First attempt: Fomapan 100 in Caffenol-C-M

I developed a roll film in homemade Caffenol-C-M for the first time this weekend! I read several times about Caffenol and some some interesting images. So I wanted to try this myself for a long time and finally got to it.

I only had one B&W roll film lying around still to be developed, but didn't want to risk to lose these images due to an uncertain experiment with a homemade developer. So I quickly shot an extra roll film of Fomapan 100 with my Woca 120G. The Woca is the predecessor of the Holga and has only one shutter speed, somewhere between 1/60 and 1/100. Not the best camera for testing film, but what the heck. I just wanted to see if I could develop the film at all. I was pleasantly surprised with the results, despite some light leaks. A bit (too?) contrasty maybe, but that might be an effect of the scanner as well. The light leaks didn't help either. However, the results are good enough to make some serious images with my Bronica RF-645 and try again.

I used the Caffenol-C-M recipe and developed for 15 minutes. I used 40 grams of coffee (espresso powerful and dark), 16 grams of pure vitamin-C and 146 grams of soda in 1 liter water (no salt) and developed for 15 minutes @ 20 degrees Celsius. As Soda I used "Natriumcarbonate Decahydrate". This means there is also a lot of water in it (over 50% ??) so I used 2.7 times the needed amount to compensate (see http://caffenol.blogspot.nl/2010/03/soda-myth-and-truth_07.html).

Developing method used: 3 minutes prewash, develop 15 minutes (agitate first minute, then 3x every minute), rinse once, 1 minute Maco Ecostop, rinse 4 minutes, 4 minutes Maco Ecofix, rinse 14 minutes + 1 minute water with wetting agent.

These are the 14 test images (under-, overexposed, out of focus, light leaks and all). All comment are welcome:



Bert from Holland

FWIW I found 15mins too long for Fomapan 100 at box speed - 12 might be a better starting place. As I remember Reinhold says 15 is a one or two stop push.

Anyway ... nice sheep. I have quite a few pictures of sheep ... here's one on FP4 developed in Caffenol ...

Hi pdeeh,
I think I agree and will try 12 minutes next time. What type of Caffenol did you use for the FP4?
Bert from Holland

Nice! I think Arista edu is the same stuff. I like the film a lot. You made me curious about Cafenol CM now.

I am not sure what scanner you are using, but during scanning, you can normally adjust curves and levels. Make sure that the left most marker is beyond the "mountain" on the left (this will be your black point" and that the right most marker is beyond the "mountain" on the right (this will be your white point).

Sometimes, the scanner software will auto-curve your scan, based on the film-base, which it assumes to be black and the writing on the leader will be the white point, causing your picture-part to be clipped in both ends (too much contrast).

Helinophoto said:

I am not sure what scanner you are using, but during scanning, you can normally adjust curves and levels. Make sure that the left most marker is beyond the "mountain" on the left (this will be your black point" and that the right most marker is beyond the "mountain" on the right (this will be your white point).

Sometimes, the scanner software will auto-curve your scan, based on the film-base, which it assumes to be black and the writing on the leader will be the white point, causing your picture-part to be clipped in both ends (too much contrast).

Click to expand...

I use an old "Epson Perfection 3200 Photo" scanner with Silverfast 8 software. I ended up using the settings for Ilford FP4, because I was in a rush. I'll try the manual mode to see if I can get better/other results. Yet, the best test would be to make an actual wet print
I think I have enough density to make a proper print. I might even try to make a lith print (but not soon).

TheToadMen said:

. What type of Caffenol did you use for the FP4?
Bert from Holland

Click to expand...

CCm from Reinhold's blog.
Which if I remember right is 40,16,54. Coffee ascorbic soda.
I also used decahydrate so it was actually 40,16,146
Its ages since I used caffenol, but had many excellent results.
Just don't try it with retro 400s ...

pdeeh said:

CCm from Reinhold's blog.
Which if I remember right is 40,16,54. Coffee ascorbic soda.
I also used decahydrate so it was actually 40,16,146
Its ages since I used caffenol, but had many excellent results.
Just don't try it with retro 400s ...

Click to expand...

It seems like we did the same thing. Nice to know it is safe for FP4+ also.

I'm told this recipe doesn't work for 400 ASA film: too much fogging since the recipe is without Kaliumbromide (Kbr). For 400 ASA film the Caffenol-C-L recipe seems to be better suited, but I'll stick to 100 ASA film for now with this recipe for Caffenol-C-M.

I've only ever followed Reinhold's recipes, though there are a zillion out there now.

