FWIW, I've pushed my questions over to the Caffenol Group on this site. Who knew it even existed? Thanks to fs999, now i do.
Eco Friendlier: Ascorbic Acid Developers + Caffenol etc.
-
A
- Thread starter JWMster
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Rodenstock 360mm Apo Sironar N/S
- Started by x.rasenas
-
For Sale FS: Nicola Perscheid 36cm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Want to Buy Pentax *ist (film body)
- Started by multivoiced
-
Found Chamonix 4x5
- Started by Franswa
-
Want to Buy Darkroom supplies for 8x10 contact printing
- Started by blee1996
Forum statistics
from "the never to old to learn dept." over the thanksgiving holiday i stayed at an airbnb place, they made wonderful coffee with sumatra beans - my first time ever drinking! (Usually i've only drank a huge mug of expresso in the AM!).
well now i've found a developer that i can drink, as well - sumatranol!
well now i've found a developer that i can drink, as well - sumatranol!
The MSDS from Berger states the following: " [...] the chemicals are not hazardous [...]"
Given this statement from the MSDS, the very difficult question is: What is a more eco-friendly developer?
RauschenOderKorn: Not sure whether we're reading the same data sheet. The SDS data sheet linked off this page ( https://bergger.com/bergger-berspeed-revelateur-film-en-poudre.html ) clearly states that Part 2 is hazardous, and the mixture should not be allowed to enter the household sewage system as it is "...very toxic to aquatic life..." on a permanent, long-term basis. Part 1 also receives a "DANGER" note for its toxins. Page 3 begins with the dangers of Part 2 on the dangers to aquatic life, adding that it is suspected of causing genetic defects and causing cancer.
Every developer and darkroom chem has some issues. Good to see if there's something a little less dangerous to our aquatic friends.
Every developer and darkroom chem has some issues. Good to see if there's something a little less dangerous to our aquatic friends.
Caffenol/Folgernol is coffee and washing soda, with a pinch of salt, or vitamin C
The ascorbic developers are as eco-friendly as can be, lok in the recipe section for the ones developed by Gadget Gainer years ago
Looking at the Bergger developer, part A is not to be ingested but should be OK once it gets in the sewer system
part B is Metol, and Phenidone which decompose in the environment but can be a cause of concern in large quantities (how may rolls a day do you develop?)
Several published studies on the decomposition of developers are found such as:
Degradation of photographic developers by Fenton's reagent: condition optimization and kinetics for metol oxidation
L Lunar, D Sicilia, S Rubio, D Pérez-Bendito, U Nickel - Water Research, 2000 - Elsevier
I don't knw how applicabel they are for home labs
The ascorbic developers are as eco-friendly as can be, lok in the recipe section for the ones developed by Gadget Gainer years ago
Looking at the Bergger developer, part A is not to be ingested but should be OK once it gets in the sewer system
part B is Metol, and Phenidone which decompose in the environment but can be a cause of concern in large quantities (how may rolls a day do you develop?)
Several published studies on the decomposition of developers are found such as:
Degradation of photographic developers by Fenton's reagent: condition optimization and kinetics for metol oxidation
L Lunar, D Sicilia, S Rubio, D Pérez-Bendito, U Nickel - Water Research, 2000 - Elsevier
I don't knw how applicabel they are for home labs
Last edited:
Xtol vs D-76 tonality varies a bit for optic prints, but this is irrelevant for hybrid.
Of the packaged developers one of the most eco-friendly is Xtol, it also has the best "technical" qualities balanced. It has 1/3 stop speed avantage over D-76, and it's fine grain and sharp at the same time, normally the smaller grain from solvent effect delivers less sharpness, but Xtol amazingly does both.
One may self mix Mytol himself, or instant Xtol, it's the same result than Xtol but it has to be mixed just before usage.
Regarding aesthetics, one may want a more intense grain nature, this may impact the look with films that have a nice grain signature like HP5 or TX, in this matter it's absolutely about personal preferences.
We have an additional factor, the sensitometric curve. This is more related to film and processing than to the specific developer, anyway the curve shape may be varied a bit depending developer, specially in the shadows.
Anyway if we are to scan and print digitally (lambda or inkjet) then the tonal curve can be easily edited in Photohop. Problem comes when wanting to print optically, in that case we may require a negative that's easy to print like we want, and in that case we may get some interesting effects from developers.
