Interesting demo of the Rondinax 35U processing tank. These were made by Agfa in the 1950s, but disappeared in the late 1960s. Where a basic processing tank might cost (then) $5=10, the Rondinax cost $35=50, so you don't see them littered around. In the last few years, we have the LabBox, which is nearly direct copy, but also suffers from a huge price difference. The main problem using a Rondinax tank is that you have to continuously turn that knob on the side, which is a pain in the ass. Why? Because there is no water tight seal for the hole in the side where the shaft of the knob goes through the tank side and connects to the film reel. If you put more solution in the tank, it leaks like a sieve. So, you can only fill the tank up to the reel spindle. That leaves half the film out of the developer, so you have to keep tuning the knob/reel to get even development. LabBox solves this problem by using very effective, water-tight seals at that point. The idea of paying $150 for a 60-year-old Rondinax is insane. A new LabBox works far better and costs about the same amount, assuming that you'd pay $150 for any film processing tank.
I started watching your channel with the Konica iia video but after seeing your whole list of videos I find soooo much interesting stuff. Some of it reeeeally interesting. It’s gonna be a long weekend I know ☕️🙌
Hi Greg! Great video! I just developed my first roll of film using caffenol! Same recipe as you show. I developed Ilford FP4 with very nice results. I just noticed that the roll you developed in your Paterson tank was a C-41 B&W film! The results look great, so I’ll try a C-41 film now too. Thanks for testing this kind of film for us. Also love that Agfa tank! Cheers from USA 🇺🇸! Anthony.
There must be 50 videos running through the process of mixing up some version of Caffenol and developing a roll of film, most of which dwell on virtues (often misstated) and none of the negative aspects, like this video. So, lets summarized why not to waste your time, money and film playing around with Caffenol. Then, use it or not as you wish. (1) it isn't cheap, as suggested. If you bought the same bulk chemicals rather than store-products intended for other uses, you would pay much less per roll to mix it up. The reason is that the store products have other things in them for other uses and get a huge retail price mark-up. Example, the instant coffee. It provides a "phenol", which comes in a variety of B&W film developers as the primary developing agent. You use at least 10 to 30 times as much coffee to get the same about of developing agent as just buying the raw chemical agent. Same for the "Vitamin C" tablets. (2) Caffenol lacks chemical components which are in normal developers. Why? Because there is no supermarket product to provide them, and that gimmick is what caffenol is all about. (3) Contra the video, it cannot be reused. Caffenol omits the chemical which preserves the solution from oxidation, so it dies in about one hour, whether you use it or not. (4) The final results are fairly poor by comparison. The Caffenol solution omits a "restrainer", which means that the base fog on the processed film (as visible here if you look) is very high, making contrast and tonal separation quite poor. This high fog condition can be partly corrected if the film is scanned and the image repaired digitally, but these negative are unprintable on photo-paper in a darkroom. What caffenol does for you is let you play around with making a semi-usable film developer as a first experiment. If you go to a chemical store (probably on-line, like Photographers Formulary) to buy the chemical components required to make a real developer, like D-76, you will have to buy a minimum amount of each which will allow you to make enough developer to process literally hundreds of rolls of film. The cost per roll developed is far less than using caffenol, but the initial, minimum investment in chemicals is going to be several times higher than a trip to the supermarket. [[Into photo chemistry - Yes. Hipster - Not Hardly.]
More likely red flashing lights from an ambulance, as "washing soda" is the supermarket name for sodium hydroxide or "lye", one of the most caustic and dangerous chemical components you can find used in B&W film chemistry.
If my camera allows, I wind back the film without losing the leader into the canister. Otherwise there's a couple of tricks you can use to retrieve the leader such as th-cam.com/video/3ZrR8w8BhwQ/w-d-xo.html
Hi Greg, the first film seemed to show muddy shadows whereas the second seemed quite good with shadows. Do you think that was due to the film used or the Caffenol Dev?
Interesting demo of the Rondinax 35U processing tank. These were made by Agfa in the 1950s, but disappeared in the late 1960s. Where a basic processing tank might cost (then) $5=10, the Rondinax cost $35=50, so you don't see them littered around. In the last few years, we have the LabBox, which is nearly direct copy, but also suffers from a huge price difference. The main problem using a Rondinax tank is that you have to continuously turn that knob on the side, which is a pain in the ass. Why? Because there is no water tight seal for the hole in the side where the shaft of the knob goes through the tank side and connects to the film reel. If you put more solution in the tank, it leaks like a sieve. So, you can only fill the tank up to the reel spindle. That leaves half the film out of the developer, so you have to keep tuning the knob/reel to get even development. LabBox solves this problem by using very effective, water-tight seals at that point. The idea of paying $150 for a 60-year-old Rondinax is insane. A new LabBox works far better and costs about the same amount, assuming that you'd pay $150 for any film processing tank.
