Diafine question

[Henk]

Hello,

With Diafine Tri-x should be shot @1600.
What is not clear to me with such a developer is if I should
meter for the shadows and close 2 stops (zone III placement) ?

Thank you !

[Ronald_H]

Originally Posted by Henk

Hello,

With Diafine Tri-x should be shot @1600.
What is not clear to me with such a developer is if I should
meter for the shadows and close 2 stops (zone III placement) ?

Thank you !

I am not familiar with the zone system, but with Diafine you meter as you always do, only your ISO should be set at 1600. Most people, myself included, think ISO1250 is even better.

Tri-X in Diafine is an outstanding combination though, and almost unbeatable under high contrast lighting. From my very first roll, ever:


Gert Bettens (K's Choice), Woodface by Ronald_H, on Flickr

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Henk

Hello,

With Diafine Tri-x should be shot @1600.
What is not clear to me with such a developer is if I should
meter for the shadows and close 2 stops (zone III placement) ?

Thank you !

I shoot Tri-X at 650 ISO for Diafine, but these are for extra dense negatives for wet printing large prints. Overall I found the recomended film speeds to be too aggressive and the at these higher film speeds to lead to thinner negatives.

I meter for 30% gray, but I also undo some of the compensating effects by boosting contrast with 2X yellow filters in 135 and 3X orange filters in medium format. Metering for the shadows is kind of the same as dropping film speed.

What I like about Diafine with Tri-X is the almost no grain, the fine detail, the range of contrast (nice mids), how highlights don't get blown because of limited development, and the added shadow detail that I just cant get with solvent developers. Overall the detail and contrast range takes a step towards a larger format.

For scanning I know someone who uses 800-1000 ISO. Also know that two gentile inversions is all that is needed and less aggitation generates better negatives.

BTW Diafine with Arcos at 100 is a match made in heaven.

Cal

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

I am not familiar with the zone system, but with Diafine you meter as you always do, only your ISO should be set at 1600. Most people, myself included, think ISO1250 is even better.

Tri-X in Diafine is an outstanding combination though, and almost unbeatable under high contrast lighting. From my very first roll, ever:


Gert Bettens (K's Choice), Woodface by Ronald_H, on Flickr

Burn off some of that added film speed provided by Diafine by using filters boost contrast for added versatility. Take full advantage of the compensating effect.

Cal

[stompyq]

Meter as normal (and yes place shadows that you want detail to be in at Zone III) with Diafine. If your scanning then use a ISO of 1250. If your wet printing do like Cal suggests and rate at ISO 650. ISO 1600 is a little too far for my tastes and i feel like i'am loosing shadow detail.

[kuvvy]

Wish I could've produced results like that when used diafine. Don't know if it was my technique but whether I used Acros 100 or Tri-x @ 1250 I ended up with grainy results. No wonder I switched to shooting digital.

[anjoca76]

I used Diafine for about two years, with varying results. Sometimes it was terrific, and other times I had unusable negs. The last couple times I used it--after having mixed up a fresh batch--they were awful, and I couldn't deal with that anymore. I went out and got some D76 and was (still am) amazing at how much more consistent and pleasing my results are.

I do have a soft spot for Diafine and it helped me get some very nice results. But I could never consistently achieve them, unfortunately.

[stompyq]

Originally Posted by anjoca76

I used Diafine for about two years, with varying results. Sometimes it was terrific, and other times I had unusable negs. The last couple times I used it--after having mixed up a fresh batch--they were awful, and I couldn't deal with that anymore. I went out and got some D76 and was (still am) amazing at how much more consistent and pleasing my results are.

I do have a soft spot for Diafine and it helped me get some very nice results. But I could never consistently achieve them, unfortunately.

Cal and I had a conversation about this, and I took his advice and drastically reduced agitation. Minimal Agitation (almost semi stand) in solution A and B gives very consistent results with Acros and TriX. I only use Diafine now and have had consistently good results (on 6x7). I think the only instance where you need normal agitation (like other developers) is right after you add solution B.

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by kuvvy

Wish I could've produced results like that when used diafine. Don't know if it was my technique but whether I used Acros 100 or Tri-x @ 1250 I ended up with grainy results. No wonder I switched to shooting digital.

First off rate Arcos at 100 ISO instead of what is recommended by others and the instructions. Only perform two gentile inversions per minute with BOTH Part A and Part B. I use 5+5 for the time.

Also if you are not blasting your negatives with contrast via the use of filters you will get inconsistent results like thin negatives. I offset this contrast compensating effect by using 2X yellow filters for 135 and 3X orgage filters in medium format. Diafine is a compensating developer that reduces contrast. If not enough contrast is added the results will be thin negatives.