In particular Pyro developers build a share of the density not with silver but with a yellow (or green) stain. A pyro developed negative blocks more blue light selectively in the higher densities than non staining regular developers, and this modifies the effective tonal curve in variable contrast papers, making highlights easier to be printed. But Pyro developers are less environmentally safe.
IMHO with hybrid processing we only should prefer a developer or another one because of grain nature, but tonality is irrelevant because we adjust the tonal curve digtally. If wanting authentic optic printing then the thing is more challenging. Today hybrid and digital printing set a high reference level for optic prints, and a true skilled printer and photographer is required on command to craft a sound work to equal or to surpase hybrid and digital.
titrisol: Thanks. Fairly, I don't know my way around a chemistry lab and will take things at more or less face value. So the Bergger SDS seems kind of dire... but I guess at the end of the day, the dilution in the system will make the impact minimal. Nice to not have to worry about it, but again, the medicines we all take may be worse. FWIW, my wife likes to joke that when I put on the black lab gloves, the goggles and dust mask and the lab apron i use for mixing stuff, "...folks only want to know how many bodies you've got hidden in the basement". So yes, as a rube when it comes to these things, I am probably over cautious to the point of ridiculousness. But there you are.
138S: Thanks for this post. I'll probably have to give XTOL another go to be fair. I've seen enough solid shots with it to know that thousands can't be wrong here.
But I appreciate your comment on Optical vs. Inkjet printing because it explains what my eyes tell me in prints but I didn't have the technical background to define. Agree completely. For my part, I don't have the formal training of so many here but learn by doing and following my eyes from scene, to capture, to negative, to screen and inkjet print. I doubt I could define the differences between accutance, sharpness, contrast and grain sufficient to satisfy many, but I can see how these elements work together. Some images exhibit one mix, and others another. All can work. I'm not at the point where I can dial in one mix for one image and another for another image, but I admire those who do have that skill. My ambitions at this point are simpler rather than virtuoso. I enjoy the technical challenges ("problems") and solving them, but then moving on back to the image and creating solid images. Analog teaches a lot, and I've enjoyed every minute of it. I still shoot digital where I need speed, but I sure appreciate and prefer film whenever I can use it. As an amateur, I'm happy with it as my default.
Toughest thing about Caffenol is trying to understand what mix folks are after when they're using it. Many seem to be using it as a special effect. I'm looking it as less of a Holga Hipster thing and more as just another way to get images out of the tank that works, can work well, and doesn't have to harm the fishies. Looking at Flickr and many of the hyper grain, scratched and even torn images posted there, I find it hard to evaluate what folks are really showing me about one recipe or another. I can't get in their heads as to what they're thinking.... and often the only thing that comes to mind is "Don't take your film out of the tank with scissors!" To each their own of course. Fortunately, Steve Schaub's work shows that Caffenol can actually prove a very good, solid process to use with a hybrid approach. Many on the Flickr groups also show this as well. I'm hoping it can do this WITHOUT having to strictly develop with very very low agitation ("Stand" and "Semi-Stand"). Even better, I'd like to produce solid, relatively fine grain images with a Jobo (continuous agitation). Unfortunately, there's going to have be some experimentation... but I'm a reasonably patient dude, and willing to give it a shot.
But I appreciate your comment on Optical vs. Inkjet printing because it explains what my eyes tell me in prints but I didn't have the technical background to define. Agree completely. For my part, I don't have the formal training of so many here but learn by doing and following my eyes from scene, to capture, to negative, to screen and inkjet print. I doubt I could define the differences between accutance, sharpness, contrast and grain sufficient to satisfy many, but I can see how these elements work together. Some images exhibit one mix, and others another. All can work. I'm not at the point where I can dial in one mix for one image and another for another image, but I admire those who do have that skill. My ambitions at this point are simpler rather than virtuoso. I enjoy the technical challenges ("problems") and solving them, but then moving on back to the image and creating solid images. Analog teaches a lot, and I've enjoyed every minute of it. I still shoot digital where I need speed, but I sure appreciate and prefer film whenever I can use it. As an amateur, I'm happy with it as my default.
