virker det som mørkt brent kaffe, fungerer rett robusta
like bra eller bedre enn instant. Jeg har lagt veldig lite vit c, og ansco130 og samme mengde oppvask brus jeg pleier å legge.
Bildene er i galleriet mitt her, eller i bloggen min.
Jeg har sjekka resepten for Ansco 130.
Det er en papirfremkaller, med hele 6% soda-konsentrrasjon.
Den inneholder Metol, Hydrochinon og Glyzin, dvs 3 solide doser med vanlige fremkaller-substanser i høy konsentrasjon og hele 5,5% KBr. NB! KBr ligger altså på 5,5 gram pr liter Ansco 130!!!
Konsentrasjonen på denne papirfremkalleren er kolossal, minst 3 ganger høyere enn vanlige filmfremkallere, den skal fortynnes 1:1 brukt som papirfremkaller, og dersom man sammenligner med feks Kodak D72, universalfremkalleren jeg startet med i 1961, så skal den også fortynnes med 1:1 brukt som papirfremkaller, men hele 1:2 brukt som filmfremkaller.
Konklusjonen på dette blir at Ansco 130 minst må fortynnes 1:2, sannsynligvis 1:4, brukt som filmfrekaller helt alene. Dermed er blandingen din ikke så vanskelig å forstå, du ville ha fått nesten samme resultat uten noen kaffe i det hele tatt.
Du fremkaller ikke i Kaffenol min venn, du fremkaller med papirfremkaller forsterket med litt mere frekallersubstans fra enda to kilder, og tilsetter sågar enda mer soda........
Dette har lite eller nesten ingenting med kaffenol å gjøre. Prøv UTEN kaffe og du vil se selv. Prøv uten vitamin C også, og du vil se selv. Prøv uten soda også, og du vil da se at aktiviteten avtar mere enn når du utelot kaffe og Vitamin C, simpelthen fordi pH synker ganske mye nå du fortynner Anco 130 såpass mye........ Av det du tilsetter, spiller soda den største rollen, det er mer enn nok fremkaller-stoff i den blandingen der.
Det er papirfremkaller.
Personlig sluttet jeg fort med Kodak D72 og gikk over til Kodak D76, jeg ble fryktelig skuffet over knallhard kontrast (negativene er sågar vansklige å skanne!) og fryktelig, uskarpt korn. Det var så ille at til og med kontaktkopier fra 6x9 negativer led under det.
Jeg har brukt ansco 130 (papir) 1:1 og 1:2,
og (film) 01:6 og 01:10, for 9-10 år ...
det er ingenting som de med 30cc ansco130 blandet med caffenol.
Jeg brukte caffenol for 3.5 år uten ansco130.
det er ingenting som de med 30cc ansco130 blandet med caffenol.
det ville ta mer enn 25 minutter med 30cc / 750 (ansco: vann)
for noe å skje. (jeg har gjort det også)
sorry erik, er dine påstander ikke er riktige.
Last edited by jnanian; 01-04-2011 at 12:20 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Hei alle Caffenol'ere og godt nytt år!
Jeg har lenge bebudet test med Fomapan 400 i Caffenol C-M. Og her kommer resultatet.
Altså Fomepan 400 i Caffenol C-M i 15 minutter. Bildene er tatt på nyttårsaften og er tatt med Holga med blitz.
I og med at det er fotografert med Holga, er det vanskelig å gi en godt begrunna vurdering av resultatet. Men i alle fall, Caffenol og Fomapan går helt fint. Skal teste med Leica'n også, og da blir det vel lettere å se hvordan den fungerer.
John I'll try to take you seriously:
Originally Posted by jnanian
You run a group dedicated to Caffenol: what you are talking about MIGHT be of relevance over there.
In Scandinavia, the transfer to digital media have been more complete and irreversible than in USA and fr.instance Germany, there is (nearly) no vialble market for what we are talking about any longer over here.
We cannot get equipment repaired any longer.
We cannot buy anything but absolutely mainstream stuff any longer, that is especially true as far as chemicals and developing equipment goes.
They are laughing at us in store if we try to bring up anything about film equipment.
Between you, me and maybe the other TWO, TREE people in scandinavia that might be fool enough to import Ansco 130 themselves, I am the only person that know the formula, who have taken you so seriously that I looked it up, to give you an assessment. (I bet that sets you off on a frantic google-search to prove me wrong and finally get the formula, after having used it for so long!).
What you are talking about is totally irrelevant over here, because we cannot and will not be able to buy what you're talking of.
I still claim that your are developing your films in slightly fortified paper developer, and since you have repeatedly stated that you refrain from referring to what you do in anything that resembles a scientific language, what you are talking about is moot and irrelevant. We simply have no means to know prescisely what you are taling about, because noone, including you, know prescisely whats in your mix. You stick with oz, teaspoons nd tablespoons as a mean to tell others what you do. That makes it hard for others to know what in the hell you are talking about.
Developers and developing agents are about CONCENTRATION and pH. pH is also a metter of concentration. Now to know exactly what you are talking about, we need to know how many millilitres, how many grams per litre and what concentration exactly you are using. Knowing that it is possible to calculate, to try to asess whether it is worth the trouble to look into what you are talking about.
In that perspective, all your claims comes down as unsubstantiated claims only. So far I have seen nothing that makes me want to try to repeat anything of what you have done, it is simply not worth the trouble or work.
Before you came barging in, trying to hijack this diuscussion, this thread was very special, since all we have been talking about here have been prescise, reepeatable experiments that can be copied and verified by anyone. Until you entered the discussion.
We I can only speculate about why, but you have been talking elsewhere about people being "full of themselves". That reflects right back at yourself. Take your discussion with you back to your group, where you are free to moderate and lock out anyone that will not bend over to your skewed version of "caffenol".
As far as me goes what you are talking about is irrelevant. We are not concerned with comercially available developers, nor especially taken with "stand development techniques". My interest at least have been in chipping in, trying to take this seriously and beat the chaos of recipes and heresay about caffenol developers we find on the Net, especially in the USA, into a normal, dependable recipe that can be used and repeated by anyone all across the world.
Closing: Ansco developers are not available over here, nor will they ever be. It is even very hard to get even Kodak and Ilford chemicals.
The closest thing I can come up with, to what you are talking about, is using Rodinal, fortifying that with vitamin C and soda.
Guess what? If I take 30 ml of Rodinal, or even 15ml Rodinal, per tank of developer, it does not matter how much soda I put in there, nor how much vitamin C or coffee, instant or otherwise, because the concentration of commercially available Rodinal would be so strong, the pH so high, and developing agent concentration so high, that anything added would count for just a small percentile to what was there from the manufacturer........
In other words, as most have found out over the last one and a quarter century: it is very hard to improve on Rodinal, as it is with most commercially available developers that have survived the last century.
Last word: stick to an english group, since that google translation service you use makes your arguments look funny and nearly incomprehensible.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
first i am greeted and warmly welcomed by the person who started this thread
and now you "barge in here" tell me to get lost.
when you were first read or were told about coffee developers, did you tell the people using
this "skewed version of a developer" they were irrelevant idiotic fools, and then
tell them to get lost ?
... you are too much !
i find it remarkable that you are a chemist and self- proclaimed "coffee developer expert"
yet you don't even do simple experiments to see if you can improve the developer ... even if that means mixing in a small
quantity of a developer that you know works, to see what might happen, and then doing it again, backing off on the amount you add &C
instead you just recreate what everyone else does ... and you don't show your peers (here) the results of your work
you only make claims, pass judgement, posture and insult people who don't have the same opinion as you...
i thought chemists were natural experimenters, curious and creative about these things ...
i am well aware that you mix the ingredients 6x as strong to store, and doing what everyone "on the caffenol blog" does.
that isn't really what i would call experimental or creative.
earlier to prove a point of how concentrated &C print developer is, you mentioned that you used dektol / d72 as a film developer ...
but your results were bad ... it proves my point that you really are not creative or experimental or a problem solver.
did you try it different dilutions and times?
did you use it when it was partially exhausted + replenish it?
did you develop by inspection or bracket your film exposures ?
did you change how you agitated the film, or not agitate at all ?
or ... did you use it 3 times at the same time/dilution that was "recommended", photograph contrasty scenes and get terrible negatives?
you couldn't be more wrong about ansco 130 ( or dektol since it is the same thing less glycin for all intents and purposes )
but then again, you make claims and have nothing to back up what you say. i on the other hand have 10 years worth of
experience with the developer. i know from first hand experience that 30cc ansco 130+750cc of water
will not stand-develop a 3 stop under exposed film in 25 mins but
30cc ansco 130 + strong caffenol c will develop the film, and it will be good enough to print in a darkroom or scan.,
i have first hand experience in this as well, and i posted them before just the other day.
you complain that i am not using your measurements ...
try using 2-3x the amount of coffee YOU would normally use, and 1.5-2x the vit c YOU would normally use,
and about the same amount of soda as vit c and YOU would normally use, and you will be getting close
to what i use. my coffee is pure robusta and obviously very different and more concentrated than your "blend"
if you want to make this developer into something that will be every bit as good as
a commercial grade developer, but at your fingertips ...
you can not just re-hash what others have said and done, you have to make your
own path, or you will get no where ...
Last edited by jnanian; 01-05-2011 at 03:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Originally Posted by OMU
thanks again for the warm welcome Omu !
Last edited by jnanian; 01-05-2011 at 10:06 AM. Click to view previous post history.
I can only agree with OMU!
For de som er interessert så har jeg lagt ut litt bilder fra negativer fremkalt med caffenol på min hjemmeside.
Tøfft Svein. Liker de subtile detaljene i det lette skylaget på Storebælta bildene. At du klarer å beholde disse i direkte motsol er imponerende. Hvilken film, eksponeringsteknikk, caffenol oppskrift mv brukte du?
Eirik (aka Ezzie)
DIY 4x5 | DIY 6x17 | DIY 6x24 anarmorphic pinhole | Pentax' SV & SP 1000 | Rolleiflex | Kalloflex | Weltix | Royal 35-M | Leica M4-2 | Polaroid 250 | Polaroid 110A / 600SE conversion | DIY Polaroid View | DUO Polaroid TLR | Vito CL | Pentacon SIX | Kiev 6C | Canon EF | Mamiya 1000s
My APUG Gallery