Michael just offered a suggestion on Flickr:
".........I think metaborate (a.k.a. Kodalk)
borax.com/pdfs/dist/DataSheet.Borates.SodiumMetaborate8Mo...
is a more suitable non-carbonate alkali ( than borax) as it has much lower molar mass, much higher solubility, can hit a higher pH, and still have relatively good buffering characteristics. 1g metaborate = 0.692g borax + 0.145g sodium hydroxide if you're interested.
On a slight tangent, I did have an experiment in mind that is somewhat related to this but I have not had time to try so I'll share it here. My goal was to create a longer lasting two part Caffenol-C developer. I was thinking of mixing coffee + vit-c in a very concentrated solution (as little water as possible) with enough hydroxide to make it neutral (this is part A). Part B would be a suitable alkali solution (borax, metaborate, carbonate) with potassium bromide if necessary. My thinking for part A is that the solution might last longer due to the high concentration of ingredients, the vit-c being in sodium ascorbate form, and the pH being neutral. Part B would not have to work so hard as part A is already neutral.
Another possible permutation is to mix part A with alcohol (methanol, isopropyl, etc.) instead of water to minimize oxidation but I have absolutely no idea if coffee + vit-c is soluble in alcohol. "
Lets give this a spin! I will ponder a bit upon this, hopefully Michael will be back with more inputs, and even more welcome, others might offer comments too, I think this is a good idea, and a possible alternative to now out-of-production Daiafine. A two part developer with an extremely long shelf life, little if any time and temperature dependency is nice.
Comment from Michael :
"Haha ... I didn't expect to find this here ... cool.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure we cannot get this to work as a conventional two-part developer such as Diafine or divided D-76 because we need so much coffee for active development. I think it may work by using x volume of part A + y volume of part B + z volume of water, most likely suitable only for one-shot use.
I think that a Phenidone/Vit-C developer would make a better candidate for a true two-part developer like Diafine as so little developing ingredients are required.
The problem here is oxygen ... it's the oxidation of developing agents that makes them weak. I have a fair amount of experience dealing with this problem as Phenidone has this same issue and a few approaches have been used to address this.
Alcohol (methanol) has been used as it generally has little water, hence little O2. Ethylene Glycol, Propylene Glycol, and Glycerin have also been used as they have no water and no O2.
The potential problem with alcohol or glycol is solubility of the developing agents. Experimentation is required to determine how much coffee can be dissolved in various solvents.
Another idea that came out after alcohol/glycol was to use water but have excess preservative, vit-c in this case. The theory being that the excess ascorbate preserves what's there and it seems to work. These principles have been used and proven, the excess ascorbate one is used in PCB, and the glycol one is used in PCM.
If I were to attempt a Phenidone/C two-part developer I would make part A with an Ascorbic Acid to Phenidone ratio of 80:1 and enough sodium bicarbonate to neutralize the solution.
This could work out roughly as 80g ascorbic acid, 40g sodium bicarbonate, and 1g phenidone in 1L water.
Part B would be a 1% sodium metaborate solution.
The pH will be high enough to get some good development and the buffering should make the chemical reaction last as long as is required to exhaust the Phenidone/C from part A. I would do 3-4 mins agitation in part A and 5-10 mins agitation in part B.
I have absolutely no idea if any of this would actually work but I think it could.
Thank you Michael, I have to put my thinking cap on, will be back with questions.....
Friday, July 29, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Cafenol ingredients.
We get questions all the time of what is the right ingredients to be looking out for and to buy in different parts of the world.
This is important, because the wrong ingredient will leave us with a non-working or malfunctioning developer.
I ask you to submit pictures of the ingredients you use, and state what country, and where you found what you use.
I will set up an extra page, like the recipes page, where a log of ingredients sorted country by country will be kept.
Anyone can send me a short not and appropiate pictures on e-mail. Thank you beforehand.
email :
erik.prestmon@hotmail.com
erikp
This is important, because the wrong ingredient will leave us with a non-working or malfunctioning developer.
I ask you to submit pictures of the ingredients you use, and state what country, and where you found what you use.
I will set up an extra page, like the recipes page, where a log of ingredients sorted country by country will be kept.
Anyone can send me a short not and appropiate pictures on e-mail. Thank you beforehand.
email :
erik.prestmon@hotmail.com
erikp
Thursday, July 21, 2011
My final word on Iodized salt as a restrainer
Once again Reinhold has come forward with an excellent post in his blog :
http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2011/07/salt-in-soup.html#comment-form
he clearly demonstrates what one can expect, using ordinary non-iodiozed salt, iodized and comparing that to KBr, all done with the same type of film, and I think he has deliberately chosen a type of film that REALLY will give you fogging, judged on an example of a test with no anti-foggant added that he published some time ago.
His conclusion is simple : non-iodized salt will work, but one has to add more than what is accepted for iodized salt, and one run the risk of another type of fog. dichroic fogging.
Iodized salt will work, and better the higher concentration og KI in the salt.
He also demonstrates clearly that nothing compares to straight KBr, if you can find it, by all means go for that, all kinds of iodized kitchen salt seem to leave a certain fog level, and worse in the cases one really needs an anti-foggant.
Reinhold demonstrates this with pictures of the film, scanned side by side and shown as negatives, very enlighthening, and solid work as always by reinhold, he was and remains the master!
I have come to the conclusion, based on this and other examples from other blogs and net-sources that I need not concern myself any more with this. Reinhold has yet again saved me and other interested workers a lot of hard work and his recommendations are absolutes sound and solid.
I recommend Reinhold's blog BTW, visit it often and read all of it, it is well worth the time, he has put a lot of effort into his work.
http://caffenol.blogspot.com/2011/07/salt-in-soup.html#comment-form
he clearly demonstrates what one can expect, using ordinary non-iodiozed salt, iodized and comparing that to KBr, all done with the same type of film, and I think he has deliberately chosen a type of film that REALLY will give you fogging, judged on an example of a test with no anti-foggant added that he published some time ago.
His conclusion is simple : non-iodized salt will work, but one has to add more than what is accepted for iodized salt, and one run the risk of another type of fog. dichroic fogging.
Iodized salt will work, and better the higher concentration og KI in the salt.
He also demonstrates clearly that nothing compares to straight KBr, if you can find it, by all means go for that, all kinds of iodized kitchen salt seem to leave a certain fog level, and worse in the cases one really needs an anti-foggant.
Reinhold demonstrates this with pictures of the film, scanned side by side and shown as negatives, very enlighthening, and solid work as always by reinhold, he was and remains the master!
