TMax-400 developed with Caffenol-DeltaSTD. What went wrong?

Hey guys, sorry to dig up the thread, but I want to make a last post so this thread can be somewhat more useful.

I developed a second roll of Tmax400 with the exact same formula and ingridents I used before for the caffenol mix. This time I developed for ~18m with agitation for 10s every minute. The negatives still came somewhat underdeveloped. Really not that much difference from the first one execept for the 5 extra minutes in the developer. I wanna point out that I'm somewhat new to film photography, specially b&w film. The only other film I have to compare with is a Tri-X 400 pushed to 1600. Compared to the Tri-X I have way less grain and contrast with the negatives. But I guess this is somewhat normal? After all, the Tri-X is pushed 2 stops of it box-speed.

In fact I think I suffered from something I've heard about, it's called uneven development. Some frames seems just about right while other are clearly underexposed. Does anyone now why? I'm thinking it might have something to do with getting the film in the reel for development.

Still, I finally had a friend scan me the negatives on his Epson V500. He only scanned in medium quality and did no clean up on the negatives. They clearly show I need to improve my handling with them. As expected the underveloped frames have all the tones compressed in a narrow range, in contrast with the pushed film which clearly has a "bimodal" tone curve.

On a last note: the results weren't exactly what I expected, but Caffenol works for sure. Guess I just need some fine-tuning. Still, I might end up going after some "professinal" developer since I'm about to get a bunch of different films that I won't really have much "space" to keep fine tuning the time & mix for Caffenol. After all, I've only started developing to save money (and it is fun). Don't wanna strand to far from my objective, taking photos.

I appreciate all the help given, in special Jnantz.

ViniciusGPCruz said:

Compared to the Tri-X I have way less grain and contrast with the negatives. But I guess this is somewhat normal?

Click to expand...

You're comparing a (mostly) 'old-style' cubic grain film pushed 2 stops (Tri-X) with a 'high-tech' tabular grain style film exposed at box speed AND developed in a very low-contrast developer (your TMY-2 in caffenol). So yes, it is very logical that you see both less grain and less contrast. All according to plan!

ViniciusGPCruz said:

In fact I think I suffered from something I've heard about, it's called uneven development. Some frames seems just about right while other are clearly underexposed.

Click to expand...

Uneven development never manifests itself as differences between individual frames. Development affects the film regardless of where the frame edges were during exposure. If some frames are underexposed, then odds are...you underexposed them! Welcome to film photography - you will have to learn to meter consistently in order to get consistent exposures.

ViniciusGPCruz said:

Still, I finally had a friend scan me the negatives on his Epson V500. He only scanned in medium quality and did no clean up on the negatives. They clearly show I need to improve my handling with them. As expected the underveloped frames have all the tones compressed in a narrow range, in contrast with the pushed film which clearly has a "bimodal" tone curve.

Click to expand...

When scanning, the resulting files directly from the scanning software virtually always benefit from optimization. It's just like printing in the darkroom (you'll find if you get to that stage): a straight grade-2 print very often does not make the final print in its full glory. Conversely, it's also not easy to tell if your processing (i.e. development) is 'good'. It's good if it yields the images you want, of course. When scanning, especially if you run scanner software in an automatic mode or have someone else do the scanning for you, you simply have no idea if (1) all image information present in the negative has actually gotten its way into the scan or (2) which contrast adjustments may or may not have been applied to the image. In any case, the first image you posted above shows that you at least have one negative with decent shadow detail, detail in the highlights and evidently an amount of contrast that the scanner used could handle well. In short: it works, so all seems quite OK from a distance. The proof of the pudding is in the actual wet printing of your negatives under an enlarger, I'd say - but I'm aware that not everyone wants to take their hobby into that direction.

ViniciusGPCruz said:

Yesterday I had my first attempt at developing film.<...> My recipe for Caffenol was the so called "Caffenol-DeltaSTD" and here's how I did it:

Click to expand...