I started watching your channel with the Konica iia video but after seeing your whole list of videos I find soooo much interesting stuff. Some of it reeeeally interesting. It’s gonna be a long weekend I know ☕️🙌
welcome aboard :)
Very interesting, I should give it a try!
Hi Greg! Great video! I just developed my first roll of film using caffenol! Same recipe as you show. I developed Ilford FP4 with very nice results. I just noticed that the roll you developed in your Paterson tank was a C-41 B&W film! The results look great, so I’ll try a C-41 film now too. Thanks for testing this kind of film for us. Also love that Agfa tank! Cheers from USA 🇺🇸! Anthony.
Glad you got good results. They tend to vary a bit, but it's a good experiment
That was strangely fascinating Greg.
Film can be fun if you have the time and inclination
There must be 50 videos running through the process of mixing up some version of Caffenol and developing a roll of film, most of which dwell on virtues (often misstated) and none of the negative aspects, like this video. So, lets summarized why not to waste your time, money and film playing around with Caffenol. Then, use it or not as you wish. (1) it isn't cheap, as suggested. If you bought the same bulk chemicals rather than store-products intended for other uses, you would pay much less per roll to mix it up. The reason is that the store products have other things in them for other uses and get a huge retail price mark-up. Example, the instant coffee. It provides a "phenol", which comes in a variety of B&W film developers as the primary developing agent. You use at least 10 to 30 times as much coffee to get the same about of developing agent as just buying the raw chemical agent. Same for the "Vitamin C" tablets. (2) Caffenol lacks chemical components which are in normal developers. Why? Because there is no supermarket product to provide them, and that gimmick is what caffenol is all about. (3) Contra the video, it cannot be reused. Caffenol omits the chemical which preserves the solution from oxidation, so it dies in about one hour, whether you use it or not. (4) The final results are fairly poor by comparison. The Caffenol solution omits a "restrainer", which means that the base fog on the processed film (as visible here if you look) is very high, making contrast and tonal separation quite poor. This high fog condition can be partly corrected if the film is scanned and the image repaired digitally, but these negative are unprintable on photo-paper in a darkroom.
What caffenol does for you is let you play around with making a semi-usable film developer as a first experiment. If you go to a chemical store (probably on-line, like Photographers Formulary) to buy the chemical components required to make a real developer, like D-76, you will have to buy a minimum amount of each which will allow you to make enough developer to process literally hundreds of rolls of film. The cost per roll developed is far less than using caffenol, but the initial, minimum investment in chemicals is going to be several times higher than a trip to the supermarket.
[[Into photo chemistry - Yes. Hipster - Not Hardly.]
That takes me back.. the dark bag.
Developed film at school many moons ago. Those were the days 😆
I'll say, I haven't used developer myself for 45 years!
@@GregCarrick be the same for me too.
@@GregCarrick So, why is he putting up this video, if he doesn't know what he is talking about?
Those images turned out awesome 👌
Thanks, the expired film was a bit less contrasty, so I'm sticking with the Ilford Delta for the next few rolls.
@@GregCarrick 👍
Great video mae!
Thanks :)
Awesome. I learned a lot today! 😁
I may not ever use this technique but anyway awesome that these things exist.
I agree, awesome pictures and process. I was wondering, could you swap coffee for PG Tips?
Yes you can. Basically anything that was acidic.
I was expecting to see blue flashing lights as the polis arrived on a drugs bust 😉
More likely red flashing lights from an ambulance, as "washing soda" is the supermarket name for sodium hydroxide or "lye", one of the most caustic and dangerous chemical components you can find used in B&W film chemistry.
I may be showing my ignorance but how did you get the leader out of the canister without opening it?
If my camera allows, I wind back the film without losing the leader into the canister. Otherwise there's a couple of tricks you can use to retrieve the leader such as th-cam.com/video/3ZrR8w8BhwQ/w-d-xo.html
Hi Greg, the first film seemed to show muddy shadows whereas the second seemed quite good with shadows. Do you think that was due to the film used or the Caffenol Dev?
It's the Caffenol, every time, every film.