[tuco]

... Since taking up developing black and white film the beginning of this month I have used caffenol exclusively in various recipes and experiments.

... I have no experience yet with other developers though I have several here now to try in the near future once I am satisfied with caffenol.

How do you measure/determine excellent/good/bad results of your developer?

[stevebrot]

For pre-soaking don't follow anyone's well-meant advise on a forum because most of them are religiously devoted to one system no matter what film they use. Just read the specific advise from the film manufacturer. Ilford notably doesn't recommend it.

I don't see that anyone suggested always presoaking, for religious purposes or otherwise. I guess it depends on how one reads English. Perhaps, I should have written, "...I use D.I. water for presoak (when indicated), mixing the developer, and for the final rinse in Photoflo." For the record, I presoak with Fuji Acros 100 and Rollei Retro 80s because doing so helps remove the antihalation dyes. Fuji does not include this step, but I find it helps get the pink out. Agfa (RR 80s is Aviphot Pan 80) also does not include a presoak step in their documentation, but it is commonly done by those who shoot with that emulsion...religious devotion, I expect.

I will remember to not do so with Ilford.


Steve

[Kobayashi.K]

I don't see that anyone suggested always presoaking, for religious purposes or otherwise. I guess it depends on how one reads English. Perhaps, I should have written, "...I use D.I. water for presoak (when indicated), mixing the developer, and for the final rinse in Photoflo." For the record, I presoak with Fuji Acros 100 and Rollei Retro 80s because doing so helps remove the antihalation dyes. Fuji does not include this step, but I find it helps get the pink out. Agfa (RR 80s is Aviphot Pan 80) also does not include a presoak step in their documentation, but it is commonly done by those who shoot with that emulsion...religious devotion, I expect.

I will remember to not do so with Ilford.Steve

Sorry @stevebrot I have read too many threads about pre-soaking on Photrio.

[stevebrot]

Sorry @stevebrot I have read too many threads about pre-soaking on Photrio.

Thanks...that explains a lot.


Steve

[brewmaster15]

How do you measure/determine excellent/good/bad results of your developer?

Prior to digital I shot film and slide for years...I have a fairly good understanding of how this medium works.. Im sure theres some technical better way for this assessment but since I am viewing my results as a digital image from a scan, i just use how well they developed by how my digital images work out from the film scans. Additionally I also use the " If I liked the results , its good "method , which though biased to the extreme is why I do this hobby regardless of what others might think..I know... not scientific .. i know..But honestly , its how I judge if my digital images are good as well.

How do you assess how well your developer works? while on the subject I have to ask since I have noticed in several threads now that you seem to have a negative view of developing processes using caffenol. I try to be straight forward so I figured I'd just ask out right.. Is there a reason that caffenol is not something I should use? If so,why? MAYBE i am just reading this wrong but I get the feeling you dont like caffenol and would like to understand why.

Thanks,
AL

[tuco]

...

How do you assess how well your developer works? while on the subject I have to ask since I have noticed in several threads now that you seem to have a negative view of developing processes using caffenol.
Thanks,
AL

I judge a lot like most people. I look at the negatives on a light table and see how it reproduces. Back in the wet-print days if you could print well on a fixed grade 2 paper that would be a sign all was well with your development time. And from that you could see if one developer yielded better tonal scale in shadows/highlights kind of thing. So using end results as feed back tempered with experience is a fine approach.

Since then, however, I have a densitometer. I establish most of my development times ( Normal (N), N+1, N-1, etc) using that. When I meter a scene with my one-degree spot meter, I may place a shadow at, say, zone 2. After developing the film, I can measure the density of that area on the negative and see if indeed my exposure index, developing time and metering placed that tone at zone 2. Similarly with highlights. And you can plot characteristic curves if you want to really deep dive of all your film/developer combos so you can see which combos might be better for certain conditions/scenes.

I have nothing against coffee developers. I think it's cool finding the chemicals needed to develop film from these things. I do have a concern, however, that developing for 1-hour is "normal" development and developing for 1.5 hours is pushing the film. Further, playing around with a variable temperature while the film develops to end up with a 1-hour development time that will arrest further highlight development and thus compress the highlight tonal scale in a "pull process" ( eg N-1, N-2, etc) to a degree where zone 9 moves down to zone 8 predictably. I'm not saying it can't be done. But has anybody done the densitometry work to show that indeed you are moving zone 9 down to zone 8 density (N-1) when you do a highlight compression with stand development?

[brewmaster15]

I judge a lot like most people. I look at the negatives on a light table and see how it reproduces. Back in the wet-print days if you could print well on a fixed grade 2 paper that would be a sign all was well on your development time. And from that you could see if one developer yielded better tonal scale in shadows/highlights kind of thing. So using end results as feed back tempered with experience is a fine approach.

Since then, however, I have a densitometer. I establish most of my development times ( Normal (N), N+1, N-1, etc) using that. When I meter a scene with my one-degree spot meter, I may place a shadow at, say, zone 2. After developing the film, I can measure the density of that area on the negative and see if indeed if my EI, developing and metering placed that tone at zone 2. Similarly with highlights.