I have come to the conclusion, based on this and other examples from other blogs and net-sources that I need not concern myself any more with this. Reinhold has yet again saved me and other interested workers a lot of hard work and his recommendations are absolutes sound and solid.
I recommend Reinhold's blog BTW, visit it often and read all of it, it is well worth the time, he has put a lot of effort into his work.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
IKEA to the rescue!
Anyone that has a hard time finding volumetric measures now has an excellent source : the swedish furniture & storeys supplier meglamorate IKEA!
In their warehouse I recently discovered a set of excellent volumetric measures, 1 ml, 5 ml, 15 ml and large, translated to US measures these are 1 pinch, 1 teaspoon (1 tsp), 1 tablespoon (1 tblsp) and 1 coffee-measure.
It is very convenient to use volumetric measures, once one has calibrated & adapted one's workhabits to them. As soon as one gets used to working with coffenol and mixing developer on the fly it is very easy and rewarding to leave the weights behing and enter the float-zone and rely on volumetric measures.'
I routineously use these measures, but at the same time issue a warning : whenever one of the components are changed, then re-calibrate the measure for said component. How this is done in a scientific manner is thoroughly described already in this blog, just have a quick look at the the instalment "What IS a teaspoon...." .
The IKEA-set of measures are so cheap, in the best IKEA tradition, that any worker can buy more than one set. Buy FOUR : one for the missus, to keep the calm in the house and 3 for the Master of the House, that way one can mark the measures with for instance nail polish and reserve one for Soda, one for Ascorbic acid and one for Coffe, saves time on cleaning for those concerned about that.
Also the teaspoon measures are fine for 1 tank - 1 film usage, while the tablespoon measures are fine for 1 litre mix use, they just needs to be calibrated for the purpose.
Myself I have calibrated my components thusly :
Water to fill 11 US fluid ounces (start with 8 oz and top up as soon as all components are in.
Soda (anhydrous, decahydrate needs 2.7 times as much) 3 teaspoons
Ascorbic acid powder (pure powder marked E300 in Europe) 2 teaspoons
Instant Coffe (blackest, cheapest you can find, "office coffee) 7 teaspoons.
Now I strongly urge anyone to meticoluosly calbrate their own measures to their own chemicals.
But I note in passing : Coffenol is a very forgiving mix, many workers report success from wildly variating recipes, one can get away by slightly altering development times for instance.
Therefore, chances are you can use my recommendations here as is, and get a mixture quite similar to the mixture known as Reinhold's Caffenol CC-M. If you add ca 0.5 gram KBr (Potassium bromide to this mix, the result equals Reinhold's CC-M mixture.
Start times are 15 - 16 minutes for most film types, with a little longer for C41 and longer still for Fuji C41 films and 400 ISO films. Feel free to experiment, it is fun!
Update on mixing a litre :
Since 11 US fluid oz is close to 1/3 of a litre and since the difference between 1 teaspoon and 1 tabklespoon is also 1:3 it is *real easy to use volumetric measures for a litre mix also.
Just use the tablespoon measure and measure out 3 tblsp, 2 tblsp and 7 tblasp from each ingredient as outlined above and top up the water to 1 litre and you should be close enough to be able to home in on perfect results!
Best of luck and please do share examples of your work, either by sending them to me or sharing them on Flickr!
In their warehouse I recently discovered a set of excellent volumetric measures, 1 ml, 5 ml, 15 ml and large, translated to US measures these are 1 pinch, 1 teaspoon (1 tsp), 1 tablespoon (1 tblsp) and 1 coffee-measure.
It is very convenient to use volumetric measures, once one has calibrated & adapted one's workhabits to them. As soon as one gets used to working with coffenol and mixing developer on the fly it is very easy and rewarding to leave the weights behing and enter the float-zone and rely on volumetric measures.'
I routineously use these measures, but at the same time issue a warning : whenever one of the components are changed, then re-calibrate the measure for said component. How this is done in a scientific manner is thoroughly described already in this blog, just have a quick look at the the instalment "What IS a teaspoon...." .
The IKEA-set of measures are so cheap, in the best IKEA tradition, that any worker can buy more than one set. Buy FOUR : one for the missus, to keep the calm in the house and 3 for the Master of the House, that way one can mark the measures with for instance nail polish and reserve one for Soda, one for Ascorbic acid and one for Coffe, saves time on cleaning for those concerned about that.
Also the teaspoon measures are fine for 1 tank - 1 film usage, while the tablespoon measures are fine for 1 litre mix use, they just needs to be calibrated for the purpose.
Myself I have calibrated my components thusly :
Water to fill 11 US fluid ounces (start with 8 oz and top up as soon as all components are in.
Soda (anhydrous, decahydrate needs 2.7 times as much) 3 teaspoons
Ascorbic acid powder (pure powder marked E300 in Europe) 2 teaspoons
Instant Coffe (blackest, cheapest you can find, "office coffee) 7 teaspoons.
Now I strongly urge anyone to meticoluosly calbrate their own measures to their own chemicals.
But I note in passing : Coffenol is a very forgiving mix, many workers report success from wildly variating recipes, one can get away by slightly altering development times for instance.
Therefore, chances are you can use my recommendations here as is, and get a mixture quite similar to the mixture known as Reinhold's Caffenol CC-M. If you add ca 0.5 gram KBr (Potassium bromide to this mix, the result equals Reinhold's CC-M mixture.
Start times are 15 - 16 minutes for most film types, with a little longer for C41 and longer still for Fuji C41 films and 400 ISO films. Feel free to experiment, it is fun!
STÄM set of 4 measures
Glanced from the IKEA catalog these comes in several colors,
I only found these green colored ones
From the label here one can clance all data,
it should be possible to order this by phone or the Net from Ikea
order number 801.523.58 several colors.
The catalog names these measures as :
1 spicemeasure, 1 teaspoon, 1 tablespoon (spiseskje in scandinavian) and 1 desiliter (1/10 liter)
These are marked 1ml, 5 ml, 15 ml and 1 dl respectively.
Since 11 US fluid oz is close to 1/3 of a litre and since the difference between 1 teaspoon and 1 tabklespoon is also 1:3 it is *real easy to use volumetric measures for a litre mix also.
Just use the tablespoon measure and measure out 3 tblsp, 2 tblsp and 7 tblasp from each ingredient as outlined above and top up the water to 1 litre and you should be close enough to be able to home in on perfect results!
Best of luck and please do share examples of your work, either by sending them to me or sharing them on Flickr!
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Sceptic
It seems we have some sort of "in-thing" movements in our little world of ascorbate developers.
