View Full Version : Found film help needed
I have a roll of found film, 120 Ilford HPS Panchromatic. "Chromatic" means slide film right?
This is from the Super Ricohflex my father's friend gave him. If I can develop it and return the photographs to him that would be nice.
I wonder if 40yo slide film can be developed?
I'm pretty sure that Panchromatic means that it is B+W film that is sensitive to all colours of the spectrum as opposed to orthochromatic which has no sensitivity to red. You've got yourself some B+W film there, Ralph!
Now I have to figure out how long to let it swim in the D76. It isn't listed on the Massive Development Chart. Any other ideas?
back alley
03-28-2005, 16:09
rover,
time/temp for pan f would be a place to start.
i think pan f is rated at 50 and my guess is your film was rated at 32.
joe
Go to thsi site: http://website.lineone.net/~mauricefisher/Ilford%20Chronology.html
1956 puts it right where I think I am looking.
"Ilford HPS roll film (120 size) and 35mm film introduced "the fastest film in the world". Fast panchromatic, 400ASA in daylight, 320ASA in tungsten light. "
So it is a fast film.
http://www.toptown.com/nowhere/kypfer/RetinetteGuide/retinetteGuide3.htm
scroll down a bit until you see a subtitle: 35mm B+W films
It lists HPS as 800 ASA
Too tired to think anymore.
Right now I am thinking D76 1:1 for 13 minutes.
I will search more tomorrow.
That sounds good.
Some developers are called compensating developers, that is, they are not too aggressive but just develop as much as they should and then additional time does not result in more development. I think D76 is a more aggressive developer used to maximize film speed. You may be better off with Ilfosol S or some other less aggressive developer.
Thanks for the help Frank.
Now I have to figure out how long to let it swim in the D76. It isn't listed on the Massive Development Chart. Any other ideas?
With film that you know nothing about I would recommend Diafine, not D76.
There is ABSOLUTELY no more forgiving developer. It is a two part compensating developer. You do not have to monitor either time, about 4 minutes (more or less) for part A, then 4 minutes (more or less) for part B, or temperature (as long as parts A&B are even remotely close to the same temperature when you start.).
You will find Diafine to be a somewhat 'flat' developer, not nearly as contrasty as others but with a large dynamic range. However, this is a GOOD characteristic nowadays in that scanned negatives let you do a lot with the information you scan whereas in the paper/chemical based darkroom, you sometimes had to use some pretty contrasty paper to get the best from Diafine.
Check it out. There is info available on the net about this great old developer. I use it all the time. Ilford HP/FP films loves the stuff and it is perhaps the best developer for Tri-X ever made.
Tom
That's what I was talking about. Good one, Tom!
That's what I was talking about. Good one, Tom!
I am amazed more people do not know about Diafine. I have been using it for 35 years.
Got one roll each of Tri-X, HP5, T-Max, Plus-X and Agfa APX 100?
Throw them ALL in the soup at the same time... 35mm or 120 makes no difference either.
Great stuff and it lasts FOREVER. You can keep using the developer for as long as you have enough part A left to cover the film roll. I have used the same gallon batch for over a year with several hundred rolls put through it. Part B gets a bit grungy looking but it keeps on working. Seems to get even better after a dozen or so rolls have been put though it too, just like the old 777 formulation did.
It is the only developer I use any more. Truly the lazy and frugal man's dream.
Tom
back alley
03-28-2005, 17:38
1956 puts it right where I think I am looking.
"Ilford HPS roll film (120 size) and 35mm film introduced "the fastest film in the world". Fast panchromatic, 400ASA in daylight, 320ASA in tungsten light. "
So it is a fast film.
amazing how 'close' i was!
aggghhhh.......!!!!!!!!!!!!!
joe
tedwhite
03-28-2005, 20:38
I used to use both Acufine and Diafine back in the '60's. Also Rodinal. I can't recall why I quit the three and went to D76.
I probably used them in the first place because, as a newbie, I had been told they worked better when you pushed TriX.
This is a good start to the morning.
Thanks guys
Wow, this Diafine sounds great, now I have to find some.
Ok, from my lunch time reading, do you shot your films at the film box speeds or at the speeds recommended on the Diafine box?
Has anyone developed fast film, Delta 3200 or TMax 3200 in it?
Wow, this Diafine sounds great, now I have to find some.
You can click through to Adorama -- they stock it.
