View Full Version : Diafine Diaries
Well, my first two rolls of Tri X met the Diafine this afternoon. They are up drying and look good. ( really am not the person to be asking to evaluate a negative ) I will roll them as Gene suggested for the over night to flatten them and cut them into strips in the morning. I will scan them as soon as I can. I can't wait.
Impressions of the Diafine process. Man, being a hypertensive spaz I didn't know what to do with myself. About 4 minutes in solution 1, no aggitation after getting the stuff settled down, and then only 1 mild aggitation in solution 2. Lots of time to wash all the measures an stuff.
Can't wait to post some shots, good or bad.
back alley
04-17-2005, 16:09
lookin' forward them.
can't seem to locate any diafine in edmonton, too bad as i would like to try it.
but i'll keep using the rodinal and see what comes of that.
joe
I had to buy mine mail order, so keep that in mind. I called all the shops that are even remotely located near where my daily life takes me, and nobody has the stuff. One place, the most likely source, said they get it somewhat regularly, but don't always have a stock. The guy paused and then said, "I guess we sell it though because it doesn't stick around too long." Maybe they will start keeping a regular stock of it.
bmattock
04-17-2005, 16:29
I get all my chemistry mail-order - nothing like a photo store out this way. I've been using gold ol' D76 with all my B&W film stock, but I'm intrigued by what I've been reading and seeing here about Diafine.
I have a can of Accufine that was recommended to me by the folks at Freestyle - they said it was great stuff to push HP5+ out to hyper velocities. Anyone have any thoughts on that? I may have to leave it on the shelf for awhile longer and try some Diafine.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
I will roll them as Gene suggested for the over night to flatten them and cut them into strips in the morning.
Huh?
"Roll" them? Why? Hang them up in your bathroom with a clothes pin weight on the bottom to keep them straight and start scanning them in an hour.
DO NOT roll up film and let it dry. Unless you just like wrestling worms to get them flat for the scanner.
Film dries very quickly. No need to wait overnight.
I shot two rolls of HP5+ this afternoon. Shutter tests for a Zorki 4k (1/1000 capping :( ), put them in the soup, rinsed for 30 minutes, hung and dried for an hour. Scanned them a few minutes ago with a Nikon LS8000. I keep all my negatives in Adorama 3-ring archival clear poly pages. Keeps them nice and flat forever.
Tom
Yep, I do that too. I've got string strung across my darkroom ceiling. One clothespin to hang the film from the string, another clothespin to weigh down the other end. Done (dry) in 1 hour.
Impressions of the Diafine process. Man, being a hypertensive spaz I didn't know what to do with myself.
Yeah, great isn't it! :)
No stop watches, no calculating pour times, no temperature worries. The first time I showed a friend how to use Diafine, I thought he would have a fit from pure idleness. Had to keep whacking his hand because he was forever staring at his watch and trying to agitate the tank.
Tom
I just did a couple rolls tonight. I hope you have better luck loading your reels than I. I'm starting to think that I should just go to sheet film. I load 'em fine in the daylight, just not when it gets dark. GRRR. Stainless steel reels are TOUGH.
Love the Diafine look. Pan F is still 80!
Stephanie Brim
04-17-2005, 20:26
I'm lucky that a camera shop about 2 hours away stocks Diafine. I'm going to have to get my hands on some of it and do some of my own black and white this summer.
Huh?
"Roll" them? Why? Hang them up in your bathroom with a clothes pin weight on the bottom to keep them straight and start scanning them in an hour.
DO NOT roll up film and let it dry. Unless you just like wrestling worms to get them flat for the scanner.
Film dries very quickly. No need to wait overnight.
I shot two rolls of HP5+ this afternoon. Shutter tests for a Zorki 4k (1/1000 capping :( ), put them in the soup, rinsed for 30 minutes, hung and dried for an hour. Scanned them a few minutes ago with a Nikon LS8000. I keep all my negatives in Adorama 3-ring archival clear poly pages. Keeps them nice and flat forever.
Tom
I hung them to dry for a few hours then rolled them in reverse of their curl to flatten them out. Gene had mentioned this in another thread. It worked well, they should lay nice and flat when I scan them. (I was playing soccer in the evening yesterday so no scanning for me. When my son went upstairs for his bath last night I lasted about 45 minutes before I had to find a pillow. If I didn't I was risking a bump on my head when I collapsed and smashed it on something. Yesterday was one of those productive an fun days.)
Yeah, great isn't it! :)
No stop watches, no calculating pour times, no temperature worries. The first time I showed a friend how to use Diafine, I thought he would have a fit from pure idleness. Had to keep whacking his hand because he was forever staring at his watch and trying to agitate the tank.
Tom
No timer indeed, I just used the clock on the oven.
I just did a couple rolls tonight. I hope you have better luck loading your reels than I. I'm starting to think that I should just go to sheet film. I load 'em fine in the daylight, just not when it gets dark. GRRR. Stainless steel reels are TOUGH.
Love the Diafine look. Pan F is still 80!
I bought a changing bag and I think this helps. Although you can't see your hands, you can see something. At least the way my brain is working now a days it needs this little additional Stimulus. It also gives me more time to do the "dark" stuff. I don't have a darkroom so with out the changing bag I have to wait until night time, seal up the one window and cracks in the door of a bathroom, then load the reels. With the changing bag, yesterday I turned on the race, put all the stuff I needed in the bag, spun it around, popped my hands in the sleeves, and away I went in front ot the TV.
Yep, I also love using a changing bag rather than a darkroom, but for similar reasons. Plus, it is nice to have along when out testing new-old cameras (you can simply open the camera inside the bag to get out the film if something is not working...)
Roman
I knew a photographer friend who kept his eyes closed when loading film in a changing bag.
I keep my eyes closed too when fumbling with film in a changing bag.
I knew a photographer friend who kept his eyes closed when loading film in a changing bag.
Insurance against light leaks? :cool:
Tom
Must be. Don't want to fog the film!
I hung them to dry for a few hours then rolled them in reverse of their curl to flatten them out.
I have never found this to be necessary. Indeed, rolling up film emulsion side out seems like a perfect way to scratch the film if you are not exceedingly careful.
Mine goes from the drying hanger directly into 6-frame strip archival poly pages in a 3 ring binder. The page is then labeled and the film is out of the atmosphere right away (cuts down on dust). They are already flat when they are cut into strips and go into the binder and they stay flat. I take them out two strips at a time to scan (because that is what my Nikon scanner holds). Then right back into the poly sleeve.
I have very few dust or scratch problems.
Tom
o0dano0o
04-18-2005, 07:47
diafine is photographic ambrosia - mmmmmmm tasty
it's really all i ever use anymore for my b&w - it even works with bluefire!
not having to worry about temp or time is really nice
my 2centavo rantola for the day
Those who know the story already know that I love Diafine :) Be sure to bump this thread when you post the results Rover !!
And as for closing your eyes even when you use a changing bag... well, in fact in some way that eliminates visual distractions and *increases* your sense of touch :rolleyes:
Only Time to scan one batch this morning.
I like what I see so far.
Tri X at 1250 in Diafine.
Yellow Filter on a 50 Summicron.
Looks good to me Rover ! Some people also claim that Diafine is the way to go if you expect to mix very different exposure frames on a same roll. I take that as 'leave the meter at home' :) and most times it's true if you are a bit experienced at guessing exposure.
Other times ... it's not :rolleyes:
Keep 'em coming !
If you blow the exposure Diafine isn't going to save you any more than other developers. These are from a batch of 10 images, 2 strips, of which 4 were from a quick shot to finish off the roll. I needed a P&S that afternoon because I obviously wasn't paying attention to the camera settings. Pretty bad stuff. I will perhaps scan the images again to see if I can get something better, but I doubt it.
I tried a couple new things I have learned here over the past couple weeks. I tried to scan the images as trasparency postives with the intention to convert them in PS, need to work on this. I did roll the film to take out the curl, that worked to some degree, no Newtonian Rings. And I sepia toned the first shot a little.
Very nice, Rover. Man, you were at it early!
Any magic from the Canon 50mm f1.5 lens to report on yet, Ralph? Or Brian?
Still on the first roll. It hasn't been off the camera since it arrived.
I love the title of this thread, Rover.
I've had a box of the stuff for like 3 months now and just can't find the initiative to mix it up. I look at the side of the box and see all those E.I.'s and take exception to a developer telling me how to expose my film. :eek:
I like the idea of the compensating action of two bath developers which are great for high contrast scenes, so I know I'll get around to trying them out; but since almost every published formula I've seen for two-bath developers state a 3 minute time, and a wide temperature range, without stating a recommended EI, I start to wonder just how flexible Diafine really is. Just some thoughts. :angel:
reellis67
04-19-2005, 11:31
since almost every published formula I've seen for two-bath developers state a 3 minute time, and a wide temperature range, without stating a recommended EI, I start to wonder just how flexible Diafine really is. Just some thoughts. :angel:
I wouldn't call Diafine flexible, but it does have it's uses. Its great for traveling because it is panthermic and It does a nice job in constrasty situations. In addition, you can shoot Tri-X at 1250 without the effects of pushing film and you can shoot Pan F+ at its rated ISO 50. I'm not sure I would use it for every film, but you can almost always get a good print from it unless you shot under flat light. I consider it another tool in my toolbox; not grandpa's shovel, but not the bent screwdriver either.
- Randy
Ray, I attached the directions and recommended film ratings in this thread.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5291
General opinion is that the recommended aggitation amount is too much, particularly for Solution B.
I am quite pleased with the first rolls I developed shot at 1250. I think my next film purchase will be of both Plus X and Tri X as both seem to work well with Diafine. I am shooting some Acros and Tmax 100 right now which I will not develop in Diafine, but I don't know in what yet, probably my D76.
Looking good, Ralph! It handled the difficult sun/shade lighting pretty well, with decent detail in both areas.
I chose to post the second shot for just that reason Doug.
I wouldn't call Diafine flexible, but it does have it's uses. Its great for traveling because it is panthermic and It does a nice job in constrasty situations. In addition, you can shoot Tri-X at 1250 without the effects of pushing film and you can shoot Pan F+ at its rated ISO 50. I'm not sure I would use it for every film, but you can almost always get a good print from it unless you shot under flat light. I consider it another tool in my toolbox; not grandpa's shovel, but not the bent screwdriver either.
- Randy
I wouldn't consider Diafine's temperature range as panthermic, or panthermal, or whatever the word is, :) It's been I a while since I've tried it, but I think you can calculate or lookup times for D76 from 65 and up to 80, which is a wider range. If I were travelling I'd probably prefer D76 or one of the liquid concetrate developers like Rodinal. D76 is a good developer for pushing and is way more flexible through dilution. Anyway, sorry for belabouring the point, but it interests me. Thanks reellis67! :angel:
I wouldn't consider Diafine's temperature range as panthermic, or panthermal, or whatever the word is, :) It's been I a while since I've tried it, but I think you can calculate or lookup times for D76 from 65 and up to 80, which is a wider range.
Actually, no.
Diafine (per the label on the box) is good from 70° to 85°. It was designed to work over normal "room temperature" ranges without having to either heat it or chill it.
But what was meant by panthermal, is that the temperature does not matter when you are actually developing the film. You can use Diafine across the temperature range (panthermic) without regard for the temperature affecting development time or contrast characteristics. Temperature does not matter. VERY different than using D-76 because with D-76 temperature matters a great deal indeed.
Tom
Actually, no.
Diafine (per the label on the box) is good from 70° to 85°. It was designed to work over normal "room temperature" ranges without having to either heat it or chill it.
But what was meant by panthermal, is that the temperature does not matter when you are actually developing the film. You can use Diafine across the temperature range (panthermic) without regard for the temperature affecting development time or contrast characteristics. Temperature does not matter. VERY different than using D-76 because with D-76 temperature matters a great deal indeed.
Tom
Thanks Tom, I understand that. :) The time actually compensates for the temperature. That was my point. Somewhere in that range, I'm sure I could get D76 down to 6 minutes, and if I found myself on the road somewhere with 65 degree solution, I could still process my film. I guess I'm trying to understand how Diafine can actually function as someone's one and only developer.
Two part/divided developers, which have been around for many many years, are great for controlling high contrast scenes, but they are not the best developer choice for lower contrast situations, making it almost a specialized developer, and not the best general purpose developer. Diafine certainly isn't the only two part/divided developer (albeit, probably one of the few commercially available). (BTW, I've seen recipes for divided D76.) And as far as two part/divided developers go, it appears to be one of the more restrictive and least flexible. I've seen published recipes for two part/divided developers that don't require an exposure index, are "panthermal" (by your definition), and have three minute developing times.
I think reellis67's summation is dead-on. Diafine is probably not suitable as a general purpose developer, and is a great tool to have.
I think it was Tom who suggested that in flat lighting conditions, adjusting film ISO to the films normal suggested speed, will bump up the density to get good whites. Is this so? If it is, then Diafine could be a universal standard everyday developer (but perhaps maybe not the best for flat lighting.)
I guess I'm trying to understand how Diafine can actually function as someone's one and only developer.
.
It functions quite well as a "one and only" provided you are happy with the results, just like any other tool.
As I have said in past posts, I use ONLY Tri-X or HP/FP emulsions for my B&W stuff. It is not that I have not tried other emulsions, it is because I DID try most all of them at one time or another and liked what I got best with Tri-X and HP/FP films. I cannot speak to all the different films people use, only what I use.
Given the characteristics of both, Tri-X and Diafine were almost custom made for each other. I find no limitations whatsoever in using it as my only developer because I shoot it at 1250 and love the results. In my opinion, you cannot get better results with Tri-X in any other developer.
That using Diafine is as easy as falling down just adds to the benefits derived.
Last, the only drawback to using Diafine is that it produces somewhat flat negatives in flat lighting. This can easily be overcome in two ways. One, give it more exposure. Shoot it at ISO ratings of 600 to 800. Second, and this TOTALLY overcomes the problem, use PhotoShop on the scanned files and you will not ever see a problem.
Just as you cannot see why Diafine could not function as someone's only developer, I am equally puzzled as to why it could not easily do so.
Two part/divided developers, which have been around for many many years, are great for controlling high contrast scenes, but they are not the best developer choice for lower contrast situations, making it almost a specialized developer,
Thanks, I understand that. ;) But Diafine is not a 'specialized' developer any more than D-76 is a specialized developer. By the way, the handling of contrast is vastly different in some two-part developers, they are NOT all the same in that department.
I've seen published recipes for two part/divided developers that don't require an exposure index, are "panthermal" (by your definition), and have three minute developing times.
Sorry, but ALL film must be exposed at SOME e.i. All current B&W emulsions have a 'native speed' that produces the best result. At least, the film and developer manufacturers recommend a speed rating for their products based on densitometry testing. And there you are. If you deviate from that speed, you have to accept the limitations that imposes. Diafine produces its best result with a 'native' index of about 1250 with Tri-X. The latitude of the film will allow some lee-way of course.
If we were on a large-format forum discussing contrast control with individual pieces of sheet film for say, landscape photography, we would not be talking about Diafine.
But this being a rangefinder shooters forum, I think Diafine fits that sort of shooter right down to the ground.
There are also darkroom twiddlers that love just messing about with chemistry. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I was in that category myself once upon a time. No more. I want simple, fast and high quality. And yes, you can have all three. :)
Tom
Thanks Tom! :) We can debate the virtues of developers endlessly; and it does, and will, come down to personal preferences. I like the results Rover has been getting and look forward to any other examples. I'll get around to mixing up my batch of Diafine and when I do I'll post 'em, too. Thanks again. :)
NelsonFoto
04-21-2005, 16:16
So far, I've souped 3 flavors of B&W in Diafine to my delight.... Kodak PXP125, TX400, and J&C100.
Here are some examples, all shot without a meter, mixed lighting as you will see, standard dev in Diafine, give or take... I sometimes forget to set my timer and/or agitate.
The 6x6 shots are from my Kowa 6/85mm, shot on TX400 and J&C. 6x4.5 are from my Daiichi-Rapid Zenobia, shot on PXP125. Obvious push on the gears shot, taken on a grey day inside a shed with very little available lighting.
NelsonFoto
04-21-2005, 16:22
More samples... this is the J&C roll, shot in a very dimly lit room. J&C stood its ground against Diafine, was pleased by it.
NelsonFoto
04-21-2005, 16:45
Here go the 645 shots off the little Daiichi folder - PXP is the film here, no meter, shot in dying light. This was the test roll, had just received this little camera from eBay. Not bad, and Diafine works well here with the tight PXP grain. Smooth gradation.
Anyone else tried Kodak 3200 in Diafine? I just did a roll and found the results much less pleasing than Tri-X Pro in the same. The grain pattern is odd, and though the shots are sharp, the images have a very busy almost "actinct" look to them. I'll post some later. The recommended speed is 1200 for that film, and I agree with the density, but I think I'd push it a bit harder next time, if it was free...
The 3200 was throw away (out of date) film from the camera shop, so I didn't mind shooting it (for nuttin!) but now I know.
NelsonFoto
04-21-2005, 17:51
Thanks, Rover. Keep at it, the Diafine will work for you, I swear it.
A coupla months ago I was terrified to dev my own film. The tweakers on PNET were coming out of the woodwork - TRY SODIUMPANTHAMOPOLITIUM @ 22.222343433 MINUTES, AND THE TEMP MUST BE EXACTLY 72.121232321 DEGREES OR IT WILL FLASH IN THE PAN! - man my head was spinning.
My local prolab had a Diafine kit laying around out of the blue, so I picked it up, went home and took a deep breath - love at first sight. No regrets. Ive even developed a found roll of 40+ yr old film in it without blinking, and it came out fine (see attached images).
You'll find that, as T_om wrote, having digital editing abilities will all but eradicate any issues you MIGHT have with the film/dev combo, provided you don't blow the exposure completely, ie brutally over or under expose.
40+/- yr old roll of Verichrome Pan images below:
Welcome here, hither! I'm one of yon Diafine users! :D Anyway, I like your first 6x4.5 shot, that's really a nice one. On that very last one (found-film VPan?) there looks to have been some kind of contaminant material on the film to cause those odd dark spots with light centers. Unless those are chocolate candies scattered on the print? :)
NelsonFoto
04-21-2005, 20:06
Nah, it was the next to last frame on the roll, had deteriorated from exposure over the years, I suppose.
Scanning through the old topics is very interesting and, based on the age of the thread, I usually choose not to dredge up the old thread... but I thought I'd add my 2 cents here.
I have used Diafine exclusively for the past 20+ years. Prior to that, I worked in a newpaper darkroom, with access to many alternatives and an endless stream of people who were willing to tell me why I should use their particular concoction. But then I went on an extended project assignment in South America (north coast of Peru) as project photographer for an archaeological project. All the official project photography was done on KR-64 (35mm), but I took along my 6x6 and did my own B&W. Since I had no electricity and water that ran only as fast as I could run with it, I wanted an all-around developer that had no temperature dependencies. Diafine was the answer... and I have kept it ever since. Just as has been suggested several times, I adjust the ASA to reflect the light condition... all on the same roll.
My son is now working on a creative arts diploma and, while his experience at school is like mine at the newpaper darkroom - - lots of people with lots of concoctions, he has chosen to follow in his father's footsteps and uses Diafine for everything he processes at home.
For reference, we both shoot 120 and 35mm. and for film use HP-5, J&C 100, Arista.EDU 400 and 100, and Tmax-400 (120 and 35). We both particularly like Tmax-400 (TMY120) in Diafine. I just ordered some Arista EDU Ultra 100 and some Arista Pro 50 to try as well - - my son and I are looking for a low speed and high speed film that we both will standardize on.
So, all in all, we both believe that there are probably great reasons to use a specific film/developer combination, but on a day-in, day-out basis, we're keeping our Diafine.
I'm looking for the same high/low speed 2 film combo to use with Diafine. My standard film up to now has been HP5+ in Ilfosol S developer. I found that 400 speed film was a good all-round film speed for me, giving a liveable compromise between speed and grain. With Diafine developer though, one can soup films of different speeds in the same tank so switching to more specialized high and low speed films is easily done. For fast film, HP5+ is most easily available where I am, but it sounds like most people here prefer Neopan 400. I just bought 6 rolls of APX 100 to try as my slow speed film, but someone said they didn't like APX with Diafine. Of course I'll try it and see for myself since I already have these 6 rolls. I was wondering what 100 speed film is liked by Diafine users here.
wlewisiii
05-26-2005, 11:21
I've heard others ding it, but I really like how the Plus-X 125 came out for me (ei 400). Now if I could just get the scanner happy...
William
titrisol
05-26-2005, 11:50
Home brew Diafine....
recipe by Tom Hoskinson
Diafine-Like Developer
A Bath
Boiled Water @125 degrees 750ml
Sodium sulfite 35.0 grams
Phenidone 0.2 grams (dissolve in about 30ml 99% isopropyl alcohol, then add)
Hydroquinone 6.0 grams
Sodium Bisulfite 6.0 grams
Boiled Water to make 1.0 liter
B Bath
Boiled Water @125 degrees 750ml
Sodium Sulfite 65.0 grams
Sodium Metaborate 20.0 grams
Boiled Water to make 1.0 liter
For a lower contrast index, replace the metaborate with borax
For a higher contrast index, replace the metaborate with carbonate
Can be used between 68-80 degrees
Do not pre-soak.
Soak in bath A for 3 minutes.
Move to bath B for 3 minute soak
Do not rinse in between baths.
Do not use an acid stop bath; use a water rinse.
An Alkaline fixer is recommended.
wlewisiii
05-26-2005, 11:56
Whee! Now that's fun to see. May I ask where you came across this?
William
Frank, as for recommendation for a 100 speed film to use with Diafine, I like Illford Pan F, shot at 80, which is pretty close to 100...
If it's a flat scene, though, it's back to 50 for me.
Frank, I was complaining about APX 100 in Diafine (not very contrasty) but I think that was my fault since I might have agitated a bit too much (as in I agitated for 10 seconds and not 5, heh). Keep in mind that HP5 is rated at 800 by diafine. I am going to try it out this long weekend to see what happeneds when I meter the film at 800 and 400 (I dont have a meter but I will adjust my guestimation accordingly).
Goodyear
05-27-2005, 01:56
I am going to try it out this long weekend to see what happeneds when I meter the film at 800 and 400 (I dont have a meter but I will adjust my guestimation accordingly).Funny, I had identical plans :D
I like my HP5 (althoguh I'm leaning towards Neopan at the minute), but I have a load of Diafine to play with and 800 is a little fast for me for everyday use. Want to try it out at a few different EIs before I buy a 100' roll of either it or the Neopan...
titrisol
05-27-2005, 04:43
We had this discussion about a year ago in APUG, and Tom Hoskinsons came with the recipe.
I saved it and prepared it, works very well, unless you are brain-dead at 2Am and dump solution Bin the SOlution A bottle..... kaput!
Whee! Now that's fun to see. May I ask where you came across this?
William
I just shot 2 rolls of Arista.EDU Ultra 100 (35mm) this afternoon and processed them in Diafine. I think I might have found my ideal combination. When I try out a new film in Diafine, I usually start with it at the rated ASA and so I shot these rolls at 100 - - they look fantastic! I'll have my son contact print them at school on Tuesday and I should be able to tell for sure... maybe I can even talk him into scanning a few to share...
titrisol
05-29-2005, 04:48
I follow a sequence for etsts in diafine or any other:
-3,-2,-1,N,1,2,3 I shoot a grayscale and a scene that has awide range of exposures (the mantle with white pottery through a blac Ricohflex) and develop
Normally Diafine has a"Speed boost", bt sometimes it does not
- Delta 3200 1200 or at most 1600
- Neopan 1600 - 1000
I will be shooting Plus X today. Nice and sunny out, should be a good film. I will probably shoot at 320.
I will be shooting Plus X today. Nice and sunny out, should be a good film. I will probably shoot at 320.
I'm taking the barnack loaded with Plus X out today too. With the Summar and med yellow filter - plus X rated at EI 32 :)
Gabriel M.A.
05-29-2005, 07:12
Diafine is great; sometimes you get interesting results. Two days ago I developed two rolls of film I thought was TJ-Max 400, but it turned out to be the C-41 process B&W film (read: generic XP2-like) I had bought over two years ago and forgot I had; I bought it for test-taking.
Sometimes the pics are awful, sometimes they're great. Two samples from same roll of film. So be warned about using it with "undocumented film"...
(oh, btw, camera and lens is R4 + 50mm Summicron)
Normally Diafine has a"Speed boost", bt sometimes it does not...Indeed, and this is true for the slowest speed films, for instance I think Ilford Pan-F is best at EI=50 in Diafine. Might very well use some of that tomorrow!
I want to do my own developing and Diafine looks like an excellent solution. I really love Neopan 400 & 1600 and right now I'm getting my film developed in a lab using XTOL. I get really punchy negs that I like a lot.
Can anyone who's used Diafine with Fuji Neopan post their experiences or better yet a pic or two?
I want to do my own developing and Diafine looks like an excellent solution. I really love Neopan 400 & 1600 and right now I'm getting my film developed in a lab using XTOL. I get really punchy negs that I like a lot.
Can anyone who's used Diafine with Fuji Neopan post their experiences or better yet a pic or two?
According to the Diafine box, you will gain 1/2 stop using Neopan 400 (it goes up to 640 in Diafine) and loose 1/2 stop shooting the NP1600 (it goes down to about 1200 in Diafine).
This is all the info I can provide as I do not use Fuji B&W films.
Also, the 'look' you are after is very much a subjective thing. Try some and see.
Tom
Justin Low
06-05-2005, 09:20
Has anyone tried Arista EDU400 (Fortepan 400) in Diafine? I have part of a bulk roll left and was thinking of trying a roll or two with Diafine. Any suggestions on a starting point for exposures?
Thanks!
Koolzakukumba
06-05-2005, 10:37
Tom wrote: "Given the characteristics of both, Tri-X and Diafine were almost custom made for each other. I find no limitations whatsoever in using it as my only developer because I shoot it at 1250 and love the results. In my opinion, you cannot get better results with Tri-X in any other developer."
Tom, can you please post some sections from blow-ups of your 1250 iso negs-big enough to show the grain. I'm looking for a low light black and white film/developer combination and this might just be it if it's as good as you say it is.
Cheers,
Bruce
Tom wrote: "Given the characteristics of both, Tri-X and Diafine were almost custom made for each other. I find no limitations whatsoever in using it as my only developer because I shoot it at 1250 and love the results. In my opinion, you cannot get better results with Tri-X in any other developer."
Tom, can you please post some sections from blow-ups of your 1250 iso negs-big enough to show the grain. I'm looking for a low light black and white film/developer combination and this might just be it if it's as good as you say it is.
Cheers,
Bruce
Sure, here you go. I didn't take a lot of pains selecting very good stuff, so forgive the photography.
Each shot is followed by a 100% (actual pixel) crop of a portion shown.
Tom
Here's one more.
Not sure how mangling these down to upload size is gonna make these look, but what the hell.
Tom
I was doing a bit of research tonight on Diafine and FWIW came across this thread about a comparison between XTOL and Diafine:
Diafine and XTOL test (http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0055fd)
Impressively fine grain, T_om!
Koolzakukumba
06-07-2005, 08:06
Tom,
Thanks very much for posting those pics. I'm really surprised that Tri-X rated at 1250 iso and Diafine can produce such good quality negs. The grain is very acceptable and the sharpness and tonal qualities don't leave much to be desired.
I'll definitely be giving that combination a try. Again, many thanks for your trouble.
Cheers,
Bruce
titrisol
06-07-2005, 08:27
IMHO TriX @1200 and PlusX @320 (the old one... dunno about the new one) are probably the 2 best films to use in Diafine.
Ilford's HP5+ works fine @640 or 800, and Fp4 @200
I was disatisfied with APX100, and the new APX400.
PS. I've heard mixed versions about the TMaxes - Deltas in Diafine.
I only tried Delta3200 which turned out to be work at around 1600, normal grain for it and decent contrast/shdow details
Jan Cornelius
06-08-2005, 05:17
... When reading through this thread, and having understood it ... (I think) A (rhetorical) question springs in mind; why bother with other stuff ? this Diafine seems the best thing since sliced bread .....
... One question though, how do you define the speed of the films used, TRIX is 400 but rated at 1250 ??? how does this work ?
Jan Cornelius
06-08-2005, 05:33
Anyway ... without exactly grasping what using diafine means to my development process, I have ordered 3 packets at Huron to be shipped to me Europe.
Apparantly Diafine is hard to get here in the "old countries" There is a shop in Austria who sometimes has it on stock, but this 'll be sold out in a matter of hours .... I reckon 3 packets with an extra shipping charge of $29,95 might be worth the try .... calculated down to Euro's it's less expensive than DD-X for instance. I do so wonder ... this thread has made me very curious and as my favourite film is Tri-x .....
... When reading through this thread, and having understood it ... (I think) A (rhetorical) question springs in mind; why bother with other stuff ? this Diafine seems the best thing since sliced bread .....
Because (as others have pointed out) it might not suit YOUR particular aesthetic with the films YOU like to use. You mention that you like Tri-X and it so happens that Diafine and Tri-X were made for each other... but some other films do not produce the same results.
It is all very much a matter of personal preference and workflow.
Diafine is also coming back to the scene because it is so good for film that needs to be scanned instead of direct printed via an enlarger. Diafine produces long tone, somewhat flat negatives in flat light. It sometimes needs a considerable bump up in paper contrast grade when printing with an enlarger. Guess what though? That is just about as perfect a negative as you can get for scanning purposes where you are limited by the dMax of the scanner instead of the enlarging paper. This stuff scans beautifully.
Anyway ... without exactly grasping what using Diafine means to my development process, I have ordered 3 packets at Huron to be shipped to me Europe...
Wow. You really stocked up! I don't know what size kit you ordered, but even if you got the smaller quart kits, you have ordered enough Diafine to last you a LONG LONG time. You do realize you keep using this stuff, right? You do not throw it away? Anyway, maybe there are some other photographers near you that might like to try it also. If you ordered three kits, you will have more on hand than most camera stores. :D
Last, about your ISO rating question... Different films have different 'native' speeds is different developers. Diafine give a natural speed increase in most (not all) films, and works exceptionally well with Tri-X. I expose using 1250, others like the results at 1600, some as low as 800. A bit of experimentation will pin down where YOU should be shooting it.
One tip. In flat lighting, give a bit more exposure.
Anyway, enjoy shooting (which is the main thing) and the Diafine will take good care of your negatives.
Tom
Tom, please outline your agitation routine in sol.B with Diafine. Too much and no enough development takes place, to little and you risk Bromide drag.
titrisol
06-08-2005, 06:45
Not really, I was thought to just fill the tank woth B, give it a rap to dislodge bubbles and wait....
Tom, please outline your agitation routine in sol.B with Diafine. Too much and no enough development takes place, to little and you risk Bromide drag.
Tom, please outline your agitation routine in sol.B with Diafine. Too much and no enough development takes place, to little and you risk Bromide drag.
Just a couple of inversions, no particular time interval... just when I think about it.
However, you can't just let it sit there. The "over agitation" problem may have taken on more emphasis here because most people coming to Diafine from other developers tend to over-agitate, hence the warnings. Moderation in all things. :D
Tom
When I do that, I get bromide streamers obvious in low contrast areas (skys). I'm still working out a routine to even out development.
Jan Cornelius
06-08-2005, 08:17
well, yeah .... being a calvinist is heart and kidneys I will order so much that it becomes reasonably priced even with the shipping cost included, need it or not, the deal has got to be worth while ... ;-) Our household goes through calculators like other milk ... ;-))
No, all BS aside, 3 was an economical quantity to order, and I'm sure I can make somebody happy with it. Diafine is quite in demand here, and hard to be had .. (profit, profit, profit!!!) .. just kidding ...
Really look forward to it though, for one I am not the most methodological developer, hate being ruled by beeps and flashing warning light, and the other is that I love testing things
Anyway ... without exactly grasping what using diafine means to my development process, I have ordered 3 packets at Huron to be shipped to me Europe.
Apparantly Diafine is hard to get here in the "old countries" There is a shop in Austria who sometimes has it on stock, but this 'll be sold out in a matter of hours .... I reckon 3 packets with an extra shipping charge of $29,95 might be worth the try .... calculated down to Euro's it's less expensive than DD-X for instance. I do so wonder ... this thread has made me very curious and as my favourite film is Tri-x .....
Jan,
are you talking about Foto Riegler? Ordered mine on Monday, got it today, they seem to have enough supply at the moment (even sent out a newsletter to registered customers that they have all kinds of hard-to-get US cehmistry in stock - Diafine, Acufine, Edwal,...)
Shipping should be much cheaper (4.50 Euros for my two packages and other stuff - but I'm in Austria), but the item price is higher (12.95 Euros for a quart package).
Roman
Gabriel M.A.
06-08-2005, 09:44
Ouch, 12.05 Euros for a Quart? (~ Litre) I get a Gallon kit for about $13 US. No need to pay for shipping. I guess it's about the same if I factor in the gasoline cost to drive over there (about 5 miles)
Back on topic -- agitation is to be found like Zen...like The Force, with your eyes closed first, and then your eyes open.
When I do that, I get bromide streamers obvious in low contrast areas (skys). I'm still working out a routine to even out development.
jdos2,
Were you referring to my post? The two inversion one?
If so, also keep in mind that agitation is influenced GREATLY by the type tank and reels you are using. I use Stainless tanks and reels. I believe that stainless gives a bit more "bang for the buck" during agitation than plastic. The reels are thinner and occupy less of the tank volume. I think stainless has quite a free 'flow pattern', if that makes sense.
At any rate, try one inversion upon filling, then one per minute and see if that works for you.
I can't even remember the last time I had streaking. :confused:
Tom
I'll stir the plastic more, and thanks for sharing that. I came back from Portugal with LOTS of B&W (and NO time to develop it!). I have two reels, one stainless (and just threw another away, I bought it BENT- D'oh!) and one plastic. The film (Pan F) developed in the plastic spool is indeed the one with the streamers, the other film looks fine.
I'll double up on the agitation- two inversions to the stainless's one. Also, I don't fill the stainless tank as much- giving an air bubble that the plastic tank doesn't get, so that too might affect things.
Heck, I just got used to stainless steel reels to the point that I could tell one was bent!
I've recently bought several used Kindermann stainless tanks and a bunch of reels... One of the reels was bent enough to notice, but it was easy to straighten. The bend was such that the span between the two wire coils was closer on one side of the circle than the other. With a straight ruler, I determined at what points around the circumference it was worst, and applied a little muscle bending it back to true. I then checked all the other reels and found one more with a slight (1mm) bend and fixed it too. As long as I don't drop them, I hope and expect these reels will remain serviceable!
I've recently bought several used Kindermann stainless tanks and a bunch of reels... One of the reels was bent enough to notice, but it was easy to straighten. The bend was such that the span between the two wire coils was closer on one side of the circle than the other. With a straight ruler, I determined at what points around the circumference it was worst, and applied a little muscle bending it back to true. I then checked all the other reels and found one more with a slight (1mm) bend and fixed it too. As long as I don't drop them, I hope and expect these reels will remain serviceable!
In my opinion, you will find it hard to beat Kindermann reels. I believe Nikkor-Honeywell and Kindermann are the best quality stainless going.
I will have to admit though (I'm so ashamed :( ) that I also have some Adorama generics that work fine too. (Please don't tell Miss K that I cheated on her).
I have to get rid of some of my reels, I must have 30 or so laying about.
Tom
The reel that I noticed was bent wasn't so in an extremely obvious way, it was simply impossible to load. A generic, the spirals might even not have been well aligned, but when I figured out it was impossible (after dozens of attempts) to load it in daylight without at least peaking, and the other didn't require such attention, it simply went into the trash.
If you need to get rid of some 135 /120(220) reels, please lemme know!!! :-)
Diafine sitting on my doorstep at home. And I'm stuck here at the office. This is worse than waiting for the truck to show up, knowing its already there.
I hung them to dry for a few hours then rolled them in reverse of their curl to flatten them out. Gene had mentioned this in another thread. It worked well, they should lay nice and flat when I scan them.
I also have the film curvature problem when developing TRI-X in diafine. The negatives are not flat after drying and archiving and scanning them properly is impossible. Newton rings facing down, out-of-focus scans when facing up. Are you really sure this technique works well?
Another question. I have a large quantity of Delta 3200 films shot at that speed. Would it be advisable to develop them in diafine? If not, what developer should I choose that has a long shelf life?
Best,
Kevin
Justin Low
06-18-2005, 05:20
I also have the film curvature problem when developing TRI-X in diafine. The negatives are not flat after drying and archiving and scanning them properly is impossible. Newton rings facing down, out-of-focus scans when facing up. Are you really sure this technique works well?
Another question. I have a large quantity of Delta 3200 films shot at that speed. Would it be advisable to develop them in diafine? If not, what developer should I choose that has a long shelf life?
Best,
Kevin
I've never had this problem. My Tri-X ends up very slightly curved, but once in the film holder, they lie flat enough for a good scan.
Try weighting the film down when you hang it up to dry. I have a set of clips with weights in them for this purpose. You could hook a fishing weight onto the bottom; that'd work too.
If this doesn't flatten your film, put them under a set of heavy books for a few days.
I have taken to putting the negs in the pages under a bunch of books for a week prior to scanning. Before I get the last strip into the holder, the curl is back. They are resilient little *******s. :D
Justin Low
06-18-2005, 06:22
I believe the curve that comes from film drying is due to the relative humidity. In Singapore, our humidity is extremely high (on average above 80%); that could be one reason why I don't experience such problematic curling.
What one could do then, is to raise the humidity of the air around the film during drying, perhaps by running a hot shower prior to hanging the film up to dry.
Gabriel M.A.
06-18-2005, 08:23
Oh, I have the same curling problem. You have to dry the negative in a place that's draft-free; it helps. If you're hanging it one way, check in about 10 minutes later and rotate it. Put another clip on the other end too, to serve as a weight. This always helps me; it's not foolproof, but it helps a lot. Curling is kept to a minimum.
Then when I sleeve the negatives, I also curl the sleeve (with the negative in there) the opposite way and leave it curled that way for a while. Try it. Your mileage may vary.
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.
But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.
Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions. :)
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.
But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.
Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions. :)
Thanks Doug, I will try another developer then for the delta 3200.
I always used weighted clips at the bottom of hanging negative strips but the curl is from side-to-side, not top-to-bottom. Perhaps the fixer I use is the problem? Humidity in Germany is not a problem. And I have also tried putting books on top of the archival pages for several days but they curl back within minutes. Very aggrevating believe me.
Best,
Kevin
Ok, I tortured enough apx400 in diafine. Now shooting Tri-X and I intend to stay with it for a long time. (That's the plan anyway). First Tri-X looks good, a hair thinner than I've been used to seeing out of diafine but I was shooting the apx at 500 and the tri-x at 1250 - gonna drop it down to 1000 like everyone else. (Hey, it said 1250, so I figured I'd do it that way first). I get a lot of curl too, with everything - not just tri-x and I dont really see that weight helps it. It helps with lengthwise curl but not cross curl - you'd have to have tension on all 4 corners during drying to help that. Keep thinking it'd be a cinch to knock out my own drying cabinet but I'm not sure where I'd put it.
Whats the dark crap floating at the bottom of the B jug anyway? antihalation precip? Do I need to filter it out or just get opaque jugs as was suggested for the white precip (undissolved B powder IIRC).
...Whats the dark crap floating at the bottom of the B jug anyway? antihalation precip? Do I need to filter it out or just get opaque jugs as was suggested for the white precip (undissolved B powder IIRC).
Get darker jugs. :D
Tom
PS: The stuff floating around in Diafine is disturbing to many but in all the years I have used it, it has NEVER had an effect on the film. It does not stick to it nor does it effect development.
PPS: Some people just *cannot* stand it though, it drives them crazy. So if it causes you sleepless nights and days filled with anxiety, care and woe... filter it out with paper coffee filters.
First pics from the GSN - and a Diafine success too - been trying to cope with glass bead reflective striping and flash photography. The darn stuff may actually fluoresce - I know it seems to be very active with blue light. An LED or Xenon (both bluer than normal lighting) flash light will light the stuff up light its got its own power source even with a couple kilowatts of Halogens on scene. I've tried yellow, 85b, UV filters on the flash, and only the UV seemed to do much without killing everything else. This is straight out of the GSN with my little pro-master <barf> flash off the first roll, Tri-X at 1000 (highest the meter will go), stopped down to f/16 because of the distance.
Looks pretty good, XAos! Diafine seemed to keep those beads from blowing out, for the most part...
titrisol
06-29-2005, 08:07
I did some tests of Ilford D3200 in Diafine a while ago thanks to David Carper who sent me some D3200.
The speed Diafine could squeeza out of it was between 1200 and 1600. I personally preferred the 1200 results.
ILFOTEC DDX or CLAYTON F76+ would give you the best results with D3200 IMHO
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.
But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.
Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions. :)
I was poking through my old photo data and noted that about 55 out of 80 rolls of Tri-X shot in 1967-68 were developed in Diafine diluted 1:1 :eek:
How I came up with the idea to do that, the notes do not reveal. But perhaps it was a way to run Tri-X in Diafine when shot at EI 400, since the notes say that's what I did! In the years after that I mostly used Edwal FG-7 for Tri-X. I recall frustration with Diafine that I think now was due to over-agitation, so that may explain the switch to FG-7.
Has anyone else tried diluting Diafine's A-bath and running a lower EI? I may have to give that a try once again...
When I do that, I get bromide streamers obvious in low contrast areas (skys). I'm still working out a routine to even out development.
JD I remember having the same problem when I tried leaving it 'sitting there' with maybe only an inversion. It may be just a matter of different tanks and reels, but to get rid of that I noticed I have to 'shake' it a bit more :)
And Doug... :eek: a 1:1 dilution of Diafine... never thought about that...
I was poking through my old photo data and noted that about 55 out of 80 rolls of Tri-X shot in 1967-68 were developed in Diafine diluted 1:1 :eek:
How I came up with the idea to do that, the notes do not reveal. But perhaps it was a way to run Tri-X in Diafine when shot at EI 400, since the notes say that's what I did! In the years after that I mostly used Edwal FG-7 for Tri-X. I recall frustration with Diafine that I think now was due to over-agitation, so that may explain the switch to FG-7.
Has anyone else tried diluting Diafine's A-bath and running a lower EI? I may have to give that a try once again...
I would guess this really limits developer available for absorbtion into highlight areas. Since diafine already prevents highlights from blocking up at normal strength, this dilution must be awful in flat lighting. Maybe it's useful with flash exposure?
titrisol
07-05-2005, 10:22
IIRC you dilute bath B 1:1 to decrease contrast even more, and get a further compensation.
look into APUG for the diafine threads about this.
I think diluting Bath B only decreases the concentration of development activator, making it harder to get the developer that was absorbed in Bath A to get started. I don't know that we'd see any effect until dilution got pretty low, except... Dilution should mean greater necessity for agitation to bring the activator to the developer, but more agitation also washes the developer out of the film and lowers density... So I think diluting Bath B puts you into a bind.
Lowering the concentration of Bath A means less developing agent in the film available to be activated in Bath B. Increasing exposure means more work for the developer to do, more potential density. Whatever our fevered minds can imagine happening in the neg as a result, I did get quite a lot of good pics this way! :-) Even though I was burdened at the time with habitual over-agitation in Bath B and this leads to thin negs (some of which got a bath in Chromium Intensifier).
I think I'll give it a shot with a 24-exp roll of outdated Tri-X and see what happens. If it works well now that I'm aware of the agitation issue, it will be handy for the several rolls of 220 Tri-X that are inconveniently fast (in regular Diafine) for the Bronica's leaf shutter.
onnovisser
07-10-2005, 03:48
Hmm, I think I have a problem here...
I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast... You don't have a choice in aperture or shuttertime.. It's 1/1000 at f16 or the likes. So I have to choose to use another film that is slower in diafine, or develope my tri-x in something else.. It's so tempting to go for the ease of diafine... What film looks a bit like tri-x but stays slow (i.e 50-250 asa range).?
Cheers,
Onno
I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast...
A strong ND filter might work for you if you can find one to fit. You could use it in bright daylight and take it off for low-light shooting.
Gene
onnovisser
07-10-2005, 04:04
hmmm, I'll give it a thougth. But buying a set of those migth be costly too :(
Justin Low
07-10-2005, 04:48
Hmm, I think I have a problem here...
I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast... You don't have a choice in aperture or shuttertime.. It's 1/1000 at f16 or the likes. So I have to choose to use another film that is slower in diafine, or develope my tri-x in something else.. It's so tempting to go for the ease of diafine... What film looks a bit like tri-x but stays slow (i.e 50-250 asa range).?
Cheers,
Onno
Onno, consider using FP4+; the Diafine box recommends exposing it at EI250, and I have tried that and have obtained decent results.
Also, TMAX100 responds well to Diafine (in my opinion) when it's exposed at around EI250 as well, rather than the recommended 160.
onnovisser
07-10-2005, 04:54
thanks for the tips Justin, but since I really like tri-x and it has an ei of 1250 I don't think i'll try fp4+, I don't really like Tmax either.. I'm more into the oldfashioned film look.anyone use Apx-25 ? it has an ei of 50 in diafine apparently. Delta 100 goes 80, Pan F plus is 100. All nice speeds for sunny days. Any experience/photo's?
thanks for the tips Justin, but since I really like tri-x and it has an ei of 1250 I don't think i'll try fp4+, I don't really like Tmax either.. I'm more into the oldfashioned film look.anyone use Apx-25 ? it has an ei of 50 in diafine apparently. Delta 100 goes 80, Pan F plus is 100. All nice speeds for sunny days. Any experience/photo's?
I think you mis-read Justin's post...
FP4+ shoots at 250 in Diafine. From your post above I think you read Justin's notation "EI250" as 1250. But I may be wrong.
At any rate, the FP films have always been one of my mainstays, along with Tri-X, one of the reasons being just as you posted... I sometimes want to shoot at less than the 1250 required by Tri-X.
Plus-x is also a winner in Diafine... shoot it at the recommended speed of 400 (or just a bit less) and it looks great.
One thing you should know however, is that you can over-expose Tri-X in flat light and it holds up VERY well. As a matter of fact, it is one of the tricks we used to use to overcome the flat contrast look Diafine sometimes produces in flat lighting.
Now that I process everything with high-resolution scanning and PhotoShop, the contrast issue is moot.
Tom
onnovisser
07-10-2005, 09:02
THanks, makes more sense now, I've been studying all day and I guess I'm a bit woozy..
I'll try some fp4+ then, and some plus x. I was thinking about APX 25 too for portaits, IE becomes 50. Any experience?
I too like Ilford FP-4 at EI=250 in Diafine, very nice combination.
Tri-X's high speed in Diafine can be useful, but it's decidedly awkward outdoors in bright light, particularly when the camera's top shutter speed is 1/500, say... Without filters then you're forced to f/22, not usually the sharpest aperture.
As mentioned earlier, I used to commonly dilute Diafine 1:1 and rate Tri-X at 400, but I don't remember why. I tried that again recently, and ran the film last night. It looks ok, somewhat on the thin side, but the shadow detail is decent. I also had an orange filter on the lens, sort of forgotten, and that affects the tonality too. Next time I'd be tempted to give it a bit more exposure... but then what's the point, with Ilford FP-4 doing so well at EI=250 in full-strength Diafine?
Perhaps more usefully, I also tried shooting Tri-X at EI=640 and developing in Diafine diluted 2:1... That is, I added 3 oz of water to 6 oz of stock Diafine for 9 oz total used in a one-reel Kindermann tank. This was shot with a different camera and lens, so direct exposure comparison is kinda shaky, but this turned out quite nicely, better looking. And EI=640 is a usefully fast speed without being so overwhelming in daylight.
I'll try these two experiments again some time with somewhat more control over the variables.
Besides these two rolls of Tri-X, I was kept up to 2:30, yawning, by also "Diafining" a roll of 220 Tri-X Pro at EI=1000 along with an ancient mystery roll of Plus-X "found film" from a Mamiya C220, and two rolls of Pan-F (bulk loaded in 1984) shot at EI=50 that look really nice.
I did several days in Portugal a few weeks back (verging on a couple of months)
I shot Tri-X at 1250 (and a big ND filter- on a Noctilux!) and Pan f at 80 (Noctilux, ND filter, I was shooting wide open in the daylight) My negatives have come out of the Diafine very scan-able. I like both combos, though I did find the grain of Tri-X a bit greater than I thought it'd be- I think the new scanner is just getting detail out of the film that the older flatbed didn't, and I'm just noticing the grain.
JD
wlewisiii
07-14-2005, 19:10
I was going through my copy of "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook" by Aaron Sussman (8th edition, 1973 - 11th printing from 1983). In it is a table of suggested film and developer pairings. I was interested to notice that Diafine was included in the list. I was especially surprised to notice that it said 2 minutes rather than 3 per solution and gave ASA EI's of 2400 for Tri-X and 800 for Plus-X.
Is this rather large difference due to the change from ASA to ISO speed ratings or simply a reflection of the evolutionary changes in Kodak's emulsions?
Just a curiosity for me at this point. I'll happily continue following the directions on the box, but wanted to see what others here thought.
William
Hi, William. I'm liking the results I'm getting from following the current directions on the Diafine package. I'm thinking that that's what's most important.
wlewisiii
07-14-2005, 19:24
Oh, trust me, I love the results from the box directions (except with Delta 400, but I've heard that elsewhere as well... bleah... :( Gotta only buy to Plus-X and Tri-X.) It just struck me as interesting in theory, so I thought I'd ask.
William
titrisol
07-15-2005, 04:45
Use Plus-X instead
Great film, and Diafine brings it to 320 or so
hmmm, I'll give it a thougth. But buying a set of those migth be costly too :(
Is this rather large difference due to the change from ASA to ISO speed ratings or simply a reflection of the evolutionary changes in Kodak's emulsions?
And then again, it just might be an error on Sussman's part. :rolleyes:
Diafine is so forgiving, it can be shot all over the place (EI wise) and still produce reasonable results. Recommendations from people used to their own workflow tend to be based on their total workflow results, not just some arbitrary numbers.
For example, I use the EI's that I use because I scan all my stuff and want to get the most from a SCANNED negative. Wet printers may use different EI's because with their particular workflow and paper preference combinations, it requires different exposure.
Experiment, experiment, experiment.
Practice makes the master.
Tom
Use Plus-X instead
Great film, and Diafine brings it to 320 or so
I just shot some Plus-X in 120 @400, but then bracketed down to about 3 stops slower. My negs came out very thin. I've been getting ok densities but not a lot of dynamic range with Tri-X (35mm and 120). It's possible that my flash calculations were wrong, it's possible that I over agitated, but I'm really beginning to wonder if Plus-X has the same speed in diafine at 120 as it does in 35mm. There were a few with differences enough to take note of.
3 stops is kinda hard to explain why it's so thin, as we're back down to 100.
It could very well be over-agitation. I gently rotate the film reels 180 degrees after the first minute in Diafine sol'n B, and again after 2 minutes. It is very minimal but I have not yet experienced uneven development due to bromide drag.
Stephanie Brim
08-04-2005, 19:32
My Diafine should come in the mail next week. I'm kind of excited.
Agree with Frank... Sounds like my old problem with Diafine years ago before I figured out the agitation had to be minimal. I kept giving Tri-X more exposure but it didn't help... The Bath B agitation I was giving it was typical for other developers, but in Diafine it was just too much, washing Bath A developer out of the emulsion where it was needed. There was never enough developer remaining available to handle even overexposure, so the developed film was always on the thin side.
Does the same go for stuff that looks ok density wise but ends up all being Zone IV - VI? I've had this problem lately too, I guess I got a little carried away in the war on bromide streamers. I think I'll also stick to Tri-X just for consistency till I get the hang of sunny-16. I don't have a lot of shutter speed to play with (1/400th) but I can dial down to f/45. (Yikes, can I really shoot Tri-X in diafine on the ski slopes with this thing?)
Sounds real dull, XAos... Could the film have gotten fogged? I can't think of any Diafine-related quirk that would have that result.
Wow. Over agitation it is. I kept it to two inversions at 1 min, 2 more at 2 min. Looks much better.
No streamers either (but no sprocket holes, so perhaps they're just more distributed)
wlewisiii
08-05-2005, 21:11
It's interesting to also note that today I learned that it really is very possible to under agitate Diafine (at least with sheet film.) I went with 5 min for A and then 1:30 (agitate), 1:30 (agitate) 1:30 (agitate) and 30 seconds (agitate and pour off). This made an easily visable difference in my 4x5 negs. No bromide drag and no excessivly thin spots. It was a real eye-opener for me.
Thanks!
William
Does the same go for stuff that looks ok density wise but ends up all being Zone IV - VI? I've had this problem lately too, I guess I got a little carried away in the war on bromide streamers. I think I'll also stick to Tri-X just for consistency till I get the hang of sunny-16. I don't have a lot of shutter speed to play with (1/400th) but I can dial down to f/45. (Yikes, can I really shoot Tri-X in diafine on the ski slopes with this thing?)
If you need less speed, keep in mind that Plus-X works just as well as Tri-X in Diafine. By that I mean it is a excellent Diafine choice and gives consistently good results, just like Tri-X but at a nominal speed of about 400 or so. If you need to go even slower, Ilford FP4 between 200 and 300 is also a good choice.
Tom
It's interesting to also note that today I learned that it really is very possible to under agitate Diafine (at least with sheet film.) I went with 5 min for A and then 1:30 (agitate), 1:30 (agitate) 1:30 (agitate) and 30 seconds (agitate and pour off). This made an easily visable difference in my 4x5 negs. No bromide drag and no excessivly thin spots. It was a real eye-opener for me.
Thanks!
William
William,
Keep in mind that just about all the development that CAN take place has done so in the first three minutes in bath B. After 3 minutes, the developer is pretty much exhausted.
Therefore, with the above agitation schedule, you are actually only agitating the film once (at the 1:30 minute mark). By the second 1:30 minute mark, development is all but complete. After that, agitation should have no effect whatsoever so your last two agitation cycles are not doing anything at all.
Tom
If you need less speed, keep in mind that Plus-X works just as well as Tri-X in Diafine. By that I mean it is a excellent Diafine choice and gives consistently good results, just like Tri-X but at a nominal speed of about 400 or so. If you need to go even slower, Ilford FP4 between 200 and 300 is also a good choice.
Tom
I have been shooting plus-x in the rb67. I got a spool of 35mm as well, but I only have one loader. Now that it looks like overagitation was my problem, I'll happily use plus-X. More serious photographic considerations aside, It makes the math easier when you're dealing with paper slide rule exposures and a slow max shutter speed.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.