So this is (was) your first attempt to develop yourself. I'm curious as to why you chose caffenol.
(a) because you cannot afford a 1-litre pack of D-76 (or ID-11) You did not tell us how much it is where you live; how much is relative to 1-month of cellphone contract?
(b) just because... lomo, flickr; etc

I second the advice already given by Raghu Kuvempunagar, Cholenpot, and jimjm. Use a proven process, evaluate your results. There are so many things that might possibly go wrong! (unsuitable developer, expired film, poorly calibrated thermometer, camera meter off calibration). After you have satisfied yourself that you can achieve a standard, commercial-level quality (you also need to improve the cleanliness of the negatives), and only then, you can start to "experiment". .

Otherwise, after a few rolls of so-so photos, you will decide that the results are not really worth the effort.

Koraks thanks for the help on clarifying a few things. I haven't had the chance to do a scan myself but it's only logical that it would need adjustments, just like a negative being printed in the darkroom. Something I hope I get to do it one day (kind of hard to find a fully set-up darkroom nowdays...).

Bernard, it's not any of these options. Kodak D-76 developer goes for around 270 R$ in Brazil, IF you can find it. If we take the conversion to 1 u$ ~ 3 r$ that's around 90 u$! Though, it is possible to get cheaper somewhat "professional" developers. For instance I know of people selling homemade mix of D-23 and "Parodinal" (which is based on Rodinal I guess). Those goes for around 20 ~ 30 u$, which I honestly think if very affordable (even for a college undergrad like myself). I get the point you guys are making. I might get myself the D-23 developer for those new rolls that I'm about to get since I will be looking for consistency in the results. Besides I really do like high-contrast and high grain and I couldn't really achieve that with caffenol (altough it could be related to the Tmax-400 film). Still, Caffenol works and I'm somewhat glad I've tried it. Will sure experiment with it some other time ( I don't really shoot all that much).

Once agains, thanks for the tips. Nice having a community to help you.

Cheers

ViniciusGPCruz said:

Bernard, it's not any of these options. Kodak D-76 developer goes for around 270 R$ in Brazil, IF you can find it. If we take the conversion to 1 u$ ~ 3 r$ that's around 90 u$!

Click to expand...

90 US$ for D-76 sure is expensive. But you definitely have better options.

Out of curiosity, I went to the fotoimpex.de site and placed a 1-litre pack of D-76 in the "basket", then asked for the price. Sure enough, it is expensive, mostly because Brazil is among the countries that consider D-76 powder to be "dangerous goods" and require ground shipping.


But, 29.25€ is much less than the 90 US$ that you mention. And, if I were in your shoes, I'd try to balance the more-or-less fixed shipping charges with a comparable value for the goods themselves, i.e. buy a 1-litre of HC-110 concentrate; Results similar (if not identical) to D-76, the concentrate lasts literally for years, and some photographers who actually print nice b/w photos have been happy with HC-110 for decades.

Still less than your 90US$, and enough developer to develop approx 100 35-mm films using dilution B, more if you use a higher dilution ratio.

A third possibility, if you feel that the extra 20€ from the first possibility to the second is a non-trivial amount. Go back to D-76 and order powder not for 1 litre, but for 5 litres. The difference is only 3€. Keep the stock solution in a 5-litre wine pouch. Use diluted 1:1, discard after each use; The stock solution will keep (in a wine pouch) for at least 1 year (not repeating things I read on another forum, my personal experience).

All: do not start one of these discussions D-76 versus Rodinal versus Pyrocat versus... That is not the point. I just took as examples two developers from the manufacturer who made amateur photography available for the masses a little more than a century ago.

Bottom line(s)

1. Admittedly, photo chemicals are more expensive in Brazil than in Europe. But not as much as you claim/believe.
   
2. Your caffenol-developed images look (to me) grayish and lifeless. This is not an issue with caffenol. The issue is whether you want to spend time doing guesswork about ... the content of caffeic acid in brand X or Y of coffee, effervescent versus plain vitamin C, your thermometer calibration, and what else. Unless that is what you really like; but that is not the essence of photography. Learn to walk before trying to dance or doing somersaults.

