Author Topic: My first Caffenol experience (Read 5026 times)

cs1 · « **on:** February 16, 2018, 08:09:42 PM »

I've known for some time that Caffenol was something that I had to try. I also know that a lot of my fellow filmwasters already use it which means that it's worth trying. So that's what I did today. I'd like to share the experience with all of you who haven't tried it yet (all who use Caffenol already will probably find this "report" not that interesting

). First I'd like to thank Reinhold for his advice and thanks to everyone who contributed to The Caffenol Cookbook. What a wonderful book.

I brewed 500 ml of Caffenol-C-H (RS) (I used instant coffee, washing soda, vitamin C, and iodised table salt). Due to the fact that I found developing times for Fomapan 100 in Caffenol-C-H (RS), I used the RS (reduced soda) variant. I got a nice digital pocket scale so that I could accurately measure the ingredients. I normally fill a big pot with 20 °C warm water when making a normal developer dilution. However, Reinhold warned me that the reaction of the soda with the other components warms the dilution about 1-2 °C, so I only filled the measuring cup with 300 ml, put in the instant coffee and all other components one after the other. And exactly what Reinhold said, happened. I got 300 ml of 22 °C dilution and simply used cold water to cool it down to 20 °C and filled the rest with 20 °C warm water from the big pot I mentioned earlier. I must say that I thought beforehand that the coffee and the soda would stink badly but it wasn't all that bad after all. It won't become my favourite smell, though. I developed the Fomapan 100 for 12m30s, agitated for 30s in the beginning and then tipped the tank 3 times every minute. I used water as a stop bath (500 ml), rinsed the film with another 500 ml of water and then fixed the film with normal fixer.

Apart from the fact that the focus of my Zeiss Ikon Nettar is completely wonky, I'm quite happy with the results. Here's a shot from this afternoon:

Grass by C S

(Sorry for the double post in the weekend thread.)

The only thing I think is that the film looks like it's overexposed ~1 stop (I compensated for that after scanning the film). I think that I'll try developing it for 12m00s next time.

It was a really interesting experience to work with Caffenol because it's on the one hand nice to know that you're using something that doesn't kill baby seals and on the other hand it's really like a nerdy "precision cooking" experience -- it's simply cool to do it.

I can only recommend trying it yourself. This won't be my last film dunked in coffee. Expect more to come.

Francois · « **Reply #1 on:** February 16, 2018, 10:43:54 PM »

And if you're really cheap, you can lower the cost even more by asking for the old pots of coffee restaurants throw out every half hour

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #2 on:** February 16, 2018, 11:20:43 PM »

That's a pretty good result. I could never do the Caffenol thing... I'd simply drink all the coffee. Probably the same reason why Satish can't do Beerol...

cs1 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 17, 2018, 06:02:48 AM »

Quote from: Francois on February 16, 2018, 10:43:54 PM

And if you're really cheap, you can lower the cost even more by asking for the old pots of coffee restaurants throw out every half hour

To be perfectly honest, Caffenol definitely isn't cheaper than Rodinal and maybe as expensive as Fomadon. So you've got a point.

Quote from: MiguelCampano on February 16, 2018, 11:20:43 PM

That's a pretty good result. I could never do the Caffenol thing... I'd simply drink all the coffee. Probably the same reason why Satish can't do Beerol...