Toughest thing about Caffenol is trying to understand what mix folks are after when they're using it. Many seem to be using it as a special effect. I'm looking it as less of a Holga Hipster thing and more as just another way to get images out of the tank that works, can work well, and doesn't have to harm the fishies. Looking at Flickr and many of the hyper grain, scratched and even torn images posted there, I find it hard to evaluate what folks are really showing me about one recipe or another. I can't get in their heads as to what they're thinking.... and often the only thing that comes to mind is "Don't take your film out of the tank with scissors!" To each their own of course. Fortunately, Steve Schaub's work shows that Caffenol can actually prove a very good, solid process to use with a hybrid approach. Many on the Flickr groups also show this as well. I'm hoping it can do this WITHOUT having to strictly develop with very very low agitation ("Stand" and "Semi-Stand"). Even better, I'd like to produce solid, relatively fine grain images with a Jobo (continuous agitation). Unfortunately, there's going to have be some experimentation... but I'm a reasonably patient dude, and willing to give it a shot.
MattKing
Moderator
I am a strong proponent of any approach that improves the amount of impact we have on the environment.
That being said, it is really important to understand that it is often the concentration of component parts that lead to the dire warnings in MSDS statements.
If what you pour down the drain is the concentrates in the off the shelf bottles or the powders in the packages, you can have a powerful local effect on the environment.
Whereas if you mix up a 5 litre amount of X-Tol developer/replenisher and then pour 70-100 ml of partially exhausted developer down the drain each time you develop a roll of film, the total environmental effect is essentially zero, unless and until your volumes reach commercial lab volumes.
Some chemicals - the pyro developers come to mind - can have a cumulative effect. They require a different approach.
That being said, it is really important to understand that it is often the concentration of component parts that lead to the dire warnings in MSDS statements.
If what you pour down the drain is the concentrates in the off the shelf bottles or the powders in the packages, you can have a powerful local effect on the environment.
Whereas if you mix up a 5 litre amount of X-Tol developer/replenisher and then pour 70-100 ml of partially exhausted developer down the drain each time you develop a roll of film, the total environmental effect is essentially zero, unless and until your volumes reach commercial lab volumes.
Some chemicals - the pyro developers come to mind - can have a cumulative effect. They require a different approach.
Perhaps an important toxic waste is silver in exhausted fixer. It is toxic as heavy metal, anyway concentrations of silver in rivers are usually far from Maximum Permissible Concentration, around 50 mg/m3, but we may easily remove most of the silver in the fixer: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/silver-recovery.11869/page-2#post-164382
OR you can save cumulative spent FIXER and take a jug of it to the local (hazmat) dump 2 to 4 times a year.
I looked at the following data sheet:
https://s3-eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/ni-sw-mahn/media/pdf/g0/3a/7d/BS5_datenblatt_de.pdf
The SDS you refer to states that this is a classical Phenidone / Hydroquinone developer, which is of course "non-eco" and a bio-hazard to aquatic life. Going with a more environmentally friendly developer is great, especially if you use larger quantities.
One side not on all the warnings you quote from the SDS:
The labeling as a hazard depends on the use of the substance, in the developer the sodium sulphite is a hazard, if it is added to food it is called E221 and widely used. Furthermore, labelling today occurs already on suspicion, so a lot of things get a warning. Even a hot dog also is under suspicion to cause genetic mutation and cancer (seriously, I wish it was a joke), so is coffee.
R.O.K.: Thanks! Yes, "...so is coffee..." and "no good deed goes unpunished". Yes, sodium sulphite... which is used in a number of film developing recipes as I've learned might be a preservative to keep a mix from spoiling? And so to the hot dog... which I will gladly consume WITH my coffee. What can you do?
Sodium Sulphite is a preservative, i.e. antioxidant. In a classic commercial developer, you use a much higher concentration than in wine (aprox. 100x), but the same substance.
I have no doubt that coffee is more eco friendly than phenidone / HQ. Your only punishment is that the vitamin C will not necessarily make a lasting developer, so I´d always mix fresh.
In that case one may let water evaporate outdoors (if having a suitable place fo that) and taking the resulting powder to hazmat after several years.
Caffenol started as an alternative developer due to a research article posted by RIT (I have it somewhere) in 2002 or 3
Mint, Lavender and other natural sources of develper where tested as well.
In 2004-5 a lot of experimentation took place, and yes it is a viable developer for everyday work if you keep it consistent
Mint, Lavender and other natural sources of develper where tested as well.
In 2004-5 a lot of experimentation took place, and yes it is a viable developer for everyday work if you keep it consistent
I've found references to controlling the PH content as very important to development to the extent that one recipe listed: "Add soda until PH exceeds 10." Made me wonder what the PH of most of my developers is, so I ordered a PH meter off Amazon, and I'm going back through the Caffenol Bible to see if there are more references.