All of a sudden there is an explosion of posts about the latest *thing*, and all of a sudden everyone agrees that we have the Solution........
For a long time noone paid much attention to fog, most people was amazed over the fact that Caffenol worked at all, and people overlooked the fact that underdeveloped images without contrast was not such a great achievement, & preferred to talk about artistic values instead.....
When ascorbic acid was introduced, and especially Reinhold's improved, more concentrated formula was introduced, we had a developer every bit as good as commercial products, and pretty son fog levels and developer fog was a theme.
KBr of potassium bromide was quickly introduced as a solution. KBr is indeed the classical restrainer & anti-foggant in photograpic developer formulae.
I wrote a little about cirtic acid as an alternative :
http://ascorbate-developers.blogspot.com/2011/03/citric-acid-as-replacement-for-kbr-look.html
Citric acid is said to work as an anti-foggant solely by lowering the pH levels, a look at this article will raise some suspicion over that, my puublished calculations show very little effect on the total pH in the mix (except for low concentration CC-L), and since citric acid works very well as an anti-foggant at roughly double the weight added compared to KBr, I personally think the action from citric acid is a little more involved than some quarters think.
KBr on the other hand seems to work quite straightforward : in solution KBr is dissociated into K+ and Br- ions. In the film emulsion we have silver HALIDES, that is silver salts from bromide, iodide and chloride (fluoride is generally not used, since it is very active). In modern times silver bromide is used more thjan the others, because it is more sensitive to light, originally silver chloride was used, and that is much less light sensitive.
Now during development silver ions, Ag+ is redusced to metallic silvers and deposited in the emulsion as silver grains (clumped together), while Br- is released into solution.
Generally speaking, if Br- is then added to the solution via KBr, the Br- ions from this addendum will tend to keep the red-ox reactin in check, and slow down development.
Lately replacing KBr with ordinary table salt has been discussed a lot. Lately a lot has been written about IODIZED table aslt as a replacement for KBr. Pictures have been shown, thast seems to prove that this works. And fairly unsubstantiated claims that the very very small convcentration of KI, potassioum iodide is why this seems to work.
Frankly speaking I remain somewhat sceptical about that.
First because there is relatively little AgI, solver iodide, in modern emulsions, so any addition of I- ions is likely not to work directly, like KBr have been proven to do by the whole industry.
Second because the amount of iodides is so small in table salt, compared to chlorides, that the effect thereof is likely to drown, straight KBr works directly and at a much higher concentration.
But judging from the pictures table salt seems to work, and why?
Well there are fly's in the ointment : one worker has reported a severe case of fogging or staining from the salt addition. This "salt effect" is most likely connected with the heavy dose used - at least 10 times the weight, compared to KBr, and probably has to do with the same effect as adding salt to food, a heavily salted ham changes it substantially, compared to fresh food....
That table salt seem to work, is beyond question, the trouble is WHY?
Since noone seems to have run comparative tests, I'd like to see that.
Not only comparisons to KBr and citric acid (who both works just fine), but also comparative tests between non-iodized salt and iodized salt. I have a pretty strong hunch there would be less difference between iodozed and non-iodized table salt, thatn what is suggested.
In non-scietific terms I think that might have to do with a "halide-effect". It might be that a higher concentration of any halide-ions (Br-, I- & Cl-) in the solution works more or less the same and pushes the equilibrium towards a less active developer.
If that is the case, the massive dose of Cl- from the table salt (NaCl ---> Na+ & Cl-) is the operator, not the miniscule addendum of I-.
Since the iodized table salt available over here has 1/5 the concentration of KI in it, compared to US and EU table salts, and ince the slat additions suggested have been linked with the KI concentration in the salt, I have not tested this yet.
If I where to use the iodized table salt available, I would have to add not 10 grams, but 50 grams, personally I'm not prepared to do that, I think such a massive dose of salt would be bad for my developer, and I'm struggling with taming other effects already.
But I'd love to se a test run comparing identically exposed films, developed with Caffenol, and 4 variations, no anti-foggant, KBr, non-iodized table salt and lastly iodized table salt.
If set up for a film type known to require some anti-foggant, it would be possible to decide if table salt is a viable alternatiove to the industry standard KBr, and wether the small amount of iodide has any bearing on this at all.
At least I think its way to early to declare that iodized table salts are the way to go, KBr works 100% as advertized and table salt really has to prove itself.
Just my opinion of course YMMV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sceptic
All of a sudden there is an explosion of posts about the latest *thing*, and all of a sudden everyone agrees that we have the Solution........
For a long time noone paid much attention to fog, most people was amazed over the fact that Caffenol worked at all, and people overlooked the fact that underdeveloped images without contrast was not such a great achievement, & preferred to talk about artistic values instead.....
When ascorbic acid was introduced, and especially Reinhold's improved, more concentrated formula was introduced, we had a developer every bit as good as commercial products, and pretty son fog levels and developer fog was a theme.
KBr of potassium bromide was quickly introduced as a solution. KBr is indeed the classical restrainer & anti-foggant in photograpic developer formulae.
I wrote a little about cirtic acid as an alternative :
http://ascorbate-developers.blogspot.com/2011/03/citric-acid-as-replacement-for-kbr-look.html
Citric acid is said to work as an anti-foggant solely by lowering the pH levels, a look at this article will raise some suspicion over that, my puublished calculations show very little effect on the total pH in the mix (except for low concentration CC-L), and since citric acid works very well as an anti-foggant at roughly double the weight added compared to KBr, I personally think the action from citric acid is a little more involved than some quarters think.
KBr on the other hand seems to work quite straightforward : in solution KBr is dissociated into K+ and Br- ions. In the film emulsion we have silver HALIDES, that is silver salts from bromide, iodide and chloride (fluoride is generally not used, since it is very active). In modern times silver bromide is used more thjan the others, because it is more sensitive to light, originally silver chloride was used, and that is much less light sensitive.
Now during development silver ions, Ag+ is redusced to metallic silvers and deposited in the emulsion as silver grains (clumped together), while Br- is released into solution.
Generally speaking, if Br- is then added to the solution via KBr, the Br- ions from this addendum will tend to keep the red-ox reactin in check, and slow down development.
Lately replacing KBr with ordinary table salt has been discussed a lot. Lately a lot has been written about IODIZED table aslt as a replacement for KBr. Pictures have been shown, thast seems to prove that this works. And fairly unsubstantiated claims that the very very small convcentration of KI, potassioum iodide is why this seems to work.
Frankly speaking I remain somewhat sceptical about that.
