer.

I was just curious to see if double-X was a slow developing film or something, but I think there was just too many mistakes compounded that made the development not work.

I'll have to try again, I guess.

Donald Qualls · Nov 3, 2020

No, Double-X is not slow developing. The one roll I've shot was processed in Df96 monobath (and pushed to EI 400), but the Massive Dev Chart shows Double-X at box speed with the same time as Tri-X and HP5 Plus (and Fomapan 400) at their box speeds in most developers.

Well, okay, Double-X is a little slower than its ISO speed would suggest -- it takes the same development as conventional grain ISO 400 films. This isn't too surprising; it's a motion picture stock, which are normally designed for lower contrast than still films, so we need to give it longer process than its ISO speed would suggest to get the contrast index we're used to.

pentaxuser · Nov 4, 2020

I cannot comment on this as a combo but it has a ring to it. It sounds like the stuff that Frank sang about when it was a quarter to three and he was having one for his baby and one more for the road

Donald could set 'em up but we'd need to reduce his name to Don so it was one syllable like Joe Just a piece of whimsy in these dark days

pentaxuser

Pentode · Nov 4, 2020

Speaking only from a D-76 1:1 perspective, my times for Double-X at 250 are a little bit shorter than my times for Tri-X at 400, for whatever that's worth. Double-X does take a bit longer to build what we still photographers consider normal contrast so more time and agitation are probably in order for your Caffenol.

removed account4 · Nov 4, 2020

laingsoft said:
I recently shot a roll of Cinestill Double X and developed with Standard caffenol with a 1g/l KBr added as an antifoggant. I developed for 12 + 2 minutes, but the negatives came out super thin and hazy.

I've used this formula before and gotten decent results, is Double X different in some way? The only thing I can think of was that it may have been under 20 degrees, I noticed this and added an additional 2 minutes of development, but I guess it wasn't enough.

Anyone have experience with Double X and Caffenol?

See if you can make prints ( or scans if you do that ) of the film you just processed my experiences with Caffenol suggests that sometimes film looks like yours and it prints / scans like a dream.

Double X with Caffenol

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency