If you can't find Diafine ... What next?

[afaceinthecrowd]

I am not able to find Diafine in my corner of the Great White North. For that matter nobody has even heard of it ;)

What would be a good second choice? Rodinal? D72?

I could order some online but would prefer to buy locally or at least mail order in Canada.

I usually use the Kodak B&W films and also have an assortment of Efke and Lucky that needs to be used up but am getting tired of the high price of processing and printing for B&W. So .... what I am going to do is process in the kitchen sink/changing bag and scan the negatives until I have time to set up a darkroom with an enlarger.

TIA for the tips :D

dan

[aizan]

order it from b&h!

and there's a bazillion trees in suburbia. at least in socal...not sure about other places.

[Roger Hicks]

Microphen.

[back alley]

Microphen.


...don't leave me hangin'...

i want some more, please...

joe

[Dave H]

Microphen.


I only used a single litre packet of microphen in my life, (bought it because it looked lonely on its own hiding and covered in dust at the back of the shelf buried in d76), loved it to bits. But noooooooooo, no one in the UK seems to have any for sale. Never mid Diafine bring back microphen and quick. Its supposed to be on ilfords product list, but its rarer (for me at least) than hens teeth.

[T_om]

I am not able to find Diafine in my corner of the Great White North. For that matter nobody has even heard of it ;)

What would be a good second choice? Rodinal? D72?


D72? :confused:

Anyway, none of the suggested replacements you list are anything at all like Diafine.

It is like saying "I can't buy a horse locally, so I'll buy a parrot instead".

If you want the advantages of Diafine, you need Diafine. If you don't want or need Diafine's feature set, buy something else.

If you have access to the chemicals locally, there are Diafine-like recipes all over the web.

Otherwise, just use some other of the hundreds of developers available and go with their limitations and advantages, each will be different.

Tom

PS: Like all other developers, Diafine is not a magic bullet for every film ever made. I use it with Tri-X (for which it seems a match made in heaven) and HP5+. Tri-X is better. Since you were not very specific as to exactly the film you are going to be shooting, making a developer recommendation is difficult and might lead you down a dead-end road. Some combinations produce abysmal results indeed. Personally, if I wanted Diafine, I would order Diafine on the web and be done with it. Life is too short to make do with stop-gaps.

[tajart]

seems like i read somewhere recently that diafine and the t-max developer are based on the same formula. i can't locate where i saw that, but i'm putting this out in case some else recalls this and knows where the info is.

[taffer]

Hi Dan ! There was a bulk order of Diafine from some Canadian members here a while ago, not sure if it's going to be a second one... If you're interested, an online store called Huron Camera sends it worldwide.

That said, have a look at the B&W photography - film and processing from photo.net, plenty of threads there give the recipe to cook the homebrew Diafine cousin...

[Gabriel M.A.]

Rodinal and Diafine are two different worlds, I don't know why you think one is an alternative to the other, so it makes me think you are really looking to try something new.

I use Diafine, Rodinal, Xtol and D76; Xtol and D76 are siblings, and all the rest are very very not the same. I like to use Rodinal (1+50) w/Agfa, Fuji, Tri-X and TJ-Max; Diafine is divine with Tri-X @ ISO 1600 (my choice when I'm not using color or XP2 in my Leica). Xtol is OK with Tri-X, and Ilford films. D76 does not disappoint except when I do something really wrong.

Rodinal is extremely cheap, durable and gives you pleasing grain with most Kodak B&W films (give it a spin with the TJ-Max films). Try 1+50 or 1+100 dilutions (note it's not 1:50, but 1+50).

Now, if you *must* use Rodinal to get similar results with TJ-Max films as you would with Diafine (i.e. higher ISO rating + tones), there is a thread elsewhere with some samples (I'll look and follow-up) where somebody rated Tri-X @ 3200 (or was it pushed to 3200?) and developed with Rodinal 1+50; 33 minutes developing time.

Hope that helps.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Here it is (it's "Tri-X at 1600"): http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5879

[doubs43]

I am not able to find Diafine in my corner of the Great White North. For that matter nobody has even heard of it ;) dan

Dan, I'm looking at a container of Diafine that I recently purchased from the only true camera store in Macon, GA. I'm not certain how old it is but it's been on the shelf for a while. The contents are in sealed cans so should last indefinitely. The store still had a couple of boxes remaining when I purchased this for $12.95 plus 7% tax or a total of $13.86. It makes a gallon of both A & B solutions. I'm still trying to round up a couple of gallon bottles.

I have no idea what postage to Canada would cost or if you'd have to pay duties on it but I'm willing to buy you a box of Diafine the next time I'm in Macon and mail it to you for compensation in Yankee dollars at my cost. If Canadian Customs charges duties, it may or may not be worth it to you.

As pointed out already, Rodinal and D-76 are NOT the same kind of developers as Diafine which effectively increases film speeds. Rodinal and D-76 are generally for normal film speeds. Tri-X is listed at 1600 while HP-5 (not the +) is listed at 800.

Walker

[T_om]

Tri-X is listed at 1600 while HP-5 (not the +) is listed at 800.


Your box must REALLY be old. :) You are correct though, sealed in its tins it will last forever.

The current Diafine box does, indeed, list HP5+. It is rated at 800 just as the original HP5 was.

Tom

[Seele]

How about Tetenal Emofin?

[doubs43]

Your box must REALLY be old. :) You are correct though, sealed in its tins it will last forever.

The current Diafine box does, indeed, list HP5+. It is rated at 800 just as the original HP5 was.

Tom

Tom, I once bought a bottle of Edwal's FR-7 from the same shop and it was the color of mud....... completely oxydized and worthless. It had been on the shelf for years! I had better luck with a can of Acufine and a can of Acufine replenisher. I don't think there are too many B&W photographers in this area or the ones here stick with standard Kodak developers.

Walker

[afaceinthecrowd]

Thanks for all of the responses. I know that Rodinal and D76 are not the same thing. I guess what I was really asking is more "if I can't get Diafine - what should I look for that is readily available and fairly forgiving". I haven't processed film in many years and don't have a darkroom at the moment to experiment in. It seems that Diafine is the darling of a number of list members at the moment and it sounds like it's pretty fool proof which would suit my current space arrangement.

I would like to buy something from the local store until such time as I get around to ordering some Diafine to play with ... perhaps in the fall when I am going to try to set up a proper darkroom. Maybe by then there will be another Canadian member group purchase :D

I have been using TMax and a little Plus X ... I want to shoot more 120 but the cost to have it processed and printed is outrageous. I don't have the need or knowledge to push film at this point in my learning process. I just shoot it as rated on the box.

I could go down to the local shop and buy whatever the guy behind the counter hands me but I respect and value the opinions of the list members :) Now with the input that you all have offered I will have a better idea of what to look for.

Thanks!
dan

[o0dano0o]

found this on pnet:

"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."

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BtD7

[back alley]

dan
you must have access to various films where you are. victoria is not really in the sticks eh?
for 120 i loved delta films from ilford. in fact i lived on 3200. but if speed is not the need, try delta 100 or 400. it looks great in 120.

if you want a more traditional look then go with tri-x at 320. even with something like
ilfosol s developer i think you would like the results. and with tri-x almost any dev will do. rodinal, d76, id11, ddx. they will all be good, a bit different from each other maybe.

joe

[afaceinthecrowd]

Thanks Joe :)

The films are easy to come by here. It's just the chemicals that are limited. Victoria is a strange place ... not really a big city but too big to be a small town. Being on the island doesn't help. Vancouver and Seattle are close by but by the time you factor in the cost and time of the ferry trip it's cheaper to mail order :)

I'll give your recomendations a try. Thanks for the suggestions!

dan

[back alley]

dan,

try mcbain camera if you want to stay in canada. they have much experience dealing with shipping supplies.
mcbain (http://www.mcbaincamera.com/)

they don't have diafine however. according to their 'book' it no longer is distributed in canada.
but they have a good selection of most stuff. i buy ilford chemicals mostly and just started to use rodinal with tri-x.

joe

[jlw]

The films are easy to come by here. It's just the chemicals that are limited.

This is going to sound like heresy on a darkroom forum, but I'll say it anyway: Any reputable general-purpose developer will give you good results as long as you use it properly.

There's an old saying that "sheep look alike, except to the shepherd," and likewise, most of the developer hair-splitting in which darkroom enthusiasts love to indulge comes down to miniscule differences that wouldn't really matter to most people. Sure, one person may find that, given his subject-matter tastes, metering technique, and preferred printing techniques, Developer A gives results that are a bit easier to print than Developer B. Meanwhile, a different person with different inputs may feel exactly the opposite.

[Diafine is a bit of a special case: The fact that it is a two-bath developer gives it some distinctive advantages. With it, you don't need to worry nearly as much about temperature control or exact timing. But those are only convenience advantages, not quality advantages, and as long as you're developing anywhere that has electricity and running water, the temp and timing requirements for ordinary single-bath developers aren't all that onerous.]

In other words, if you simply standardize on whatever developer is easy for you to buy, and get enough experience with it to tailor your developing times to your favorite films and preferred printing methods, you'll get results that are probably 98% as good as you'd get from the mythical 'ideal' film/developer combination.

And if you set off on a quest to find that ideal and capture that remaining 2%, when would you have time to take pictures that mattered?


Of course, experimenting with different films and developers can be fun, and I certainly don't want to discourage that. I used to do a lot of it myself. But when my time started getting scarce, I decided to standardize on just developing everything in T-Max liquid developer, which I picked because it's always in stock at the local camera store, is easy to mix, and has published developing times for every kind of film I want to shoot. And when I look at my prints, they don't look any worse than the ones I made when I was constantly playing developer roulette.

[Roger Hicks]

Microphen is just going back into production in the next few weeks; I've just done a toad rest of it and Perceptol for Shutterbug, which will probably appear in 2-3 months time.

Good speed increasing developers such as Microphen give a true ISO seed increase (ISO conditions of density and contrast) of around 2/3 stop, maybe a little more. The penalty is coqrser grain. Fine grain devs give finer grain, but at the expense of a speed loss, again typically 2/3 stop but it can be more.

In other words, HP5 is around ISO 400 in D76, ISO 250 in Perceptol, ISO 650 in Microphen. As I say, these are true ISO speeds, scientifically replicable; you may prefer different exposure indices (EIs) but that's another matter.

Acutance developers such as Paterson FX39 do give higher sharpness, but slightly coarser grain.

Some film-dev combinations are 'magic' such as Paterson Acupan 200 in FX39 or HP5 or Tri-X in almost anything, Some films have a very small developer repertoire and are extremely picky about times and dilutions: I found Fuji Acros to be in this group, though it can deliver superb results when you finally get it right.

As you may guess from the above, while I heartily agree with JLW that you can standardize on any one of a number of developers, with convenience and ease of purchase being major considerations, I really don't think that distinguishing between different developers is hair-splitting. This is especially true when you consider that some deliver twice the true film speed of others. Most developers do what it says on the box or bottle, but they don't all promise to do the same thing.

You might want to have a look at the Photo School on www.rogerandfrances.com for more ideas and information.

Cheers,

Roger

[back alley]

thanks roger!