Well, since the absolutely cheapest instant coffee is the best for Caffenol due to the acid it still contains, the temptation to drink it is very low. And it's zero as soon as you add washing soda, trust me.

cs1 · « **Reply #4 on:** February 17, 2018, 09:54:37 PM »

Ok, it's done. I'm officially a Caffenol fan. I can't help it. Today I went to a wonderful abbey close by and took my trusty Canon F-1 with me which is the camera that I know best and probably am most adept with compared to my other cameras, and I used Fomapan 400 because I wanted to see how Caffenol-C-H (RS) would work with one of my favourite films. I cooked up 300 ml of Caffenol-C-H (RS) (reduced soda recipe with iodised salt) to develop it at 20 °C. This time I used 30s less than the time of 14m30s that I found and developed the film for 14m00s. I agitated for 30 seconds and then tipped the tank 3 times every full minute. Here's one of the results:

HCL by C S

The result was fantastic. Here're the reasons why I like the Caffenol recipe that I used:

Fomapan 400 tends to have gritty grain with certain developers. However, the grain is nicely controlled with Caffenol which I like.
The tonality is very nice. I have the subjective impression that the tonality is quite smooth over the whole spectrum and not overly pronounced in certain areas. That's also a plus in my eyes.
The sharpness is pretty good.
I didn't see any obvious fogging.

Fomadon LQN might be a tiny little bit better for shadowy areas but I can't say that I prefer it to Caffenol. This leaves me to say that trying Caffenol was well worth it and I'm going to keep using it, no doubt about it.

Francois · « **Reply #5 on:** February 17, 2018, 11:13:02 PM »

I must admit that the contrast range is pretty darn good.
Did you expose the film at 400?

cs1 · « **Reply #6 on:** February 18, 2018, 06:11:13 AM »

Yes, I exposed it at box speed EI 400. The negatives look nice and contrasty as well (I didn't adjust the contrast during scanning or in post; it was scanned with the normal exposure setting of SilverFast, nothing fancy there). Here's another shot that has a little more grain but I think that the lighting conditions explain it (it probably wouldn't look much different when developed with Fomadon LQN). The lighting was a little difficult due to the very bright patches in an overall darker environment and I had to expose a little longer (I think I measured the right hand wall, but I'm not entirely sure).

Cloister by C S

I find it easier to get the exposure right with my F-1 than with other cameras that I own. But it's not the exposure, I think that the Fomapan 400 really harmonises well with Caffenol-C-H (rs).

Francois · « **Reply #7 on:** February 18, 2018, 02:10:47 PM »

They sure do seem to get along fine.
I always had trouble getting a decent tonal range with it when using HC-110 Dil.B at box speed and need to drop the sensitivity down to 250 in order to get good results.

cs1 · « **Reply #8 on:** February 18, 2018, 04:07:47 PM »

That's quite strange. I had a quick look at the ingredients of HC-110 and Fomadon LQN and they both seem to be based on hydroquinone. Of course I have no clue about the exact composition but since Fomadon LQN works really well with Fomapan film it's surprising that HC-110 doesn't work at least similarly. Strangely enough, Rodinal (which is based on p-aminophenole) works reasonably well with Fomapan, too. In my (limited) experience, Fomadon LQN (1+14) and Caffenol-C-H (rs) work equally well (Fomadon a tiny little bit better) and Rodinal works reasonably well, however, you don't get the full latitude that you seem to get with Fomadon LQN and Caffenol. But with Fomadon LQN and Rodinal I never had the impression that I had to overexpose (and Caffenol seems to be the same).

Francois · « **Reply #9 on:** February 18, 2018, 09:05:24 PM »

I just checked the MSDS for Fomadon LQN and it is quite different than HC-110.
While they both rely on Hydroquinone for development, that's pretty much where the similarities stop.
HC-110 contains a lot more stuff too.
HC-110 is 5-10% Hydroquinone while Fomadon LQN is less than 0.5%... this explains the higher contrast of HC-110 since Hydroquinone is a high contrast developing agent.

cs1 · « **Reply #10 on:** February 19, 2018, 05:02:50 AM »

That makes perfect sense. I could've looked for the concentrations myself. Sorry. It's a pity that Fomapan is so picky in terms of developer. It's such a lovely film. It seems like I've simply been lucky to have tried just the right developers.

Francois · « **Reply #11 on:** February 19, 2018, 03:05:35 PM »

My guess is that Foma opted to make a developer that is adapted to the film rather than make a film that is adapted to most popular developers. This is probably much easier to do anyway.