CCH (H=High speed) is OK for ISO400 like HP5+ and so on but I just got horrible results whatever I tried with Retro 400S - uneven development, weird grain effects; Others (including Reinhold) have had the same.

Summary page for CCM, CCH and CCL here http://caffenol.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/recipes.html

pdeeh said:

I've only ever followed Reinhold's recipes, though there are a zillion out there now.

CCH (H=High speed) is OK for ISO400 like HP5+ and so on but I just got horrible results whatever I tried with Retro 400S - uneven development, weird grain effects; Others (including Reinhold) have had the same.

Summary page for CCM, CCH and CCL here http://caffenol.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/recipes.html

Click to expand...

Mental note: stay away from Caffenol when shooting Retro 400S. Check!

Of course now someone will turn up and tell us they get perfect results every time with Retro400S and Caffenol!

I've come to like just about every film I try out. Due to a generous gift and some weird trading I've had the opportunity to try many over the last couple of months. Fomapan 100 was one of them. I only had about eight rolls to play with, out of which I've used six, and I finally nailed exposure and processing to print with little darkroom gymnastics.

In the past I've had good results with this film, and I remember having some trouble with the film base curling like mad. That appears to be less of a problem with their new clear film base. The blue base it used to be on (120 rolls) seemed to be the worst offender with respect to curling. Overall a very nice film with intense highlight rendition. Not exactly a 100 speed film, though. With Xtol I had to rate it at EI 50 to get decent shadow detail, and with my current developer, the Harvey's 777 Panthermic, I've had to rate it at 25 to 32 in normal contrast. But after it's dialed in, it has been a beautiful film to scan and print.
The reason I say that is that I think most of your photos are a bit underexposed from a technical standpoint, with a lot of empty shadows. That may be a personal choice in which case I'll shut up...

One thing about the Foma emulsions is that they are quite soft compared to Fuji, Ilford, and Kodak. They get damaged easier from physical impact. Developers like Pyrocat-HD and PMK help to some extent, because they harden the emulsion during the developing cycle, making them more resistant to scratching when the film comes out of the tank, wet.

Good luck moving forward, and have fun! I too love sheep. And goats, and horses, and donkeys, and rabbits, and chickens, and... Nice photographs!

Thomas Bertilsson said:

(...) With Xtol I had to rate it at EI 50 to get decent shadow detail, and with my current developer, the Harvey's 777 Panthermic, I've had to rate it at 25 to 32 in normal contrast. But after it's dialed in, it has been a beautiful film to scan and print.
The reason I say that is that I think most of your photos are a bit underexposed from a technical standpoint, with a lot of empty shadows. That may be a personal choice in which case I'll shut up... (...)

Click to expand...

You're quite right about the shadows. The Woca isn't the best camera to make good test images, but the sole purpose here was just to see if I could get anything at all on my negs using Caffenol for the first time.

So the next roll will be properly exposed in a "real" camera. I'll also have to see if the quick scanning is also part of the cause for the empty shadows. So not a personal choice, just sloppy testing on the fly (although still a nice atmosphere by accident).

update

I've developed some 100 ASA films in Caffenol-C-M with good results. And now I finally found an address to order some KBr, so I can start using other recipes (like Caffenol-C-L) for 400 ASA films as well.

Any suggestions on what recipe to try first? At least I want to develop Fomapan 400, HP5+ and Kodak Tri-X.
I also want to try some colour film and have some Kodak H200 I can abuse.

Good stuff! Looks quite old school. Think I'll give it a try.

Here's a couple from the same film that I just took out of the soup (I assume that the Arista EDU Ultra 100 is the same). They look very similar to yours. Rodinal at 1:25 w/ a Canon FT QL and FL 135 3.5 lens. Thought you might enjoy seeing the comparisons, although sadly I have no sheep shots. Say that fast 3 times.

momus said:

Good stuff! Looks quite old school. Think I'll give it a try.

Here's a couple from the same film that I just took out of the soup (I assume that the Arista EDU Ultra 100 is the same). They look very similar to yours. Rodinal at 1:25 w/ a Canon FT QL and FL 135 3.5 lens. Thought you might enjoy seeing the comparisons, although sadly I have no sheep shots. Say that fast 3 times.

Click to expand...

Nice examples. It would be a nice experiment to shoot the same scene twice with two identical cameras/lenses and develop in Rodinal and Caffenol for comparison.

BTW: You're welcome to come over and shoot my sheep (photographically, not ballistically). I'll throw in a nice lunch!

I use this combo myself and I go to 18 minutes @70º. I used 12 and 15 before but found the negative too thin.
I'm wet printing, this is a scan of a print. I can't scan my negs. btw i expose at 50asa.