I have nothing against coffee developers. I think it's cool finding the chemicals needed to develop film from these things. I do have a concern, however, that developing for 1-hour is "normal" development and developing for 1.5 hours is pushing the film. Further playing around with the temperature while the film develops to end up with a 1-hour development time that will arrest and compressed the highlight tonal scale in a "pull process" ( eg N-1, N-2, etc) to a degree where zone 9 moves down to zone 8 and zone 8 almost zone 7 is a very predictable process. But I not saying it can't be done. But has anybody done the densitometry work to show that indeed you are moving zone 9 down to zone 8 density (N-1) when you do a highlight compression with stand development?

lol.. I'm sorry but that is all far above my pay grade level. I may one day get to the level you are at but I'm afraid that if I did I might not find it fun any more. Maybe there are alot of people here that use a densitometer on their negatives? Are there? Is that something people here generally use when evaluating developed film?
I've literally been developing film one month. Why? because I find it interesting and challenging...and Fun.I also missed my film cameras and though would love to shoot slide again...prices on film and mailer are ridiculous now...so I decided to work with Black and white a bit.


As for Caffenol,..most of the developing is 15-20 mins, the "stand" method is as we talked about before...unconventional and rather variable. I tried it, it worked okay, then I tried the other caffenol methods.. I find the 15-20 min recipe works well for my current needs.. I hope one day you try it and use that densitometer on the film to further the knowledge base. I'd love if someone came up with a caffeic acid assay that would allow us to standardized the amount of active developer in a particular brand of instant coffee. Once you could quickly assay the coffee's caffeic acid levels, it would allow you to do everything else. It will happen one day I am sure. For me, its just really enjoyable playing with and getting images I enjoy looking at. Thanks for the info and opinion though.

Thanks,
Al

---

Last edited by brewmaster15; 03-01-2020 at 05:17 PM.

[Kobayashi.K]

I like the idea of caffenol but you cannot expect to have consistent results with household ingredients. And when one ingredient is changed, for example another type of coffee, it costs too much time to adjust your formula to replicate the results you had.

[brewmaster15]

I like the idea of caffenol but you cannot expect to have consistent results with household ingredients. And when one ingredient is changed, for example another type of coffee, it costs too much time to adjust your formula to replicate the results you had.

Thats very true and a legitimate negative to using caffenol. . One trick I learned in the lab is you buy a large amount of the same lot of reagents when doing experiments.That reduces variables. To me the last month had been spent experimenting. When I started with caffenol and got positive results with the first roll developed I bought 7 jars of instant coffee.. same one brand,same store. Instant coffee in sealed jars lasts years and years.At the rate I am using it I have enough for about 150 rolls. That will keep me going quite a bit if I stay with it. If I move away from caffenol I am out $30 Btw.. the coffee itself is pretty nasty.. its the cheapest bulk instant coffee I could find. It really would not take much to test a new batch as long as I have this one as a standard. But again, my needs and goals are not the same as others here.
AL

[Chris_K]

By no means am I an expert but let me point out one thing which hasn't been emphasized enough. Using the wetting agent for the last water bath, before hanging the film to dry, won't prevent the negative effects from hard tap water to occur. It will help a bit, but the water still remains on the film, dries and might leave precipitate. To fully avoid precipitate spots coming from hard water, the last bath should be done with distilled/deionized water and wetting agent.

[brewmaster15]

By no means am I an expert but let me point out one thing which hasn't been emphasized enough. Using the wetting agent for the last water bath, before hanging the film to dry, won't prevent the negative effects from hard tap water to occur. It will help a bit, but the water still remains on the film, dries and might leave precipitate. To fully avoid precipitate spots coming from hard water, the last bath should be done with distilled/deionized water and wetting agent.

Thanks for that input Chris . I actually just devloped a few rolls last night . I had found a 1/2 gallon of distilled water here that I had for other purposes and decided to use for the final rinse and to make up some new Kodak flo with it. My thinking was that should at least remove alot of minerals from the film and tank surfaces. Time will tell after I scan. The more I think about it though I will probably just make up all the chemicals with Distilled water to be safe. My well is good water, but good tasting and good for film obviously aren't the same.

al

[fs999]

If you suspect your water, you can use a pitcher-type water purifier, before using distilled water...

[Kobayashi.K]

I looked into the Berkey water purifiers which use active carbon as a passive filter (I have one myself). For the filter specifications they publish a huge list of contaminants that are removed, but for example potassium, calcium, phosphorus and magnesium are not listed (you can search the list yourself for other elements). So I guess this type of filter is not optimal and you will need a reverse-osmosis system to filter out everything.

[tuco]

Thats very true and a legitimate negative to using caffenol. .

Some additional thoughts if can bear with me. If you try out a common commercial developer, one metric you may want to compare is the grain structure the developers yield. Grain that is defined and uniformly distributed is a good indicator. Grain that clumps together and forms micro-looking patches throughout your mid to highlight areas is not so good.

[brewmaster15]

Some additional thoughts if can bear with me. If you try out a common commercial developer, one metric you may want to compare is the grain structure the developers yield. Grain that is defined and uniformly distributed is a good indicator. Grain that clumps together and forms micro-looking patches throughout your mid to highlight areas is not so good.

I will definitely keep.that in mind to look for. THANKS. When I do start working with commercial developers I will also run side by side tests with them and caffenol. .. same film and gear.. same subject etc. .. different developers. I enjoy tests like that.

Thank you again.
AL