MiguelCampano · « **Reply #12 on:** February 19, 2018, 03:10:42 PM »

I've only used Fomapan once (in 100 speed), and developed in Ilfosol 3 and liked the results. I bought three more rolls that I'll shoot sometime soon, and try it in Rodinal. Interesting observation about making a film that works well with specific kinds of developer, as opposed to the more "universal" films out there that seem to get good results with pretty much anything.

Bryan · « **Reply #13 on:** February 19, 2018, 06:16:37 PM »

The results you got on Fomapan look great. That's one film I have never tried, I'll have to see how it does in beer. Caffenol is definitely not cheaper or easier than using a developer like Rodinal, you should only do it if you enjoy the whole process of making your own developer.

Blaxton · « **Reply #14 on:** February 19, 2018, 06:43:25 PM »

I agree, the results look great. The tonal range in the window picture is very beautiful. I have not tried Foma 400 but I often use Arista EDU 100 which, I gather, is rebranded Foma 100. My favorite developer is Caffenol C-L, semi-stand but where I live for a good part of the year, I have to use Rodinol 1:100, semi-stand. Here are one of each:

Fallen White Pine, Chase Farm, Lincoln, Rhode Island
Olympus OM1, 50mm Zuiko lens, Arista EDU 100, Caffenol C-L, semi-stand

Fallen White Pine, Chase Farm, Lincoln, Rhode Island by William Blackstone, on Flickr

Mata Nacional do Choupal: Coimbra, Portugal
Olympus OM1, 50mm Zuiko lens, Arista EDU 100, RO9 1:100, semi-stand

Mata Nacional do Choupal: Coimbra, Portugal by William Blackstone, on Flickr

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #15 on:** February 19, 2018, 11:57:34 PM »

Well done, Christian. The Fomas also were my first Caffenol-developed films back in 2010, even before I got a scale and measured by volume, and they gave me good results from the beginning. The snowy picture from my very first blog post is still one of my personal favs:
https://caffenol.blogspot.de/2010/02/hello.html

Today I mostly use Kentmere 100 and 400 (or one of their clones). I love the nice and rather big grain of the 400 in Caffenol-C-H (rs), if I want smaller grain, I use a very simple homemade phenidon-vit-c developer. Making your own developer is a big fun.

cs1 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 20, 2018, 04:52:10 PM »

Quote from: Francois on February 19, 2018, 03:05:35 PM

My guess is that Foma opted to make a developer that is adapted to the film rather than make a film that is adapted to most popular developers. This is probably much easier to do anyway.

You're right, I guess. Still it's quite a nice film especially for the price tag.

Quote from: Bryan on February 19, 2018, 06:16:37 PM

The results you got on Fomapan look great. That's one film I have never tried, I'll have to see how it does in beer. Caffenol is definitely not cheaper or easier than using a developer like Rodinal, you should only do it if you enjoy the whole process of making your own developer.

Well, I've still got some instant coffee left but I'd appreciate if you could point me to a Beerol resource on the web that you prefer and that gives you good results. Regarding cost: I find the fact that I don't have to bring canisters with used developer to special disposal facilities quite appealing because they have very strange opening hours here and if I factor that in, then Caffenol is even more attractive.

Blaxton, beautiful shots! I'll have to try stand development at some point because I have a mystery film in the fridge that's long expired and for which I find no development times whatsoever. So I'll try Caffenol-C-L pretty soon, I guess.

Quote from: imagesfrugales on February 19, 2018, 11:57:34 PM

Well done, Christian. The Fomas also were my first Caffenol-developed films back in 2010, even before I got a scale and measured by volume, and they gave me good results from the beginning. The snowy picture from my very first blog post is still one of my personal favs:
https://caffenol.blogspot.de/2010/02/hello.html

Thanks Reinhold, your hints were a big help, I highly appreciate them. I actually know that image in your blog, I think I saw it in the Caffenol Cookbook, right? It's a wonderful shot!

