Film almost transparent

Hello,

Please excuse my poor English, I speak french.

I own a Lubitel 166B, and I've tested the Caffenol processing.

I used the classic recipe (C-H), with a 1mn vinegar+water stop bath (I
need to buy acetic acid) and a 5mn fixing using Ilford Rapid Fixer. The
result was an almost transparent film : http://hpics.li/d38c698

I tested my washing soda, and he have a 20% water. So I tested a 2nd
film, adjusting the washing soda quantity and processing 16mn instead of
15mn... for an almost identical result.

Is a transparent film a sign of a too short processing ? Must I let the
caffenol acting for a 30mn time to be sure ?

franssoa

 

It can be sign that the developer did not develop. If
there are edge markings on the film it indicates the film
was developed but not exposed, if no edge markings the
developer did not work.
I am skeptical of these odd developers. There are
plenty of conventional developers that work very well.

 

I do not remember who said it (Kenneth Mees?) that the plethora of film
developing formulae gives us many means by which identical results may
be obtained. Start with D-76d or something and change only if you need to.

 

Attributed to Kenneth Meese but I don't remember where I
first saw it. I must agree, Kodak did a lot of research on
reliable developers, their characteristis are well
established. Almost every manufacturer of film, paper,
chemicals, had some version of the Kodak formulae. The main
differences were in AGFA formulas which sometimes specified
potassium salts in place of sodium. The main reason was that
AGFA produced enormous amounts of potassium as a by-product
of their chemical industry. They also had a couple of
patented reducing agents (like Rodinal). For the most part,
until the relatively recent evolution of ascorbic acid and
Phenidone derivatives, most formulas used Metol (originally
an AGFA trade-name, called Elon by Kodak) and hydroquinone
in various ratios depending on the results desired. While
some very modern formulas, like Xtol, are somewhat superior
to the old ones its not be a lot so one can do very
satisfactory work with D-76 (preferably in its buffered form
published by Kodak as D-76d) for film and D-72 (formula
version of Dektol) for paper. I am fascinated by the use of
eccentric developing agents like tea or coffee. They may
have properties as reducers but are thoroughly inferior to
the half-dozen agents that were found over the last century
and a half. Even the use of pyro is somewhat eccentric
because M-H formulas are more reliable and generally longer
lasting. Its fun to experiment but for serious work an
established and reliable developer is very desirable. There
are not many left in packaged form. I am not sure what
Kodak is currently offering but I think T-Max RS, which is
an active developer which is its own replenisher, Xtol,
which yeilds somewhat finer grain than T-Max and similar
developers from Ilford. Ilford also offers Perceptol, an
extra-fine-grain developer identical to Kodak Microdol-X
which is now discontinued.

 

I think the problem was the original poster was in a location where film
developers were no longer available and it was impractical to mail order
them.

Caffeine and vitamin C developers have the advantge of being made from
easily available household items, no one is going to become suspicious
if you buy a kilo of either.

There also was a flurry of activity at one time using the active ingredient
in Tylenol as a developer, but in many places it is very expensive, even
as a generic medication.


Geoff.

 

Le 24. 02. 14 09:44, Geoffrey S. Mendelson a écrit :

Thank you (all of you) for your replies.

I know there is plenty of good products manufactured by Kodak, Ilford,
Agfa... and I have used some of them .... a lot of years ago.

I wanted only test the Caffenol as a more ecological alternative. It's
only as an hobby, and I don't care much the quality (I know the quality
would be a lot better with commercial products).

My original post was only to try to discover where was a failure and how
to correct it.

This film ( http://hpics.li/d38c698 ) is almost transparent with my
recipe and 15mn processing, and I was curious if I can go to 30mn ?

I think I'll just try, and report results to you.

franssoa

 

I would not bet on that. Someone I used to know wanted to identify
whether or not some wild mushrooms were the psychedelic ones or not, and
she wondered if I could get some para methyl aminophenol sulfate for her
to use for testing. I sent her a small film can of the stuff. Not
something I would do. I do not even know if she ever used it or not. But
if word got out in a restrictive society, they would probably make it
illegal.

 

Le 24. 02. 14 13:44, Franssoa a écrit :

Same recipe at 22°C (~72°F) with 30mn processing, and the result is a
lot better : http://hpics.li/f94af73

franssoa

 

Very good, I would not have thought this developer could
work so well.

 

Le 28. 02. 14 07:22, Richard Knoppow a écrit :

Thank you, yes I'm happy with this results.
Now I have to manage the focus (and exposure) on my Lubitel. More than
30 years with an autofocus and automatic camera give bad habits...

franssoa

 

A coffee-based recipe that I saved (but never tried) specifies 25-30 minutes
developing time. It also claims good sharpness and tonal range.