Topic: No longer film development virgins.

[limr]

So I've finally made the leap and started developing my own black and white film. Don't ask me why it's taken me 20 years. I'm sure being a vagabond for a good 14 of those 20 years didn't help  Of course, I already have questions! But before I get to those questions, I just have to say one thing about my first self-developed roll: SO.FRIGGIN'.COOL!!!

But now the background and question:

The boyfriend and I both decided to deflower ourselves at the same time. We both had test rolls shot on Kentmere 100, so I went looking through my 'research sites' for a recipe that would be good for that film. On a Flickr discussion, I found a post by someone who said he used a certain recipe/procedure for Kentmere 100 that always worked well for him. Here's the site: http://www.starsignproductions.com/Caffenol.htm

The film came out well overall, but there was a lot more contrast than we are generally used to. I'm not sure if this is an artifact of Caffenol in general or just the recipe we used. I do have the Caffenol Cookbook downloaded (very impressive, Ezzie and imagesfrugales!) and come Caffenol websites bookmarked for recipes and tips  and I have actually read them, but alas - I'm a bit overwhelmed! (Astrobeck - you mentioned a Facebook discussion group, but I found a few of them - do you have a link for yours so I know which one it is?)

I'm attaching some some pictures to show what I mean. They're all from my K1000, same lens (Asahi 50mm) and same film (Kentmere 100). I tried to find the shots that were higher contrast anyway so you could see the difference. The contrast in the Caffenol shots seems more. I know that exposure might be an issue, but even things that are a bit blown in traditional developer just look a little different.

The first two pictures are from a roll developed by our lab guys with traditional developer: (for comparison purposes)

The next three are from the roll developed in Caffenol. The second and third are bracketed shots - I thought it might be useful to see different exposures (to control for that variable.)

So, is this what I expect from this film/developer combination, or do I need a different recipe for better results with the film?

My other question is about the fixer dilution in that recipe, which calls for a 1+3 dilution of Ilford Rapid Fixer (which we used). Isn't that stronger than necessary? In all the reading I've done, I've always seen it diluted more than that. For my paper negatives I've done in the pinhole, it was a 1+4 dilution, and for film, the directions on the bottle and most websites I've consulted call for a 1+9 dilution. Could this have had any effect on contrast? And even if it doesn't affect contrast, is there a different issue that could happen from using fixer that undiluted?

So I'm quite pleased with my first effort, and I was SO psyched to see those images on the film as I pulled it out of the reel, but of course, now comes 'real' work - the tweaking and getting better images rather than 'just images'

*deep breath* *post*

[SLVR]

They look good! Welcome to the club!

To answer your fixer dilution question. I use ilford rapid fixer as well and mix 1:9. I fix 5:00 and it seems to do a good job for me. agitate every 30 sec.

[Terry]

I ask you: is there ANYTHING in the world better than unrolling a roll of film fresh out of the developing can and seeing the images on it? 

I use a recipe that I stumbled on long ago: http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/coffee-caffenol-film-developing/

I've always gotten a good tonal range with various Ilford films, Fuji Acros, and Foma and haven't felt the need to try other recipes.  So I can't give much advice except to recommend some experimentation to find the formula that gives results you like best.  That last shot looks pretty good--the tonality seems close to that of the car shot above it.

[SLVR]

for me, that would be sloshing the developer around waiting for your print to be born before your eyes.

[Terry]

A subtle way of saying I need to get the thumb out and finish my bathroom/darkroom conversion project.  Thanks for the motivation!!!!

[Francois]

Yes, over-fixing will bleach the film and affect contrast. That's why I always fix for the recommended "double clearing time" or thereabout duration. I also only use fixer that's diluted 1+4 (that's for both paper and film) like it says so in some of the Ilford literature.

And when the fixer takes too long to fix film, I send it to my paper fixer bottle.

[limr]

Thanks for the help, folks!

We did another roll of Kentmere - just waiting for drying and scanning. Next step is trying the current batch on some HP5 later today. Then we start tweaking the recipe. Thanks for the link, Terry!

I ask you: is there ANYTHING in the world better than unrolling a roll of film fresh out of the developing can and seeing the images on it?

There might be something in the world that is better, but all I know is that I had a big stupid grin on my face for hours after seeing those first images on the strip

[imagesfrugales]

Congratulations to your "first", I guess it didn't hurt?

The Kentmere 100 = Rollei RPX 100 and Caffenol-C work very well together, I like this combo very much, f.e.:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagesfrugales/6122637653/#

This I developed in my Caffenol-C-M recipe.

I don't know how you process your negs for online presentation, but probably that's the point here and not only the negative qualitiy.

The contrast of a neg doesn't depend in first line on the developer but on development time, temperature and agitation.  If you have a proper Caffenol recipe there's no need for tweaking the developer itself but the mentioned parameters. Develop longer -> more contrast and vice versa. Agitate more -> more contrast and vice versa. That are basic rules for every kind of film developer and of course they also apply for Caffenol-C.

Even if you don't use a scale you should be very sure about the used soda and if it's hydrated or not and how much. That's by far the the biggest source for problems. I explained that in detail here:
http://caffenol.blogspot.de/search/label/%22trouble%20shooting%22

With Caffenol-C you can expect at least boxspeed. With a suitable development you easily get an increased film speed by about 1 or 2 stops with full or almost full shadow detail. That's what I  like especially about Caffenol-C.

In general contrasty negs are perfect for scanning but not for silverprints. For the latter you should aim at lower contrasts and of course these negs are also scannable with good results.

Best - Reinhold

PS: I do not recommend to reuse Caffenol-C but only one-shot for reproduceable results.