Comments on: I take my coffee black and white.

I take my coffee black and white.

nomad — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:33:42 -0800

Developing black and white film at home just got much cheaper. It's possible to develop film using tea, coffee, or even vitamin C. To avoid being called a fustian photography nerd, call it caffenol (or caffeinol, but not that caffeinol).

By: Gungho

Gungho — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:44:18 -0800

Tres cool. I am just now rebuilding my BW darkroom. One of the problems I have been dealing with is the shelf life of expensive chemistry, as I am sure I will only be developing every once in a while it would suck eggs to have to buy new rodinol every time.

By: splatta

splatta — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:51:27 -0800

Have you tried diafine? It's only two chemicals, and can be almost indefinitely reclaimed. You just have to push or pull depending on what kind of film you're developing.

By: splatta

splatta — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:52:03 -0800

oops sorry: diafine

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 07:54:00 -0800

Oh neat!

By: 327.ca

327.ca — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:03:57 -0800

Rodinal lasts a zillion years. My uncle used to have a bunch of glass marbles in a jar in his darkroom. After each roll he developed, he'd drop one marble into the Rodinal bottle, bringing the level of liquid back up to the top.

By: matteo

matteo — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:10:09 -0800

I was talking to a friend of mine about digital cameras and b/w developing. The two of us together, we have about 70 exposed rolls of Tri-X and even (gasp) FP4 in the fridge, simply because we can't be arsed anymore and this is a sad thing

By: Plutor

Plutor — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:24:40 -0800

matteo: "The two of us together, we have about 70 exposed rolls of Tri-X and even (gasp) FP4 in the fridge, simply because we can't be arsed anymore" For one fleeting moment, I thought you said that you had 70 unexposed rolls, and I was about to email you my mailing address. Then I read it correctly.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:27:05 -0800

This is great. And you can use a slide projector as an enlarger, if you're very quick with the switch.

By: scruss

scruss — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:27:23 -0800

Coffee produces very murky results; my findings are here.

By: 327.ca

327.ca — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:28:12 -0800

Just a quick warning to the curious: Rodinal is a really rotten substitute for coffee.

By: splatta

splatta — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:37:31 -0800

matteo: and I thought my five or six rolls sitting in my fridge undeveloped was bad! I know what you mean though, on top of developing, scanning them and post processing the images, it's all a big hassle.

By: nomad

nomad — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 08:38:01 -0800

I've had very non-murky results after trying this a few times, and I don't see any murk in the shots from the chromogenic article. It is possible to get normal looking photos using this technique.

By: aladfar

aladfar — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:01:03 -0800

This arcane knowledge has been around for some time. It is kind of neat to develop with coffee (I've never tried it and might give it a spin) but much prefer using proper chemicals for photos that I care about. And it's not like a bag of D76 or a bottle of Edwal concentrate (what I've been using lately) is particularly expensive. I suppose it's a bit of a hassle to develop film, but I find that I really enjoy the process. I put some music on an invert my tank to the rhythm. It's sort of meditative, in a way. Of course, were I a professional with 70 rolls to process I'd probably think of it in very different terms.

By: Nicholas West

Nicholas West — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:58:41 -0800

matteo:develop those rolls of film as soon as you can, because they are a wonderland of surprises and great stuff. There is nothing more fascinating than developing a forgotten but recently re-discovered roll of film. They are like a time machine - suddenly you are faced with images of long-forgotten situations, places, people. Pictures you totally forgot you made are suddenly great treasures.

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:31:04 -0800

scruss: you used bicarbonate of soda, or baking soda - are you sure this is the same thing as "washing soda" that's mentioned in the article? I'm a bit confused on this point as well, but the article does make special mention of the fact that washing soda will do, where baking soda will not. Can anyone clarify this point? And anyway, the picture you took and developed with the coffee looks great, I can't wait to try this.

By: 327.ca

327.ca — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:42:30 -0800

I think "washing soda" usually refers to sodium carbonate.

By: weapons-grade pandemonium

weapons-grade pandemonium — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 10:57:40 -0800

Washing soda will consume two equivalents of acid, while baking soda will only consume one equivalent.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 12:20:00 -0800

I didn't think developing B&W film was that expensive. Making prints, OTOH...

By: StarForce5

StarForce5 — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 14:05:52 -0800

This is cool and seems more enviro-friendly than standard photo chemicals. odinsdream: Washing soda is different than baking soda. More concentrated I guess. I think you can find Arm & Hammer washing soda in the cleaning products aisle.

By: oats

oats — Thu, 20 Apr 2006 19:06:08 -0800

Washing soda is sodium carbonate Na₂CO₃, which will give you a fairly high pH at the concentrations in these recipes. Baking soda is sodium hydrogen carbonate, NaHCO₃, which will give you a pH much closer to neutral. You can think of baking soda as washing soda that's had half of its basicity neutralized. Different reducing agents have differing requirements for the strength of the activator--I think there are some really hot developers that will work with bicarb, but plain soda is more common, and some developers even require lye (sodium hydroxide, NaOH, caustic and nasty, but you can get the pH up to 14 with it if you really want :).