First because there is relatively little AgI, solver iodide, in modern emulsions, so any addition of I- ions is likely not to work directly, like KBr have been proven to do by the whole industry.
Second because the amount of iodides is so small in table salt, compared to chlorides, that the effect thereof is likely to drown, straight KBr works directly and at a much higher concentration.
But judging from the pictures table salt seems to work, and why?
Well there are fly's in the ointment : one worker has reported a severe case of fogging or staining from the salt addition. This "salt effect" is most likely connected with the heavy dose used - at least 10 times the weight, compared to KBr, and probably has to do with the same effect as adding salt to food, a heavily salted ham changes it substantially, compared to fresh food....
That table salt seem to work, is beyond question, the trouble is WHY?
Since noone seems to have run comparative tests, I'd like to see that.
Not only comparisons to KBr and citric acid (who both works just fine), but also comparative tests between non-iodized salt and iodized salt. I have a pretty strong hunch there would be less difference between iodozed and non-iodized table salt, thatn what is suggested.
In non-scietific terms I think that might have to do with a "halide-effect". It might be that a higher concentration of any halide-ions (Br-, I- & Cl-) in the solution works more or less the same and pushes the equilibrium towards a less active developer.
If that is the case, the massive dose of Cl- from the table salt (NaCl ---> Na+ & Cl-) is the operator, not the miniscule addendum of I-.
Since the iodized table salt available over here has 1/5 the concentration of KI in it, compared to US and EU table salts, and ince the slat additions suggested have been linked with the KI concentration in the salt, I have not tested this yet.
If I where to use the iodized table salt available, I would have to add not 10 grams, but 50 grams, personally I'm not prepared to do that, I think such a massive dose of salt would be bad for my developer, and I'm struggling with taming other effects already.
But I'd love to se a test run comparing identically exposed films, developed with Caffenol, and 4 variations, no anti-foggant, KBr, non-iodized table salt and lastly iodized table salt.
If set up for a film type known to require some anti-foggant, it would be possible to decide if table salt is a viable alternatiove to the industry standard KBr, and wether the small amount of iodide has any bearing on this at all.
At least I think its way to early to declare that iodized table salts are the way to go, KBr works 100% as advertized and table salt really has to prove itself.
Just my opinion of course YMMV.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sceptic
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Pre-wash, another myth exploded?
Back when I was young I learned how to develop films and pictures in what was a traditional photo club. I learned the tricks of the trade from people who learned their way around a darkroom in the 1930's (still has negatives from railwayman, music conductor, tetotaller spokesman and amateur photographer Alfred, my first great darkroom buddy).
I was told how to do things and what not to do, and after a few stupid mistakes, what I was told is still ingrained......
There was never anyone mentioning pre-wetting, pre-wash or anything remotely like that. Mind you these oldies where guys that started up with Kodak cameras where you could inscribe picture data on the back of the film, via an opening in the back and a metal pen to pierce the backing paper slightly. They upgraded to pack-film or glass plate cameras, and developed by hand, in red light, after desentizising the film (after the general advent of panchromatic film) Maybe they where pre-washing glass plates - it was never mentioned, these guys where happy over the transition to 120 (or even 620) film, some had moved on to 135 film and leica-format cameras, Alfred never did, he was perfectly happy with his quality german folder, 6x6 with something as rare as a 75mm f:2,8 lens...
Moving on into the small format world I had to rely on books, and Hans Windisch' famous "neue Fotoschule" was the foundation. Recently I found a like new copy of that book and have read it several times. hans was famous for his fine-grain developers, his W665 and W22 still lives on to this day. A few days back I went through this book another time just to check the facts. Absolutely NO mention of pre-wash techniques, and Hans was very particular in his darkroom, a great photographer too, who made several landmark pictures after WW2.....
OK the check this further I went to my tome on photo techniques : Wissenschaftliche und Angewandte Photographie" :
a) Pre-wash and its influence. In some cases the light sensitive
material is pre-washed in water in order to avoid adherence of
air bubbles during the development and the resulting flaws.
Bernd :
Bernd :
***********************************************************
My take on that : modern emolutions don't NEED pre-wash. On the contrary pre-wash may couse more and other problems than one tries to solve, and better solutions to the original problem is easily at hand.
I have said and stand by : this is an outdated technique, something someone has gleaned from an old book without properly understanding what they have read, and why it was done back in the day.
To try to impress others, it seems to me this is a case of the blind leading the blind or The emperors new clothes.
If you want reliable, prdictable & repeatable results you need not do this.
If it makes you happy, knock yourself out.
The book cited was an update on a german standard used at german universities both pre and post WW2, for students of photo technology....
You seem to offer only individual anecdotes...
I was told how to do things and what not to do, and after a few stupid mistakes, what I was told is still ingrained......
There was never anyone mentioning pre-wetting, pre-wash or anything remotely like that. Mind you these oldies where guys that started up with Kodak cameras where you could inscribe picture data on the back of the film, via an opening in the back and a metal pen to pierce the backing paper slightly. They upgraded to pack-film or glass plate cameras, and developed by hand, in red light, after desentizising the film (after the general advent of panchromatic film) Maybe they where pre-washing glass plates - it was never mentioned, these guys where happy over the transition to 120 (or even 620) film, some had moved on to 135 film and leica-format cameras, Alfred never did, he was perfectly happy with his quality german folder, 6x6 with something as rare as a 75mm f:2,8 lens...
Moving on into the small format world I had to rely on books, and Hans Windisch' famous "neue Fotoschule" was the foundation. Recently I found a like new copy of that book and have read it several times. hans was famous for his fine-grain developers, his W665 and W22 still lives on to this day. A few days back I went through this book another time just to check the facts. Absolutely NO mention of pre-wash techniques, and Hans was very particular in his darkroom, a great photographer too, who made several landmark pictures after WW2.....
OK the check this further I went to my tome on photo techniques : Wissenschaftliche und Angewandte Photographie" :
Im posting the forewords here for interested parties :
As one can see this is in german, so to have this properly translated I contacted Bernd, who is a german, with perfect command of the english language, to get it right.
Below is what they have to say about this topic in this german standard tome, followed by Bernd's translation.
Bernd :
The kinetics of developement in praxis
a) Pre-wash and its influence. In some cases the light sensitive
material is pre-washed in water in order to avoid adherence of
air bubbles during the development and the resulting flaws.
Bernd :
146
This procedure originates from times when no effective wetting agents
were available. Pre-washing only yields a completely even development
when the whole gelatine layer is completely soaked. Otherwise there may
be different levels of developer concentration throughout the layer.