You guys have been very helpful and encouraging. I've spent the evening putting a spreadsheet together for mixing various recipes, and we'll give it a go as soon as I can begin to pull the ingredients together and get my gear in shape for use. Getting very enthusiastic now.
Thank! to one and all.
You guys have been very helpful and encouraging. I've spent the evening putting a spreadsheet together for mixing various recipes, and we'll give it a go as soon as I can begin to pull the ingredients together and get my gear in shape for use. Getting very enthusiastic now.
Thank! to one and all.
My experience is : the cheaper the coffee, the better the Caffenol
The cheapest coffees use more Robusta than Arabica more expensive. Robusta has more
There is also a very active group on facebook where you can ask...
The Technical Photographic Chemistry Class at RIT in 1995 led by Dr. Scott Williams developed a method of developing photographic film using standard household items. They tested mixtures of tea and coffee combined with agents to balance the pH and successfully made printable images for exposed film. At the time they did not call it "Caffenol", but the methods they developed later became commonly called Caffenol.
Last edited:
My experience is : the cheaper the coffee, the better the Caffenol
The cheapest coffees use more Robusta than Arabica more expensive. Robusta has more caffeic acid (phenol).
Yes... the robusta bean is around 2.2- 2.7% caffeine, and the arabica bean is around 1.2 – 1.5%. Robusta is cheap in two ways, it's cheaper and we need the half. Not only to develop, also to drive all night long
Looks like I'll have to rejoin FB to see what's happening. 
DId you guys see this article - or has it be debunked re: Davidoff Espresso (which is 100% Arabica)? Link: https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/features/2013/02/strange-brew-the-caffenol-cm-experiment/ (off the FPP) where this was a side by side test with other coffees to test the theory. Is this stuff more expensive? Definitely. Re-test seems worth a thought.
DId you guys see this article - or has it be debunked re: Davidoff Espresso (which is 100% Arabica)? Link: https://filmphotographyproject.com/content/features/2013/02/strange-brew-the-caffenol-cm-experiment/ (off the FPP) where this was a side by side test with other coffees to test the theory. Is this stuff more expensive? Definitely. Re-test seems worth a thought.
Last edited:
Has anybody tried to use the caffeic acid instead of instant coffee?
I assume that would make results much more reproduceable.
There are so much parameters and if you don't take the same photos at the same time it is impossible to say who is right, but everybody who knows well Caffenol, like Reinhold G. and Dirk Essl for naming only two, know that the active substance is caffeic acid and it is present in most plants, so why use a more expensive coffee when the cheapest can do the job ?
I made a mistake in my post, Robusta has more caffeine not caffeic acid, but it is reproduceable if you use, the same ingredients and quantity, same temperature, same timings, same film and scanning parameters.
ROK: Yes, wouldn't be nice if the caffeic acid were bottled so you could measure it out precisely?
fs999: Yes, for the same effect... less expensive is more appealing, and yes, I don't understand what a "test" is supposed to demonstrate if it isn't of the same scenes, shots, etc. Yes, it is a "test", but hardly repeatable or even easy to understand what is demonstrated. A crummy shot is a crummy shot, and a great shot with a bad developer will still tend to look better.
fs999: Yes, for the same effect... less expensive is more appealing, and yes, I don't understand what a "test" is supposed to demonstrate if it isn't of the same scenes, shots, etc. Yes, it is a "test", but hardly repeatable or even easy to understand what is demonstrated. A crummy shot is a crummy shot, and a great shot with a bad developer will still tend to look better.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
people have done experiments with caffic acid yes. .. it was someone here on photrio...... from what I remember it didn’t work very well... the cheapest coffee makes the best caffenol, ... Not sure why anyone would use expensive or uncheap coffee for a developer... whatever floats one’s boat .. as for the espresso. There is typically robusta variatles in espresso beans ( arabica beans don’t make krema associated with shots of espresso ).
lots of people tend to over complicate caffenol... mix at room temperature exact measures are not needed, teaspoons and tablespoons work as well as gram scales .. the right ingredients make the biggest difference ..
There’s lots of stuff in coffee besides caffic acid and caffeine...
Don’t forget to have fun...
lots of people tend to over complicate caffenol... mix at room temperature exact measures are not needed, teaspoons and tablespoons work as well as gram scales .. the right ingredients make the biggest difference ..
There’s lots of stuff in coffee besides caffic acid and caffeine...
Don’t forget to have fun...
That's not true for CL and CLCN, there must be exact measurement (0.1 gr. precision), because they are weaker.
You're right to have fun
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |