pushing with Caffenol C

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by mabman, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. mabman

    mabman Member

    Messages:
    829
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    Winnipeg, MB
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Just wondering if it's possible to do a 2 or 3 stop push using Caffenol C (with Tri-X) - it looks like an interesting developer, and some searching seems to indicate there is a slight push with it.

    However, I can't find any info one way or the other on deliberate pushing, so any info is appreciated (times, good/bad sample results, etc).

    (I'm new to b/w developing, so I apologize if this is a stupid question - I also searched for pushing info with staining developers generally, but didn't come up with much.)

    Thanks!
     
  2. Michael W

    Michael W Member

    Messages:
    1,443
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'd be surprised if you got any push from Caffenol devs based on my admittedly limited experience. My first attempt with Era 100 & basic caffenol was underexposed & underdeveloped, although done according to instructions. Based on the results I did a second roll rated at 25, added 25% extra each of the coffee & washing soda & developed for 30% more time. Results were excellent, well exposed & developed with good tonal range.
    However this indicates to me that Caffenol is a speed reducing developer. I know that adding ascorbic acid is meant to boost speed, but I heard it's only about 1 stop. So I reckon you'd be lucky to get box speed, let alone a push. Still, I look forward to hearing from those with more experience.
     
  3. htmlguru4242

    htmlguru4242 Member

    Messages:
    973
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Location:
    Sandy Hook,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    If memory serves, Donald Qualls was talking about it increasing speed in some of his tests. I believe that he was specifically using it with AGFA Copex, though.

    I don't believe it was deliberate, but check for his posts on it to find out.

    From my (also limited) experience, it doesn't seem like this is going to be great for pushing films. I don't really have any chemical or photographic explaination, it just seems this way. If anything, you'd have issues keeping the temperature in the right place. After the ~15 minutes needed for some films, its already cooled down significantly; for pushes, it'll be even colder and work slower.

    Try it (maybe with a water bath to keep it around its original temperature), and see what happens.

    Tri-X is a good choice for this experiment, as it handles a two or three stop push very well in certain developers.
     
  4. rwyoung

    rwyoung Member

    Messages:
    704
    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2006
    Location:
    Lawrence, KS
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    In my experience, Folgerol in a small tank, minimal agitation cost me about -2 1/2 stops (maybe a little less like -2 1/3). Seems to oxidize quickly and didn't work well in the Jobo with constant agitation.

    Next, Vit-C (not Folgerol-C) gave me about the same speed as D76 with Tri-X, or -1/3 stop. However that was in a Jobo and I have a feeling the constant agitation is speeding up the oxidation/exhaustion.

    I have not gone beyone one try of Folgerol-C as my reason for playing with Folgerol in the first place is its staining (sorta) properties. Folgerol-C leaves less stain.
     
  5. like2fiddle

    like2fiddle Member

    Messages:
    29
    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Location:
    Vermont
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I know this thread is a little outdated, but I recently played a little with this subject and felt I might be able to contribute.

    I rolled a short roll of Tri-X and exposed the same scene at different EI's (100, 200, 400, 800) then developed it in caffenol-c (Price Chopper instant coffee 4 tsp, Arm & Hammer Washing soda 2.25 tsp, vitamin c 1 gram, 10 oz./300ml water at 67.5 F) for 15 minutes with continuous agitation for first 30 seconds and then 10 sec agitation every 4 minutes. The negatives actually look pretty good to the naked eye, but are somewhat fogged. My scanner can't seem to figure out where one exposure ends and the next begins. The 800 exposure appears to be the best of the lot. Previous to this test, I tried a few shots with HP5 at 200 and developed x 30 minutes and the negatives looked very over-developed.
     
  6. like2fiddle

    like2fiddle Member

    Messages:
    29
    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Location:
    Vermont
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    caffenol-c and HP5

    Here's some examples of HP-5 rated at 200, 400, and 800 and developed in Caffenol-c for 15 minutes. Low resolution scans, flatbed, no post processing.

    cafc200.JPG
    exposed as if ASA 200

    cafc400.JPG
    exposed as if ASA 400

    cafc801.JPG
    exposed as if ASA 800
     
  7. Murray@uptowngallery

    Murray@uptowngallery Member

    Messages:
    1,041
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2003
    Location:
    Holland, MI
    Shooter:
    Pinhole
    Those look good , Roger.