Diafine question

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Cheers for the great feedback, Cal. This thread has made me realise I may be able to make diafine work for me for all my shooting, which would be great for the mixed contrast rolls I end up with from my normal shooting.

To be honest, might even encourage me to wet print again, in my basic, but idling darkroom, making contact sheets and work prints easier and quicker to generate. Also does not hurt that my film of choice is TriX, and diafine seems to play well with it. Likewise with Acros, which is also a very attractive option due to its reciprocity failure characteristics for night and night landscape imagery I am fond of.

I only use Diafine. For a while I was playing with Microphen to get 1600 ISO using RanceEric's 25 minute extended development with minimal aggitation, but the grain was kinda big.

I tried Diafine-Time-Two where Tri-X is literally processes 3+3 with a thorough water rinse and processed a second time 3+3 for a doubling of film speed for high ISO work. The results were impressive. A bit more contrast but still good grey scale and mids with fine grain. I found this aceptable, but feared killing my Part A with cross contamination of developers.

I ended up gleaning from Amy (DRabbit) that she got 1250 ISO with Tri-X using Diafine 7+4. I ended up getting results like her rather impressive examples that displayed high acutance, strong contrast and wonderful mids. The film kinda looks like Jim Marshall's work where he shot Tri-X at 800 ISO and used Acufine for a developer. IMHO his film looks like Tri-X that has not been pushed, but has strong contrast with nice midrange. Add in Diafine's compensating effect and I have similar results with a little more film speed.

I intend on doing a lot of hand held night shooting of Tri-X at 1250 ISO. I own a 75 Lux, a 50 Lux and a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. Most recently I bought a Pentax 67II. What a beastly heavy camera to carry all day, but this conditioning definately has made me steadier.

If you are going to wet print I would suggest shooting Tri-X at 650 ISO, especially if you intend to print big as the added negative density records even more shadow detail for a look that moves even closer to large format. I basically just straight print my negatives because they are that consistent. My idea is to try and make perfect negatives like I'm shooting large format and contact printing.

Cal

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by stompyq

Personally i find that HP5 SUCKS with Diafine. I rate it at ISO 800 and it gives results similar to rodinal (which i hate). Stick with TriX for ISO 400 film

Not my favorite, but nice for an effect. The grain is kinda pronounced as stated earlier.

It would be really nice and helpful if you posted something about your impressive results with Pan F.

Cal

[Henk]

As I understand, time and temperature are not critical when
using Diafine.

I wonder if anyone has developed at 16 degrees Celcius (60 Fahrenheit)
or even lower with it ?

Thanks !

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Henk

As I understand, time and temperature are not critical when
using Diafine.

I wonder if anyone has developed at 16 degrees Celcius (60 Fahrenheit)
or even lower with it ?

Thanks !

Temperature is not critical to a point because at some threshold do not expect optimum results.

I found that times either 3+3 for Tri-X and other films should be followed or 5+5 for Arcos to have consistency. If you are sloppy with your times you will not enjoy consisency, and if you do not want consistency, or disregard it, I don't see how you can expect any good results. I want consistent negatives that are ideal to easily straight print. Lack of quality only makes printing harder.

Sorry for the hard line, but this is what I learned in art school.

My experiments with different times was to extend development to increase film speed.

Cal

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by stompyq

Personally i find that HP5 SUCKS with Diafine. I rate it at ISO 800 and it gives results similar to rodinal (which i hate). Stick with TriX for ISO 400 film

Just out of curiousity, why not tell us why you feel it does, and enlarge the conversation and diafine knowledge here..

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Calzone

I only use Diafine. For a while I was playing with Microphen to get 1600 ISO using RanceEric's 25 minute extended development with minimal aggitation, but the grain was kinda big.

I tried Diafine-Time-Two where Tri-X is literally processes 3+3 with a thorough water rinse and processed a second time 3+3 for a doubling of film speed for high ISO work. The results were impressive. A bit more contrast but still good grey scale and mids with fine grain. I found this aceptable, but feared killing my Part A with cross contamination of developers.

I ended up gleaning from Amy (DRabbit) that she got 1250 ISO with Tri-X using Diafine 7+4. I ended up getting results like her rather impressive examples that displayed high acutance, strong contrast and wonderful mids. The film kinda looks like Jim Marshall's work where he shot Tri-X at 800 ISO and used Acufine for a developer. IMHO his film looks like Tri-X that has not been pushed, but has strong contrast with nice midrange. Add in Diafine's compensating effect and I have similar results with a little more film speed.

I intend on doing a lot of hand held night shooting of Tri-X at 1250 ISO. I own a 75 Lux, a 50 Lux and a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. Most recently I bought a Pentax 67II. What a beastly heavy camera to carry all day, but this conditioning definately has made me steadier.

If you are going to wet print I would suggest shooting Tri-X at 650 ISO, especially if you intend to print big as the added negative density records even more shadow detail for a look that moves even closer to large format. I basically just straight print my negatives because they are that consistent. My idea is to try and make perfect negatives like I'm shooting large format and contact printing.

Cal

Cal, you are after everything I want in diafine. I like your philosophy of aiming for straight negs that print well, just like a contact print would.

To be honest, I don't shoot as much as you, and the light levels I typically shoot in over a single roll could be all over the place, making getting a contact sheet with 36 decently exposed frames to judge the roll from, an interesting experience and ultimately a greater waste of larger size paper than I liked. A roll that printed easily, whether as a sheet of contacts, or as individual easy to print work-prints, it would be perfect to me, and am quite keen to give diafine a crack and see how it works out.

The idea of anything other than a straight 3 + 3 is interesting, and would be curious to see how such variations work out, given that there is little to lose by trying it. Must check out and try find some of Amy's (DRabbit) work.

TriX @ 1250, handheld at night. All I can say is you are a man after my own heart. I remember the looks of mild confusion when I met up with a group to shoot at night, as they saw I was shooting handheld. Not sure what it is, but find I have an unnatural resistance to using a tripod for anything, unless absolutely necessary, although going back through some night landscapes I shot digitally when I travelled, remind that of the value of a tripod sometimes..

On that note, might be tempted into shooting some medium format night landscapes with my Rollei, and have some Acros in 120 lying around, begging to be shot. What do you do for your Acros negatives, as I would love to get some of the results you talk about, should I get off my backside to drag that tripod out at night again..

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Just out of curiousity, why not tell us why you feel it does, and enlarge the conversation and diafine knowledge here..

I'll try to post some examples later. Basically I find the mid tones very weak and "muddy" with HP5 and Diafine compared to TriX. The grain is also much more pronounced and ugly (to my eyes). I shott a lot of Hp5 untill Cals suggestion and tried some TriX. The results were vastly different in favor of TriX. The mid tones are wonderful and the grain is minimal and tight. The extra speed also helps with my Pentax 67. Just remember that I shoot 6x7 and don't wet print (or intend to). Everything is scanned on a Epson V700.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by stompyq

I'll try to post some examples later. Basically I find the mid tones very weak and "muddy" with HP5 and Diafine compared to TriX. The grain is also much more pronounced and ugly (to my eyes). I shott a lot of Hp5 untill Cals suggestion and tried some TriX. The results were vastly different in favor of TriX. The mid tones are wonderful and the grain is minimal and tight. The extra speed also helps with my Pentax 67. Just remember that I shoot 6x7 and don't wet print (or intend to). Everything is scanned on a Epson V700.

Ah great, good to hear your feedback. Out of curiousity, what do you rate your TriX at seeing as you scan it - 1250 ?

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Not my favorite, but nice for an effect. The grain is kinda pronounced as stated earlier.

It would be really nice and helpful if you posted something about your impressive results with Pan F.

Cal

I like the results i get with PanF in full sunlight. I haven't shot it all that much (like Acros and TriX) so a little hesitant to comment. The pics from the mermaid parade on my site were almost all shot using PanF (except the last shot which was on Acros)

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Ah great, good to hear your feedback. Out of curiousity, what do you rate your TriX at seeing as you scan it - 1250 ?

Yes 1250. ISO 800 is a little too much density (the scanner seems to not do so well) while ISO 1600 is too thin. Again something like a coolscan might do better than my Epson when it comes to ISO 800 negs.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by stompyq

Yes 1250. ISO 800 is a little too much density (the scanner seems to not do so well) while ISO 1600 is too thin. Again something like a coolscan might do better than my Epson when it comes to ISO 800 negs.

Cheers. Must do a bracketed roll, with shots from 400- 1250, and see which scan (and possibly wet print) best, when souped in diafine.

I like your PanF shots from the Mermaid Parade quite a bit - did you use any filters for added contrast?

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Cheers. Must do a bracketed roll, with shots from 400- 1250, and see which scan (and possibly wet print) best, when souped in diafine.

I like your PanF shots from the Mermaid Parade quite a bit - did you use any filters for added contrast?

Thanks. No filters. Filters seem to add too much contrast. I like a flat neg that scans easily. I add contrast in post

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by stompyq

Thanks. No filters. Filters seem to add too much contrast. I like a flat neg that scans easily. I add contrast in post

Ah cheers. Will settle down and do some testing myself, and see what works for me.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by stompyq

Thanks. No filters. Filters seem to add too much contrast. I like a flat neg that scans easily. I add contrast in post

My approach is just the opposite. I want the contrast on the negative. No multi-contrast papers, print straight onto a grade 2 paper with a condenser enlarger. My negatives are very consistent except when I blow exposure, and I shoot in all kinds of light.

Also realize that I create negatives to print big, and my density might be too much for small prints. I have an archival print on fiber paper shot with a Rollei 3.5F at night with Arcos that was printed 18x18 inches on 20x24 inch paper. The quality is there that I'm not afraid to have this printed 30x30. A thin negative would create difficulties I think if printed this large.

I think the extra density adds detail, especially in the shadows. With Diafine I'm not worried about blown highlights due to how the limited development that happens due to the two part development process. I'm thinking a denser negative provides an edge here as more detail is recorded over digital. IMHO I think the above digital approach and adding contrast later looses some detail.

Cal

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by Calzone

I think the extra density adds detail, especially in the shadows. With Diafine I'm not worried about blown highlights due to how the limited development that happens due to the two part development process. I'm thinking a denser negative provides an edge here as more detail is recorded over digital. IMHO I think the above digital approach and adding contrast later looses some detail.

Cal

This is probably true. I'am probably not using the MF/diafine combo to it's full potential because of my hybrid workflow. However I shoot MF diafine for the tonality and shallow depth of field. Not all that worried about fine detail since i don't shoot many landscapes. For the street/walk around and shoot random crap kind of photography that i do nowadays, it works perfectly fine. Prints up to 16x20 look perfectly acceptable to my eyes but it's true, I rarely go above 8x10 prints.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by stompyq

This is probably true. I'am probably not using the MF/diafine combo to it's full potential because of my hybrid workflow. However I shoot MF diafine for the tonality and shallow depth of field. Not all that worried about fine detail since i don't shoot many landscapes. For the street/walk around and shoot random crap kind of photography that i do nowadays, it works perfectly fine. Prints up to 16x20 look perfectly acceptable to my eyes but it's true, I rarely go above 8x10 prints.

Just trying to add helpful detail. Hopefully I still come over as being humble. I think our differences need to be clear to be helpful. Even for my analog work flow my density might be too much for some shooters.

Cal

[Henk]

I have made the first testprints. Best where the negs shot at 200 asa.
Still less dense than my Rodinal negs, I had to close on extra stop on the
enlarger to get workable print times. (24x30 cm prints)

Prints had to be made at grade 4 to get results I liked.

Conclusion : I will test some more in other lighting conditions and see
what that gives.

So far I have the impression that Rodinal gives better tonality, but as said
I will continue to use Diafine to see in what conditions it performs best

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Henk

I have made the first testprints. Best where the negs shot at 200 asa.
Still less dense than my Rodinal negs, I had to close on extra stop on the
enlarger to get workable print times. (24x30 cm prints)

Prints had to be made at grade 4 to get results I liked.

Conclusion : I will test some more in other lighting conditions and see
what that gives.

So far I have the impression that Rodinal gives better tonality, but as said
I will continue to use Diafine to see in what conditions it performs best

Good to hear - PlusX without filtration?

[Henk]

Indeed, Plus-x without filtration.
What I know of filters for B&W is that they can be used as contrast filters.
But this is of course depending on the color in the scene,
so filtration would not give a contrast boost to every picture, or am I wrong in this ? I would like to hear your opinions on this matter.

I Did some Rodinal/Plus-x prints today. Grain is certainly less pronounced with
Diafine/Plus-x

[Koolzakukumba]

Originally Posted by Henk

Indeed, Plus-x without filtration.
What I know of filters for B&W is that they can be used as contrast filters.
But this is of course depending on the color in the scene,
so filtration would not give a contrast boost to every picture, or am I wrong in this ? I would like to hear your opinions on this matter.

I was thinking the same thing, Henk. Yellow or orange filters will boost contrast in some situations but not all. Indoor shots, for instance, might show the odd lighter or darker colour but it's not going to be marked. An orange filter on a landscape with a blue sky will darken the sky by a tone or two but will also depress shadow detail, particularly where green foliage is dimly lit by the blue light fom open sky. Filters can do a good job in some situations but I wouldn't use them all the time. They're not a panacea.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Koolzakukumba

I was thinking the same thing, Henk. Yellow or orange filters will boost contrast in some situations but not all. Indoor shots, for instance, might show the odd lighter or darker colour but it's not going to be marked. An orange filter on a landscape with a blue sky will darken the sky by a tone or two but will also depress shadow detail, particularly where green foliage is dimly lit by the blue light fom open sky. Filters can do a good job in some situations but I wouldn't use them all the time. They're not a panacea.

Over time I have learned to agree. As a result I'm expanding my selection of developers, but Diafine will still be used extensively with Arcos, pushing Tri-X to 1250 via 7+4, and for when that profound compensating effect is needed.

BTW Arcos in Diafine for night shooting with a tripod is absolutely unbeatable. I shoot at box speed (100 ISO) for wet printing. No grain, detail and great-great tonality. Especially great on medium format.

Cal

[Fotohuis]

Yes, the Diafine - Acros 100 film is a very good combination. Depending on the light E.I. 100-160.
The same for Tri-X 400 and Diafine, E.I. 800-1250. In split grade wet prints my optimum is around iso 1000. It is a pity Neopan 1600 is not available anymore. It was also a good high speed combination on E.I. 1600.
About the developing temperature: Do not developing under 21C with Diafine.

[Koolzakukumba]

I've no experience of Diafine/Acros but 35mm Tri X at 1250 ISO is great. It's particularly good for indoor shooting with a fast lens or handheld on bright city streets at night. I've found grain to be vey acceptable bearing in mind the speed and I can't say I've found the shadows lacking although you don't need full shadow detail if you want a night shot to look like a night shot.

Here are a few:

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Koolzakukumba

I've no experience of Diafine/Acros but 35mm Tri X at 1250 ISO is great. It's particulaly good for indoor shooting with a fast lens or handheld on bright city streets. I've found grain to be vey acceptable bearing in mind the speed and I can't say I've found the shadows lacking although you don't need full shadow detail if you want a night shot to look like a night shot.

Here are a few:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_trYfM1m9OG.../stairwell.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_trYfM1m9OG...00-h/cafe3.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_trYfM1m9OG...stmas-Shop.jpg

Good examples of what can be done with Tri-X at 1250. I go lower in ISO (800) for more density and for wet printing.

Arcos has this inherent strong contrast and mucho shadow detail that resembles the next larger format. To me Tri-X produces strong mids, especially for the film speed.

Cal