Additionally partially soaked gelatine layers offer increased adherence
for air bubbles and dust or dirt particles. Also left over bromide salts
from the manufacturing process are washed out. This can enhance
development of less exposed areas in developers not containing potassium
bromide. In highly concentrated developers pre-washing increases the
initial development speed because of increased diffusion speed. In
diluted developers pre-washing may cause a further dilution resulting in
longer development times. Hardening of the layer only delays development
in case on intermediate drying. Pre-washing in desensitising solutions
have the same effect as pre-washing in water in terms of wetting the
layer.
Today pre-washing is hardly done anymore. Because of before mentioned
reason one would strongly advise against it. Pre-washing can be useful
to remove anti-halation layers on sheet/plate film and to protect the
developer from polution. To achieve this the sheets/plates are placed in
water until thoroughly soaked and the anti-halation is wiped of with a
sponge and rinsed before development.
This procedure originates from times when no effective wetting agents
were available. Pre-washing only yields a completely even development
when the whole gelatine layer is completely soaked. Otherwise there may
be different levels of developer concentration throughout the layer.
Additionally partially soaked gelatine layers offer increased adherence
for air bubbles and dust or dirt particles. Also left over bromide salts
from the manufacturing process are washed out. This can enhance
development of less exposed areas in developers not containing potassium
bromide. In highly concentrated developers pre-washing increases the
initial development speed because of increased diffusion speed. In
diluted developers pre-washing may cause a further dilution resulting in
longer development times. Hardening of the layer only delays development
in case on intermediate drying. Pre-washing in desensitising solutions
have the same effect as pre-washing in water in terms of wetting the
layer.
Today pre-washing is hardly done anymore. Because of before mentioned
reason one would strongly advise against it. Pre-washing can be useful
to remove anti-halation layers on sheet/plate film and to protect the
developer from polution. To achieve this the sheets/plates are placed in
water until thoroughly soaked and the anti-halation is wiped of with a
sponge and rinsed before development.
In the back of the book is a section on errors and failuers and how to correct :
Bernd :
1. Irregular, light spots
Cause: Emulsion layer touched with fingertips which always
leaves oil on the layer. These oil stains repel the developer.
These spots can also be caused by pre-washing in too cold water.
How to avoid: Never touch the emulsion with your fingers. Only
handle film on the edges. Don't pre-wash as this may influence
the developer concentration.
How to fix: No fix possible.
Cause: Emulsion layer touched with fingertips which always
leaves oil on the layer. These oil stains repel the developer.
These spots can also be caused by pre-washing in too cold water.
How to avoid: Never touch the emulsion with your fingers. Only
handle film on the edges. Don't pre-wash as this may influence
the developer concentration.
How to fix: No fix possible.
***********************************************************
My take on that : modern emolutions don't NEED pre-wash. On the contrary pre-wash may couse more and other problems than one tries to solve, and better solutions to the original problem is easily at hand.
I have said and stand by : this is an outdated technique, something someone has gleaned from an old book without properly understanding what they have read, and why it was done back in the day.
To try to impress others, it seems to me this is a case of the blind leading the blind or The emperors new clothes.
If you want reliable, prdictable & repeatable results you need not do this.
If it makes you happy, knock yourself out.
**************************************************
Dan what was it you didn't understand from the above?
The book cited was an update on a german standard used at german universities both pre and post WW2, for students of photo technology....
You seem to offer only individual anecdotes...
Kodak Tri X 120 in Caffenol
Kodak Tri X has been debated elsewhere lately, apparently some people experience trouble with Tri X. Some claims Tri X and Caffenol doesn't go well together, or that the film does not reach box speed.
I have watched some of these reports and decided to do a test myself. I note that very many of the failure reports center around two issues : Cafenol C-L with long stand development have been used, and very often pre-soad procedures have been used.
Personally I don't like stand development, being a northerner, used to plan for winter and work hard to survive that, I don't *like* lazy work habits.......
Pre-soaking is a procedure that is not advocated neither by Kodak nor Ilford, in fact Kodak have warned aginst it for several decades and hardly mention it in their literature, with a few exceptions, mainly large sheet film which is *different* from roll films.
The literature has warnings against pre-soaking, stating "it may give rise to uneven or less active development".
So much about that, from the reports I have seen some of the trouble with Tri X has been reports of extreme fogging. Combined with obvious confusion of what is true and proper recipes and/or chemicals for Cafenol, this is hardly surprizing.
So I decided to a test all by my lonesome, and dug out an old roll of Tri X from the cool cellar storage. And old roll, probably bought cheap in the late 1980's or early 1990's when some photo-shop went *modern* and cleaned out their shelves, at the time APS was supposed to take over and rule for the next 2 or 3 decades..... The roll in question has a light, bright green end on the backing paper, yellow in the middle where film is and exposure numbers are printed.
I loaded the film in my recently refurbished Agfa Isolette III camera a 120 folder with an uncoupled rangefinder (the rangefinder was repaired by myself, it was stuck thight, and the repair was easy, once I figured out how to dis- and re-assemble....).
Exposure was taken care of by my handheld Gossen LunaPro SBC, which is my gold standard as far as exposure meassurement goes.
Development was one tankful (ca 500 ml) of Cafenol C-H, reinhold's recipe weighed out exactly according to formula, with half a pinch of KBr added for fog control (a pinch is a 1 ml volumetric measure and half of that is a little less than half a gram of my KBr).
Development time was 15 minutes at a little more than 20 degrees centigrade, summer is here around these shores too, so sometimes the kitchen gets heated a little.
Everything went as planned, nothing special about the negatives - a little fog was there, and was to be expected IMHO since the film has been stored unexposed for at least 2 decades in less than perfect conditions. I put the films on the scanner, and got the good, well exposed, fully developed negatives digitized with no problems at all.
Save for personal pictures, and for a few landscape pictures where the focus of the lens was less than spectacular (seems that infinity is not infinity, or maybe my hand was shaking too much, its been a long while since I tried a good old folder....) I got some good pictures in the local marina. Have a look at a few below here they show the excellent qualities of Tri X in Cafenol well. Virtually no grain (expected, this is 6x6 on a 120 film, grain really was no problem until after Oscar Barnack came up with the Leica, before that negative AREA took care of the grain), fine well exposed negatives with lots and lots of details in both highlights and shadows.
If anything Tri X is BETTER in cafenol than in some of the esoteric miracle developers sold for high-ISO films over the years. I did get full box speed, but I don't advocate pushing the film - if one needs 3200 ISOor above go digital!
A few samples here :
I have watched some of these reports and decided to do a test myself. I note that very many of the failure reports center around two issues : Cafenol C-L with long stand development have been used, and very often pre-soad procedures have been used.
Personally I don't like stand development, being a northerner, used to plan for winter and work hard to survive that, I don't *like* lazy work habits.......
Pre-soaking is a procedure that is not advocated neither by Kodak nor Ilford, in fact Kodak have warned aginst it for several decades and hardly mention it in their literature, with a few exceptions, mainly large sheet film which is *different* from roll films.
The literature has warnings against pre-soaking, stating "it may give rise to uneven or less active development".
So much about that, from the reports I have seen some of the trouble with Tri X has been reports of extreme fogging. Combined with obvious confusion of what is true and proper recipes and/or chemicals for Cafenol, this is hardly surprizing.
So I decided to a test all by my lonesome, and dug out an old roll of Tri X from the cool cellar storage. And old roll, probably bought cheap in the late 1980's or early 1990's when some photo-shop went *modern* and cleaned out their shelves, at the time APS was supposed to take over and rule for the next 2 or 3 decades..... The roll in question has a light, bright green end on the backing paper, yellow in the middle where film is and exposure numbers are printed.
I loaded the film in my recently refurbished Agfa Isolette III camera a 120 folder with an uncoupled rangefinder (the rangefinder was repaired by myself, it was stuck thight, and the repair was easy, once I figured out how to dis- and re-assemble....).
Exposure was taken care of by my handheld Gossen LunaPro SBC, which is my gold standard as far as exposure meassurement goes.
Development was one tankful (ca 500 ml) of Cafenol C-H, reinhold's recipe weighed out exactly according to formula, with half a pinch of KBr added for fog control (a pinch is a 1 ml volumetric measure and half of that is a little less than half a gram of my KBr).
Development time was 15 minutes at a little more than 20 degrees centigrade, summer is here around these shores too, so sometimes the kitchen gets heated a little.
Everything went as planned, nothing special about the negatives - a little fog was there, and was to be expected IMHO since the film has been stored unexposed for at least 2 decades in less than perfect conditions. I put the films on the scanner, and got the good, well exposed, fully developed negatives digitized with no problems at all.
Save for personal pictures, and for a few landscape pictures where the focus of the lens was less than spectacular (seems that infinity is not infinity, or maybe my hand was shaking too much, its been a long while since I tried a good old folder....) I got some good pictures in the local marina. Have a look at a few below here they show the excellent qualities of Tri X in Cafenol well. Virtually no grain (expected, this is 6x6 on a 120 film, grain really was no problem until after Oscar Barnack came up with the Leica, before that negative AREA took care of the grain), fine well exposed negatives with lots and lots of details in both highlights and shadows.
If anything Tri X is BETTER in cafenol than in some of the esoteric miracle developers sold for high-ISO films over the years. I did get full box speed, but I don't advocate pushing the film - if one needs 3200 ISOor above go digital!
A few samples here :
Kodak Tri X, Cafenol C-H, normal agitation
developed 15 minutes @ 21 C ISO 400
Kodak Tri X, Cafenol C-H, normal agitation
developed 15 minutes @ 21 C ISO 400
Kodak Tri X, Cafenol C-H, normal agitation
developed 15 minutes @ 21 C ISO 400
Monday, June 13, 2011
TCB, discussion and more pictures.
Update : see towards the end, update on the 4th film developed in this mix, with picture examples, developed 1.5 months after the mix was first mixed and used, stored in a half-empty bottle, in a worm, well lit place..... this developer shows promise!
As promised I an pressing on with what is left of my Part A, using that as the only part.
I have now developed a Fuji Nexia A200 200ISO C41 color APS film in the brew to B&W.
I will show pictures here, and will also highlight comments received from Michael that deserves to be seen and commented. Michael is my inspiration in this, and hopefully we will find a better way of doing this than my feeble effort so far.
I have had difficulty developing Fuji C41 film at all before with caffenol, weak images, and no images at all, seemingly a hopeless proposition. I am pleased to get this at all, so far, but will need to test with one more film, my staple test vehicle Kodak Gold 200, to be able to put this in perspective.
Comments :
Michael :
Looking closer at my notes I found an interesting trend that may help explain what is going on here. I found that initial tests as a one-shot developer with relatively little p-aminophenol did not work well and results were similar to what was posted here. What I found worked was to make a re-usable version with lots of p-aminophenol and it worked to process many rolls of film. To make the re-usable version I suggest the following:
TCB Part A:
Acetaminophen - 15g (30 x 500mg tablets)
Ascorbic Acid - 6g
Sodium Hydroxide - 20g
Water to make 250mL
Let stand for 72 hours, add 5g borax and water to make 1L.
(Make a note here, Michael has corrected this recipe - it's given below in full, I just want to leave this as it was, so others can follow the discussion)
TCB Part B:
Boarax - 19g
Ascorbic Acid - 6g
Water to make 1L
Use A:B 1:9 for a normal speed (8 min) developer and 1:19 for a stand or semi-stand developer. The working strength solution can be re-used many times but I didn't determine the limit.
Erik :
Question : In part A do you mix the ingredients in the order given? When I was dabbling with my SALS13, I mixed Acetamiophen by itself with Lye (sodium hydroxide) to kickstart the chemical transformation, adding other ingredients later. Since I did not put any ascorbic acid in there until 72 hours after, most likely all of the Acetamiophen was oxidized, leaving me with a neasrly non-active developer.
I was thinking more like letting the Acetamiophen and lye brew for a while, then adding Ascorbic acid.....
Michael:
Also, based on your Flickr post I assume this is the film that turned the developer green. I see that often when using Kodak Gold 200 and my home-brew developers.
Erik :
Definitely true, and intriguing and interesting, after developing Fuji in that same, once light green brew, it has now turned slightlu orange-brown!! :-)
Michael :
Sorry, correction to the first comment, TCB part A should be 500mL total volume and not 1L so it should be as follows:
TCB Part A:
Acetaminophen - 15g (30 x 500mg tablets)
Ascorbic Acid - 6g
Sodium Hydroxide - 20g
Water to make 250mL
Let stand for 72 hours, add 5g borax and water to make 500mL.
Erik :
I have made worse mistakes in my life, I leave it here as written, so people can follow this themselves, we update only correct recipes in the Recipes section!
Michael :
I learned the hard way that p-aminophenol will oxidize rapidly without any preservative. The tell-tale sign is the colour of the mix. If it turns a deep red then you most likely have too much oxidized p-aminophenol. When making parodinal the sulfite preserves so in this case you need ascorbate. 2 hours semi-stand with the above recipe gives a +1 push with regular B&W film so you should get box speed with C-41. I will try with Kodak Gold 200 when I get a chance.
Erik :
The deep red table-wine appearance was a tell tale sign when I tested this, and got as a result nearly no activity. That was my SALS13 test. My conclusion on that was that I need to mix in a different way, and add a preservative that stops or slows down the oxidation to a level when I get a result that I want. Your suggestion to use ascorbic acid for that is genous IMHO. Only thing keeping me from having at that again is that I now have Phenidone here.... :-).
************************************************
I have just finished another test film, C41 Kodak Advantix 200 ISO, very close to the 135 Kodak Gold 200 I have used all along as a test vehicle (because I have plenty!). The film, exposed in my Canon IX APS SLR is fortunate, this camera can be programmed just like my Canon EOS 50e, to take 3 exposures, 1X, +1X and -1X, making a 25 exposure roll into a 6 picture test. I will develop this in the remaining part A from my test run, and because of the exposure triplets, will be able to determine correct ISO speed and development time much better, preparing for a new mix and test run, as soon as I have finished other things that will see the day of light in this blog.
I will publish pictures from this last film (from this mix) and wrap up things here, moving on to other iteresting things, Phenidone, for instance.
(film now developed, hung to dry. Looks strong and musty, the Kodak C41 films have always behaved better than Fuji when it comes to ascorbates. All images in triplets, one over and one under-exposed. It will be interesting to see how they scan. Pictures tomorrow)
Pictures :
I just decided to one more roll of APS film, Kodak Advatix (C41) Ultra 400 ISO.
This was the final drops of developer left from this mix, it was just enough to cover the film in the spiral, and I discarded the mix after development, after securing final pH in the mix, at pH 9.5
Since this was a 400 ISO film and it has been my experience that 400 ISO films need a little more time in the brew than 100 - 200 ISO C41 films, I devided to up the time by 25%, adding one extra minute for the developer being spent.
So I ended up with a development time of 28.5 minutes. All in all this looks to be a bit too long, another contribution to that was a slightly higher temperature, up to 21.5 C from the previous 20 C. This also would have added a minute - or rather I should have deducted a minute, perhaps a minute and a half on account of the temperature.
As usual I used 3 changes of tempered water as a stop, and fixed and washed as normally. The negatives came out quite good, perhaps a little too dense, with good contrast. This being a 400 ISO film, and a color C41 film to boot, sharpness wasn't perfect and we can see a lot of grain, also perhaps due to over-development, contrast was a bit steep, and exposure a bit trick for the auto-exposure used in counter-the-light situations. I will not recommend 400 ISO film for general use in APS cameras, too little negative area.
The negative strips of my usual test runs with one exposure box-speed, one under and one over was scanned and left asd is, and can bee seen under here, together with a few single scans that are doctured a bit for contrast and density, as I would normally do.
As promised I an pressing on with what is left of my Part A, using that as the only part.
I have now developed a Fuji Nexia A200 200ISO C41 color APS film in the brew to B&W.
I will show pictures here, and will also highlight comments received from Michael that deserves to be seen and commented. Michael is my inspiration in this, and hopefully we will find a better way of doing this than my feeble effort so far.
Burnt home........
Fuji Nexia A200 C41 APS film
developed 20 min @ 20C in TCB Part A
Traditional log home, at the site of a 200 year old former mine.
Fuji Nexia A200 C41 APS film
One more, my other hobby....
This guys will hit a pinhead - and very, very quickly...
Data as above.
These images where among the best on the APS film, some where hopelessly under-exposed & -developed, also uneven across the images, but that might have to do with the scanner that does not support APS film properly.
Comments :
Michael :
Looking closer at my notes I found an interesting trend that may help explain what is going on here. I found that initial tests as a one-shot developer with relatively little p-aminophenol did not work well and results were similar to what was posted here. What I found worked was to make a re-usable version with lots of p-aminophenol and it worked to process many rolls of film. To make the re-usable version I suggest the following:
TCB Part A:
Acetaminophen - 15g (30 x 500mg tablets)
Ascorbic Acid - 6g
Sodium Hydroxide - 20g
Water to make 250mL
Let stand for 72 hours, add 5g borax and water to make 1L.
(Make a note here, Michael has corrected this recipe - it's given below in full, I just want to leave this as it was, so others can follow the discussion)
TCB Part B:
Boarax - 19g
Ascorbic Acid - 6g
Water to make 1L
Use A:B 1:9 for a normal speed (8 min) developer and 1:19 for a stand or semi-stand developer. The working strength solution can be re-used many times but I didn't determine the limit.
Erik :
Question : In part A do you mix the ingredients in the order given? When I was dabbling with my SALS13, I mixed Acetamiophen by itself with Lye (sodium hydroxide) to kickstart the chemical transformation, adding other ingredients later. Since I did not put any ascorbic acid in there until 72 hours after, most likely all of the Acetamiophen was oxidized, leaving me with a neasrly non-active developer.
I was thinking more like letting the Acetamiophen and lye brew for a while, then adding Ascorbic acid.....
Michael:
Also, based on your Flickr post I assume this is the film that turned the developer green. I see that often when using Kodak Gold 200 and my home-brew developers.
Erik :
Definitely true, and intriguing and interesting, after developing Fuji in that same, once light green brew, it has now turned slightlu orange-brown!! :-)
Michael :
Sorry, correction to the first comment, TCB part A should be 500mL total volume and not 1L so it should be as follows:
TCB Part A:
Acetaminophen - 15g (30 x 500mg tablets)
Ascorbic Acid - 6g
Sodium Hydroxide - 20g
Water to make 250mL
Let stand for 72 hours, add 5g borax and water to make 500mL.
Erik :
I have made worse mistakes in my life, I leave it here as written, so people can follow this themselves, we update only correct recipes in the Recipes section!
Michael :
I learned the hard way that p-aminophenol will oxidize rapidly without any preservative. The tell-tale sign is the colour of the mix. If it turns a deep red then you most likely have too much oxidized p-aminophenol. When making parodinal the sulfite preserves so in this case you need ascorbate. 2 hours semi-stand with the above recipe gives a +1 push with regular B&W film so you should get box speed with C-41. I will try with Kodak Gold 200 when I get a chance.
Erik :
The deep red table-wine appearance was a tell tale sign when I tested this, and got as a result nearly no activity. That was my SALS13 test. My conclusion on that was that I need to mix in a different way, and add a preservative that stops or slows down the oxidation to a level when I get a result that I want. Your suggestion to use ascorbic acid for that is genous IMHO. Only thing keeping me from having at that again is that I now have Phenidone here.... :-).
************************************************
I have just finished another test film, C41 Kodak Advantix 200 ISO, very close to the 135 Kodak Gold 200 I have used all along as a test vehicle (because I have plenty!). The film, exposed in my Canon IX APS SLR is fortunate, this camera can be programmed just like my Canon EOS 50e, to take 3 exposures, 1X, +1X and -1X, making a 25 exposure roll into a 6 picture test. I will develop this in the remaining part A from my test run, and because of the exposure triplets, will be able to determine correct ISO speed and development time much better, preparing for a new mix and test run, as soon as I have finished other things that will see the day of light in this blog.
I will publish pictures from this last film (from this mix) and wrap up things here, moving on to other iteresting things, Phenidone, for instance.
(film now developed, hung to dry. Looks strong and musty, the Kodak C41 films have always behaved better than Fuji when it comes to ascorbates. All images in triplets, one over and one under-exposed. It will be interesting to see how they scan. Pictures tomorrow)
Pictures :
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
left ISO 200, middle ISO 400, right ISO 100
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 200 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 400 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 100 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
left ISO 200, middle ISO 400, right ISO 100
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 200 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 400 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 100 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 100 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 200 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
Canon IX APS, Kodak advantix 200
Exposed at 400 ISO, developed at 22 min @ 20C
To me this experiment highlights two things, the TCB-developer, even at this mix gives good ISO, it will allow box speed and it gives finer grain than Cafenol C.
This experiment has been goood, even after a false start. I will adjust the mix procedure and adjust the formula, and will listen carefully to the suggestion from Michael.
Also this experiment underlines that this developer will certainly develop several films with little or no adjustment of developing times, that might indicate that ascorbic acid has been mixed in to saturation, so that this protects and restores the tylenol. The initial troubles was most likely because the tylenol componenet did not react as designed.
At the moment I think this developer survives well in a closed bottle, and that it can be used as a standby developer. It might be needed to adjust times to specific films, most likely ordinaru B&W will require less development time, while the troublesome Fuju's will need more time. Only time will show. I now close this chapter and looks to other things.
*********************************
I just decided to one more roll of APS film, Kodak Advatix (C41) Ultra 400 ISO.
This was the final drops of developer left from this mix, it was just enough to cover the film in the spiral, and I discarded the mix after development, after securing final pH in the mix, at pH 9.5
Since this was a 400 ISO film and it has been my experience that 400 ISO films need a little more time in the brew than 100 - 200 ISO C41 films, I devided to up the time by 25%, adding one extra minute for the developer being spent.
So I ended up with a development time of 28.5 minutes. All in all this looks to be a bit too long, another contribution to that was a slightly higher temperature, up to 21.5 C from the previous 20 C. This also would have added a minute - or rather I should have deducted a minute, perhaps a minute and a half on account of the temperature.
As usual I used 3 changes of tempered water as a stop, and fixed and washed as normally. The negatives came out quite good, perhaps a little too dense, with good contrast. This being a 400 ISO film, and a color C41 film to boot, sharpness wasn't perfect and we can see a lot of grain, also perhaps due to over-development, contrast was a bit steep, and exposure a bit trick for the auto-exposure used in counter-the-light situations. I will not recommend 400 ISO film for general use in APS cameras, too little negative area.
The negative strips of my usual test runs with one exposure box-speed, one under and one over was scanned and left asd is, and can bee seen under here, together with a few single scans that are doctured a bit for contrast and density, as I would normally do.
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed as shown, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed at ISO 800, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed as shown, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed at ISO 800, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed as shown, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed at ISO 200, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed as shown, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
left to right, ISO 400, ISO 800, ISO 200
Canon IX APS, Kodak Advantix 400
Exposed at ISO 200, developed at 28.5 min @ 21.5C, TCB mix
This cocluded my test run so far with the TCB-developer, it started with a small disaster, since I strongly feel the mixing procedure was incorrect, too little of the Tylenol was initially converted into a super-additive pair of developing agents with the ascorbic acid, this left me with half as much of the mix as I intially did expect.
However the results shown here, after the initial disaster came from part A of the mix only, i.e. half the volume. I have plans for further tests, but with a different mixing procedure, to start the transformation of the tylenol, and the protect the result with ascorbic acid, as suggested by Michael.
So far this developer yelds excellent results, but cannot create magic, as 400 ISO C-41 APS films definitely WILL be grainy like hell, no matter what developer is used. What is promising is that it now seems that normally exposed films will reach 400 ISO from 200 ISO films, and 800 ISO from 400 ISO films, even from this rather weak brew, and do so easily.
I definitely suggest further tests here.
Another positive side is : it took more than 1.5 months between my initial mix and use of this brew and until the last film developed. Even when kept on an half-empty bottle, in a well lit, warm kitchen, in a blank, see-through bottle, little effect and activity was lost, if kept in a cool place, in a stoppered and full bottle and in the dark, this developer should keep used for months easily.
More tests on that is sure to follow, as soon as i have the proper mix down pat.
***********************************************************
Thank you for your valuable input here Michael, without your knowledge and insights and practical experience, I'd be completely lost!
Saturday, June 4, 2011
TCB - Tylenol, Ascorbate, Borax - pictures.
Kodak Gold 200 ISO 200 C41 color-negative film.
Developed in part A ONLY of the TCB developer ph 9.3, 20 centigrade, normal agitation. Time 30 minutes at 20 centigrade, did reach only half box speed
The developer in part A did not react as expected, apparently the initial concentration of NaOH was too low to convert the Tylenol tablets (paracetamol plus additives) into a proper developer, but a fairly high addition of ascorbic acid most likely saved the day, even at a very low pH of 9,3 in this mix.
This brew did not follow the recipe given below, since there at first try was no activity, the dosage of NaOH was doubled in the hope that activity would pick up.
This test was a least straw after the initial and original plan failed, I skipped part B entirely (30 gram Borax per liter) and used only part A for a higher concentration and more activity. Even at that I only got about half box speed.
Triplet stripe from left to right :
ISO 200, ISO 100, ISO 400
ISO 100
Triplet stripe from left to right :
ISO 200, ISO 100, ISO 400
ISO 400
ISO 100
Triplet stripe from left to right :
ISO 200, ISO 100, ISO 400
Kodak Gold 200 exposed ISO 100 developed as above
Back to the drawing board, I will now try to duplicate Michaels recipe exactly, to see if that gives better results.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)