I've been looking for months for a Canadian supplier, with no luck. It's not economical for me to pay cross-border shipping for a box of chemicals ...
Gene
Hi Rover -- I'm a fan of Diafine, now my only silver-B&W developer. Since varying the time/temp of development (within broad limits) has no effect on the image density, the only remaining variable element is exposure. Diafine is a super compensating developer that, by increasing the density of shadow areas of the image, truly increases the film speed of some films. Some films like Pan F are not boosted in speed, while Tri-X is, for instance. Though the Diafine box may be a little optimistic on the suggested film speeds, that's your best guide. I think they say 1600 for Tri-X, whereas 1000-1200 is more realistic, but that's only down half a stop or so. I also run Ilford FP4 at EI 250...
I have shot Delta 3200 at EI 1600 and developed in Diafine, but I have not printed or scanned it to be able to share samples. But the negs look excellent.
Diafine not available in Canada? Pity.
I read that although the Diafine box recommends higher speeds, because it is a low contrast developer to rate film at the recommended ISO for better shadow detail without blowing out the highlights. Really interesting.
www.dunnamphoto.com/diafine_developer.htm
Gene, I am going to call, or click Adorama now. I called the local retailers who would be some what convenient for me, and no one has it. :(
The most likely shop says they occationally have it in stock, but not today. I wonder if it can be shipped through the mail? I will find out I guess.
But, getting to the current found-film situation... the reason Tom's suggestion is so reasonable is in the nature of the way Diafine works. Developing agent soaks into the emulsion in Part A, but no development occurs. Part B activates the development process, but of course the only developer present is carried over by the film. When it's exhausted, development must stop. Minimal agitation in Part B is best. That's because you want to localize Diafine's activity, such that denser areas of the image exhaust their local supply of developer and then stop developing to keep the highlights from blocking up. At the same time, low-density (shadow) areas can keep developing to completion, when there's no more exposed silver salts to work on. Too much agitation undermines the localization of this compensating activity.
So, here Diafine is a good choice because it will operate pretty well on the image regardless of the exposure... When the highlight or overexposed areas exhaust their developer, they stop developing. Where the film got less exposure, it gets continued development to compensate, bringing up whatever detail is possible. For the found film it may not give ideal results, but it's the best chance for decent usable results for an unknown film with unknown exposure.
Not in stock at Adorama. I never trust their web site, I called and they don't have it.
Diafine found, and it may be availible in Canada too.
It seems this is a Canadian Company.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_main.php?cat_id=301
I'd love to get me some of that.
I called and confirmed that it is in stock, and just ordered two gallon packages. If it last forever, then I should be set.
Diafine found, and it may be availible in Canada too.
It seems this is a Canadian Company.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_main.php?cat_id=301
Their mailing address is Hollywood ... I wonder why this developer is so hard to come by?
Gene
They list Canadian shipping charges.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c_pol.php
I wonder if they retail in CA but warehouse in Canada? They do ship internationally so you should be able to purchase it here.
I wasn't able to find a web site for Acufine or Diafine, must be made in small batches by a chemical company.
Wow, this Diafine sounds great, now I have to find some.
Ok, from my lunch time reading, do you shot your films at the film box speeds or at the speeds recommended on the Diafine box?
Has anyone developed fast film, Delta 3200 or TMax 3200 in it?
I have never done the 3200 speed films in Diafine.
Use the Diafine box speeds to give you a starting point, but I found that Tri-X exposed at 1250 always got it spot on for me. By the way, IMHO Diafine is the best developer for Tri-X there is.
Diafine has two weaknesses. Actually, one and a half. :) The second weakness is actually a benefit in lots of situations.
The only "shooting" drawback to Diafine is that you cannot re-rate the film you shoot by adjusting the developer time. For example, with Tri-X you shoot it at 1250 and that is that. No "pushing" can be done with Diafine although some old newspaper shooters will tell you tricks about "double developing" film in Diafine.
I think you will end up liking Diafine. Especially if you are doing the final print prep work in a digital darkroom where Diafine's single "darkroom" drawback (low contrast in some lighting situations) is not a factor.
Tom
Rover, the website is a little confusing. I wonder if Diafine comes under the mantle of 'hazardous materials'. I hope not, since that adds a lot to the shipping price. Yes, they'll ship to Canada but I'd rather buy locally and avoid the shipping charge.
Gene
I wonder why this developer is so hard to come by?
Gene
It is old and out of fashion at present.
Us old farts that shot for newspapers remember it though.
Another benefit. If you shoot in 'theatrical' lighting (contrasty, stage lighting) Diafine will produce the best negatives you ever saw. REALLY helped control that tough lighting along with just about any nighttime, wide luminosity situation.
Last, and returning to the thread subject, unknown film may have been exposed any old way. You don't know. With Diafine, what was exposed will be automatically developed to its maximum potential without over development. And that is how it can save your bacon, since you don't know how the film was shot to begin with. With almost ANY B&W film, I can guarantee you will get a usable negative when developed in Diafine, provided the exposure was even close to correct. That was another reason it was so loved by news shooters (and photo editors).
Tom
PS: Betcha can't tell I am a BIG fan of Diafine, huh?
I read that although the Diafine box recommends higher speeds, because it is a low contrast developer to rate film at the recommended ISO for better shadow detail without blowing out the highlights. Really interesting.
www.dunnamphoto.com/diafine_developer.htmDecent link with good info. But on the film speed issue, he may be running into the same effects I was several decades ago with low shadow detail, meaning low effective film speeds. I kept lowering the EI until I got down to box speed, and even then I wasn't really happy with the results and switched to Edwal FG7 for Tri-X.
It's only in recent years I've realized what the problem was: excessive agitiation, about what I commonly do with other developers. I think the Diafine instructions don't sufficiently caution the user to employ very gentle, minimal, agitation.
I believe what happens is that agitation to the degree that would be normal with other developers tends, in Part B, to wash the Part A developer out of the emulsion and off the film surface, and dilutes it into the overall volume of fluid where it's ineffective. The result is thin negatives having run out of developing agent far too early, especially noticeable in the darker areas of the image. It's my view that agitation in Part B (it's irrelevant in A) should be kept extremely gentle, only enough to let the byproducts of development drift away from the surface of the film. Similar to what happens in "stand development", though that's more extreme.
I think the Diafine instructions don't sufficiently caution the user to employ very gentle, minimal, agitation...
Bingo.
Diafine needs hardly ANY agitation in the normal sense of the term.
Dump in part A. Whack the tank to loosen bubbles and LEAVE IT ALONE.
3.5 to 4 minutes later, drain part A, pour in part B and whack the tank again. ONCE during the 4 minutes in part B, do an inversion. That's it. No more is necessary... indeed, more is harmful.
As I said earlier, truly the lazy man's developer. No watching a stop watch twiddling with a tank. If you forget to invert, no big deal. If you forget it is in the soup for 10 or fifteen minutes, no big deal.
Tom
You guys are my heros. I can't wait to get this stuff.
I've been looking for Diafine for a year, and haven't found anyone in Canada that has it, and I've also known that B&H won't ship it.
Okay.. any others in the GTA want to get in on one order? There's a $25- minimum, and it's only $13.99 for 1gal.
I most recently got Diafine at a retail store (Glazers) in Seattle, but I think I recall hearing that Adorama does ship it, unlike B&H, as they use different shippers.
I've been looking for Diafine for a year, and haven't found anyone in Canada that has it, and I've also known that B&H won't ship it.
Okay.. any others in the GTA want to get in on one order? There's a $25- minimum, and it's only $13.99 for 1gal.
Kin, I've been wanting to try Diafine for a long time. I'd be happy to join you on an order.
Gene
I tried emailing the 2 big camera shops in Toronto today: Henry's and EightElm. They are unable to source Diafine in Canada. It's going to have to come from the States.
You gents will soon be sloshing gallons of Diafine! I'll want to hear personal experiences and observations, and of course see the pics. :)
Maybe if we order enough they will make some more available.
back alley
03-29-2005, 16:55
does diafine come in a round can with a white label with blue trim on it?
joe
I got the stuff in the box
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=301&pid=5558
back alley
03-29-2005, 17:09
i need to check but i think we have that here at mcbain camera, a local pro shop.
joe
I got the stuff in the box
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=301&pid=5558
The box shot above is the correct one. Inside the box is two tin cans. Marked A & B
In the "Gallon" kit, EACH can makes a gallon of solution (total two gallons).
The stuff has the half-life of concrete. It will last a LONG time. If you start now, you will be using that gallon kit this time next year and will start feeling guilty about getting such good results from stuff that looks SO bad. I do not think I ever 'wore out' a batch. Part A just went away after a while.
What happens is that as it is used, part A soaks into the emulsion and slowly diminishes in volume. Because the film soaks it up, you pour back slightly less each time it is used.
Part B seems to actually increase in volume as you go along (as well as beginning to look like a science experiment gone terribly wrong) and you will end up having to pour some out.
Do not let the appearance of the developer put you off. It keeps working just fine even though it might not look so good. By the way, NEVER shake it up.
Keep in mind a gallon kit does not actually hit its stride until a dozen or so rolls have gone through it. Then it keeps going like the proverbial Energizer Bunny.
Tom
Okay.. that's 3 servings of Diafine at the table in Toronto (GeneW, FrankS & myself). Anyone else in the GTA?
Well, it's fun to see how this thread went on. As some of you know, I was in the same position last summer (you can read it on the 'Diafine' thread), and after somebody here provided a link, found the only (I think) place that will ship it worldwide via normal USPS and not UPS or Fedex, that was Huron Camera. They don't stock it but usually get it 3-4 days after you place the order. Shipping was $12 for 2 gallon cartons, not bad for who-knows-how-many years of developer, it got here in 3 weeks via slow boat (not a bad timing) as this thing can't fly.
I simply LOVE the stuff, and it's true, the B solution gets real ugly, loses that nice creamy color and gets a dull brown, also gathers residues from the developing process, so you end getting a brown bottle with black worms floating around :) (that can be filtered, of course).
The truth is that the stuff simply works GREAT even if it's that ugly, and I can't now think on a reason to go get another developer, maybe for experiments but diafine seems made for lazy people so I'm too lazy for that... :p
As for agitation, I haven't found significant differences, I move the tank at first to get rid of any possible bubbles and then do a couple or three small inversions during the process. What seems important to me is to have the stop bath (water) and the fixer at the same temp. For that I always have a 5 litre bottle filled with tap water at room temp and use that as a stop and post-fixer bath as well. Then finally I give the usual bath in distilled water with some wetting agent.
I mostly use Neopan 400 rated at 640 (not that important in the end as now I nearly always guess the exposure) and Tri-X at 1250. Both look great. Also had very good results with FP4 rated at 250.
So far, Diafine and me, it's a love story.
It is just possible that C41 chemistry will do the job.
It is just possible that C41 chemistry will do the job.
Huh?!? c41 chem is significantly more complicated and temperature sensitive, and this is a 25+ year old roll of traditional b&w film.
My mistake, I read the original post as being chromogenic.
Well the story comes to a sad end. I dunked the found film today,
Result,
Sometime in the past 40 or more years the film was exposed to light, dark strip, no images.
Thank you everyone for your help and guidance to Diafine. I have been shooting my Tri X and will post some Diafine results soon.
Too bad about that found film, Ralph, but look on the bright side, everyone learned about Diafine developer and got hooked on it!
Yep, lots can happen in 40 years. Too bad, but it might have come out otherwise!
back alley
04-10-2005, 17:19
bummer
joe
Well, it's fun to see how this thread went on. As some of you know, I was in the same position last summer (you can read it on the 'Diafine' thread), and after somebody here provided a link, found the only (I think) place that will ship it worldwide via normal USPS and not UPS or Fedex, that was Huron Camera. They don't stock it but usually get it 3-4 days after you place the order. Shipping was $12 for 2 gallon cartons, not bad for who-knows-how-many years of developer, it got here in 3 weeks via slow boat (not a bad timing) as this thing can't fly.
I simply LOVE the stuff, and it's true, the B solution gets real ugly, loses that nice creamy color and gets a dull brown, also gathers residues from the developing process, so you end getting a brown bottle with black worms floating around :) (that can be filtered, of course).
The truth is that the stuff simply works GREAT even if it's that ugly, and I can't now think on a reason to go get another developer, maybe for experiments but diafine seems made for lazy people so I'm too lazy for that... :p
As for agitation, I haven't found significant differences, I move the tank at first to get rid of any possible bubbles and then do a couple or three small inversions during the process. What seems important to me is to have the stop bath (water) and the fixer at the same temp. For that I always have a 5 litre bottle filled with tap water at room temp and use that as a stop and post-fixer bath as well. Then finally I give the usual bath in distilled water with some wetting agent.
I mostly use Neopan 400 rated at 640 (not that important in the end as now I nearly always guess the exposure) and Tri-X at 1250. Both look great. Also had very good results with FP4 rated at 250.
So far, Diafine and me, it's a love story.
Very enthusiastic 2!! Awesome stuff!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.