Bryan · « **Reply #17 on:** February 20, 2018, 05:08:12 PM »

Quote from: cs1 on February 20, 2018, 04:52:10 PM

Quote from: Bryan on February 19, 2018, 06:16:37 PM
The results you got on Fomapan look great. That's one film I have never tried, I'll have to see how it does in beer. Caffenol is definitely not cheaper or easier than using a developer like Rodinal, you should only do it if you enjoy the whole process of making your own developer.
Well, I've still got some instant coffee left but I'd appreciate if you could point me to a Beerol resource on the web that you prefer and that gives you good results. Regarding cost: I find the fact that I don't have to bring canisters with used developer to special disposal facilities quite appealing because they have very strange opening hours here and if I factor that in, then Caffenol is even more attractive.

I think this is your best resource for Beerenol:

http://www.filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=8157.0

As far as I can tell I'm the only one using beerenol on a regular basis. I based the recipe on Caffenol with help from Reinhold and his Caffenol Cookbook.

Blaxton · « **Reply #18 on:** February 20, 2018, 07:17:00 PM »

[/quote]
I'll have to try stand development at some point because I have a mystery film in the fridge that's long expired and for which I find no development times whatsoever. So I'll try Caffenol-C-L pretty soon, I guess.
[/quote]

Before trying stand development, you might want to read one of the posts from Reinhold's blog. Thomas wrote in with a suggestion for semi-stand development with Caffelon C-L at box speed and with a two-stop push. This is what I have found to work great for me—same technique using Caffenol and Rodinol: http://caffenol.blogspot.pt/2011/08/its-so-easy.html#links

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #19 on:** February 21, 2018, 09:08:53 AM »

Too much compliments, guys, thanks a lot.

For stand dev of long expired film with Caffenol I would recommend pot. bromide 1g/l much over iodized salt. A good seller in
Germany regarding my experiance:
https://shop.es-drei.de/
No restrictions for pot. bromide. Shipping to all european countries.

cs1 · « **Reply #20 on:** March 03, 2018, 11:50:46 PM »

I struggled with Fomapan 100 in Caffenol-C-H (RS) (iodised salt instead of p.b.) for a while because it came out quite overdeveloped at 12m00s - 12m30s. Reinhold gave me excellent advice to drastically reduce developing times to see some effect so I tried 8m00s and it turned out great (I posted three shots in this week's weekend thread). Right now, the times I use for Fomapan 100 and 400 are:

Fomapan 100 in Caffenol-C-H (RS) w/ iodised salt instead of p.b.: 8m00s
Fomapan 400 in Caffenol-C-H (RS) w/ iodised salt instead of p.b.: 14m00s

(Agitate 30s at the start, 3 inversions every full minute.)

Another film that I tried was Adox Silvermax. It works well at 12m30s (same agitation scheme as above).

cs1 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2018, 05:16:27 PM »

Just a quick addition: I've been able to reproduce my initial results with Fomapan 100 and 400 multiple times and consider the combination "Fomapan 100/400 in Caffenol-C-H (RS)" to be stable enough for me to replace Fomadon LQN which I preferred before I got to work with Caffenol. I've compared the results of both developers and it's hard to see a difference (note that I haven't shot the same objects on the same setting with the same camera to compare developers; it's a completely subjective observation). So I'm going to stick with Caffenol for Fomapan for the foreseeable time. Even in very different lighting conditions I get very satisfying results with good contrast and tonality.

I took the following shots with a Zenza Bronica SQ-A.

Liebfrauenkirche by C S
Zenzanon 50mm f/3.5, red filter

Schloss Langenstein by C S
Zenzanon 80mm f/2.8, red filter (I think)

Felswohnung by C S
Zenzanon 50mm f/3.5, no filter