Hi OP
Do you have any print developer ? My suggestion is to put about 1 teaspoon of straight DEKTOL in your Caffenol
That is what I did IDK 10+ years ago and never looked back

bernard_L
Maybe the OP wants to use the developer HE wants, not the ones you are insisting he use ?

john

jnantz said:

Hi OP
Do you have any print developer ? My suggestion is to put about 1 teaspoon of straight DEKTOL in your Caffenol
That is what I did IDK 10+ years ago and never looked back
bernard_L
Maybe the OP wants to use the developer HE wants, not the ones you are insisting he use ?
john

Click to expand...

@jnantz:
Insisting? Forget my evaluation of the OP's negatives as grayish and lifeless. The OP himself came to this forum because he felt he had a problem with his negatives developed in some version of coffee-based developer (carefully avoiding to blame the offficial caffenol as not to hurt some member's sensitivities). So myself and several other members made a suggestion to eliminate unknowns and start from a known situation.
Several other members are also insisting.
Raghu Kuvempunagar If you're new to developing film then it's better to use a pre-mixed developer like HC-110 or Rodinal and manufacturer provided times for developing.
Cholentpot Get some fresh film, D-76 and fixer. There are too many variables with your current method. Gotta learn to walk before acrobatics.
jimjm Just use real film developer. Caffenol and other alternative methods may be fine once you've learned how to process film using traditional chemicals. Why make the process more complicated than it needs to be? D-76, HC110, ID11 are all standard chemicals that should be available to most anyone today, with easy instructions and reliable results.

Insisting? D-76, HC-110, Rodinal, ID-11, I don't care (and I suppose neither do the three posters quoted above) as long as it's a packaged, predictable, well tested (one century for Rodinal!) formula. Who is insisting?

So far, the only objection raised by the OP against a commercial, standardized developer is cost. And did you realize that it took me a certain time to research possibilities for delivery to Brazil at a reasonable cost; that was the subject of my previous post. Took me more time than it takes to write one more post to trumpet my favorite developer (don't have any).

Finally, did you notice what the OP wrote (post #29) "Besides I really do like high-contrast and high grain and I couldn't really achieve that with caffenol". Good luck to achieve this! When i write achieve, i mean an enlarger wet print; not a d*****l file with contrast manipulated.

bernard_L said:

my evaluation of the OP's negatives as grayish and lifeless

Click to expand...

Any such evaluation we can do in this thread is based on scans of which nobody has a clue how they were made exactly and which curve adjustments were done by the scanning software, with or without intervention of the user. The negatives may print just fine, or maybe they'll produce 'gray and lifeless' prints even on grade 5 paper. Who knows? It's just guesswork.

koraks said:

Any such evaluation we can do in this thread is based on scans of which nobody has a clue how they were made exactly and which curve adjustments were done by the scanning software, with or without intervention of the user. The negatives may print just fine, or maybe they'll produce 'gray and lifeless' prints even on grade 5 paper. Who knows? It's just guesswork.

Click to expand...

Did you read all the words?
My post #32 just above: "Forget my evaluation of the OP's negatives as grayish and lifeless."

And do you remember why this thread exists at all? Why the OP came to this forum and asked for help?
OP #1: "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."
That is not guesswork on my part; just what the OP wrote, looking at his negative.

No worries mate, I was just pointing out that it's a bit difficult to judge negatives without printing them or without applying the necessary/desired post processing. To date, it's not clear what kind of look OP desires and if that is achievable with his negatives. For all we know, his thin negatives may result in prints or digital renditions that are just fine. Think of the response Steve Sherman says he gets on his negatives: "they are unprintable!" "They look horrible!" Yet, his prints allegedly are gorgeous and they certainly look like it online.
Too much fussing over the look of the negative *may* distract from what is really important: the end result.

