ViniciusGPCruz
Member
Hello everyone
Yesterday I had my first attempt at developing film. I used a Tmax-400 film shoot at 200 ISO since it had been experied for around 10 years. My recipe for Caffenol was the so called "Caffenol-DeltaSTD" and here's how I did it:
- 16 g Instant Coffe
- 7 "tablets" of 1 g each of Vitamin-C
- 9g of Washing Soda
- 350 Ml of solution (the Paterson tank says it's necessary only 290 ml for one roll).
I developed for 13m with continous agitation on the first 30s and then 10s agitation after each minute. I want to point out that the Vitamin-C tablets I used were the effervescent type, which is likely not the best.
After developing I did a "stop-bath" with just tap-water for about 1m to get all the developer out.
For a fixer I used the so called "plain hypo" fixer. I used 101g of pentahydrated sodium thiosulfate for 400 ml of solution, following Ansel Adam's 20 - 24 % "plain hypo" solution. With the test strip fixing times was about 5m so I did 10m with the whole roll.
The results were, well, mixed. I was happy because I was able to get images out but the negatives came way to thin. The arrow label around the film reels are barely visible. My diagnostic says I underdeveloped the film. Now, 12- 13m seems to be rather standard developing time for that solution, is that correct? I`m wondering if the whole "squared grain" or something likee that from TMax would require more time perhaps? On the massive devel. chart they actually point out to around 25m of developing.
So my question is, what went wrong? Developer or my developing time with Tmax? If I used another emulsion (I've got an Ilford FP4+ just waiting to be shoot) would 13-14m be fine or should it be longer? Is Tmax really a emulsion that needs a longer developing time?
I've attached some pictures of the negative, but those were taken with a digital camera and the negative flatted out against a white image on the computer screen, so, they look... bad. Still I've attached it just in case it might help someone helping me out. Do you guys think those negative can be somewhat scanned ? They're really dirty and thin.
Thanks
Yesterday I had my first attempt at developing film. I used a Tmax-400 film shoot at 200 ISO since it had been experied for around 10 years. My recipe for Caffenol was the so called "Caffenol-DeltaSTD" and here's how I did it:
- 16 g Instant Coffe
- 7 "tablets" of 1 g each of Vitamin-C
- 9g of Washing Soda
- 350 Ml of solution (the Paterson tank says it's necessary only 290 ml for one roll).
I developed for 13m with continous agitation on the first 30s and then 10s agitation after each minute. I want to point out that the Vitamin-C tablets I used were the effervescent type, which is likely not the best.
After developing I did a "stop-bath" with just tap-water for about 1m to get all the developer out.
For a fixer I used the so called "plain hypo" fixer. I used 101g of pentahydrated sodium thiosulfate for 400 ml of solution, following Ansel Adam's 20 - 24 % "plain hypo" solution. With the test strip fixing times was about 5m so I did 10m with the whole roll.
The results were, well, mixed. I was happy because I was able to get images out but the negatives came way to thin. The arrow label around the film reels are barely visible. My diagnostic says I underdeveloped the film. Now, 12- 13m seems to be rather standard developing time for that solution, is that correct? I`m wondering if the whole "squared grain" or something likee that from TMax would require more time perhaps? On the massive devel. chart they actually point out to around 25m of developing.
So my question is, what went wrong? Developer or my developing time with Tmax? If I used another emulsion (I've got an Ilford FP4+ just waiting to be shoot) would 13-14m be fine or should it be longer? Is Tmax really a emulsion that needs a longer developing time?
I've attached some pictures of the negative, but those were taken with a digital camera and the negative flatted out against a white image on the computer screen, so, they look... bad. Still I've attached it just in case it might help someone helping me out. Do you guys think those negative can be somewhat scanned ? They're really dirty and thin.
Thanks