Well, that discussion sure seems to have escalated.

The bottom line here is, I'm thankful for all the help and suggestion that were given. Bernard, thanks for pointing out the option of importing those developers, all sure have a look at it. I'm definitly gonna try developing with Caffenol again (I'm on the way to get my hands on "pure" Vit-C powder). Things is, while Caffenol will be fun, and I kinda of ended up growing a like for how the photos came out (after some digital manipulation that is. Some frames barely needed any adjustment in my opinion) it seems (at the moment) a little sketchy when shooting film stocks that I don't really have acess to that many (as it will be the case soon, since I just ordered a bunch of different films for experimenting). But, films like Tmax at the moment are pretty easy to get my hands on, since I know a guy who sells it for a very reasonable price. I'm also greatful for Jnantz since he gave me a lot of help and even proposed to help me with shipping pure Vit-C.

For now there's one last question remaining in my head. There's a few people that sell homemade developers based on "classical" developers.Those include two kinds: theres a chemist selling D-23 homemade developers for around 50 r$ (~ 12 euros!) and other guy selling Parodinal for the same price. Do you guys think that's a reliable option? I'm really interest at the moment at the D-23 developer since it comes in a very nice package, is made by a chemist and as far as I know it is a somewhat easy developer to make, which makes it look like a good option.

Jnantz, altough print developers is sure cheaper than film developers (about half the price) I still believe I can make it off with something a little more afordable.

On a last note, I really enjoyed the look I got from the Tri-X film pushed two stops (grany and constraty, can show some pictures if anyone is iinterested) but it seems really unfair to compare that with expired Tmax-400 shoot at 200 ISO. On my next roll of Tmax (which I'm probably gonna develop on caffenol) I'm gonna follow Jnantz advice and overexpose a little bit the film.

Once again, thanks a lot community. You guys have given me more attention and help than what I first exepected.

Sure, getting your developer from someone who mixes it for you may be fine. Then again, there may be problems, you never know. A one man operation usually cannot match the knowledge, quality and consistency of a major manufacturer, but this need not be a problem. In your particular example, I'd be a bit more suspicious of the parodinal as in my limited experience with parodinal, its keeping properties are a bit unpredictable. It may last a few weeks or a few years, but it's hard to tell what it'll be when you purchase it from a new source.

Is mixing from raw materials and option for you? Most developers are easy and fairly safe to mix on your own. I'm not sure how easy it is for you to get the chemicals shipped to your home, but I suspect that small amounts of stuff like hydroquinone, metol and phenidone could be easily purchased and shipped to you through eg eBay. A XTOL clone like instant mytol requires only phenidone and some household/food grade materials such as vitamin C, soda and sulfite (with some sodium hydroxide to get the pH up; this is often available as drain cleaner).

ViniciusGPCruz said:

On a last note, I really enjoyed the look I got from the Tri-X film pushed two stops (grany and constraty, can show some pictures if anyone is iinterested) but it seems really unfair to compare that with expired Tmax-400 shoot at 200 ISO. On my next roll of Tmax (which I'm probably gonna develop on caffenol) I'm gonna follow Jnantz advice and overexpose a little bit the film.

Click to expand...

Lookin again at what you published, what you might be experiencing could just be typical results from Caffenol C. Similar ( thinnish ) negatives after over developing sounds to me like the problems I always had with Xtol ( another Vit C developer ) Believe it or not I began adding a pinch of print developer because I always got thinnish negatives using Caffenol, and it solved my problem Thinnish/Caffenol looking, they printed well, and scanned well, but .. well, I had had a problem with thinnish negatives for years and It was something I had tried to escape. ( If you read some of the Xtol threads you will see I used Xtol for years and had thinnish negatives that were flat and hopelessly had no density ). D23 might be a great choice to step into, its simple and only 2 ingredients that might be readily available where you live. Good luck !