I get very detailed negatives with great tonal range, strong contrast, with no grain when shooting Arcos. Like I said its a match made in heaven. When I say no grain I mean even with looking with a 8X lupe on a light table. Even my 135 displays some large format qualities. Someone I respect greatly who shoots large format once said about my 6X9 negatives, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4X5."

Cal

[k__43]

I rated Tri-X at 800 or a bit higher for Diafine. I tried the claimed 1600 but found the negs were underexposed.

[Murchu]

Great thread, shoot mostly TriX, and bought a batch of diafine a few years back to develop some night shots. Produced great results, but did not touch it for normal negs, as I feared the the contrast would be too low. Often shoot in all sorts of lighting, and would love to use diafine for my TriX in general, especially as I scan my negs mostly. I suppose shooting at iso 800, with added contrast via filters, would give the best compromise for negs I could both wet print or scan?

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Great thread, shoot mostly TriX, and bought a batch of diafine a few years back to develop some night shots. Produced great results, but did not touch it for normal negs, as I feared the the contrast would be too low. Often shoot in all sorts of lighting, and would love to use diafine for my TriX in general, especially as I scan my negs mostly. I suppose shooting at iso 800, with added contrast via filters, would give the best compromise for negs I could both wet print or scan?

Your thoughts are wise. I only develope for wet printing and I make negatives that are likely a bit dense for scanning.

All you really need is mucho Tri-X and Mucho Arcos for lots of shooting. BTW Tri-X is almost as no grain as Arcos if aggitation is minimized. Acros at night is unbeatable for tripod shots. Also know that I typically process 50 rolls of film each month so solvent developers that I pour down the drain don't work for me. Basically my costs for shooting lots of film is the cost of film that I buy in bulk when on sale and a few pennies of fixer.

800 ISO is a good compromise for negatives that will both print well and scan well. The results I get look like a bigger format.

Cal

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Your thoughts are wise. I only develope for wet printing and I make negatives that are likely a bit dense for scanning.

All you really need is mucho Tri-X and Mucho Arcos for lots of shooting. BTW Tri-X is almost as no grain as Arcos if aggitation is minimized. Acros at night is unbeatable for tripod shots. Also know that I typically process 50 rolls of film each month so solvent developers that I pour down the drain don't work for me. Basically my costs for shooting lots of film is the cost of film that I buy in bulk when on sale and a few pennies of fixer.

800 ISO is a good compromise for negatives that will both print well and scan well. The results I get look like a bigger format.

Cal

Cheers for the feedback, Cal. This thread is proving a very good one for all things Diafine. I have a lot of TriX I have not been shooting (90+ rolls), so will shoot a test roll at different iso ratings, and see what comes out best for my dual needs.

Don't have a yellow filter to bump the contrast with it just yet, would I be looking at very flat negs, without some sort of contrast bump from a yellow filter? I think flat negs from shooting in anything other than contrasty conditions were what put me off of using my diafine for all my day to day shooting before.

EDIT: by the way, that is some serious shooting!

[Henk]

Thanks indeed for all these interesting replies.

First test done with Diafine 1/2 hour ago.
It is with Plus-x 125 (I have six remaining...) that I did a test.
I bracketed exposures at 400, 300, 200 asa.

As I wet print, the shots @200 seems the best, best shadow detail,
good density. I think I might even have shot it at box speed.

This weekend I will do some test prints of some negatives.

When my Plus-x is sadly gone I will switch to Tri-X, but if results are comparable,
I suspect 650asa as mentioned will do fine.

I read some of you also boost contrast with filter, but does not this apply
with all B&W film and filters ?

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Henk

Thanks indeed for all these interesting replies.

First test done with Diafine 1/2 hour ago.
It is with Plus-x 125 (I have six remaining...) that I did a test.
I bracketed exposures at 400, 300, 200 asa.

As I wet print, the shots @200 seems the best, best shadow detail,
good density. I think I might even have shot it at box speed.

This weekend I will do some test prints of some negatives.

When my Plus-x is sadly gone I will switch to Tri-X, but if results are comparable,
I suspect 650asa as mentioned will do fine.

I read some of you also boost contrast with filter, but does not this apply
with all B&W film and filters ?

Hi Henk,

Just wondering did you find the results from your Plus-X that you liked at 200 (or even 125) flat? Have not tried any diafine on rolls other than those shot at night with high contrast scenes, and wondered if normal contrast scenes would produce flat negs with diafine

[Henk]

They do not look flat at all.
I must say I expected worse results because I read that diafine performs only
ok in certain light conditione, but my test roll has been
shot on an overcast day here in Belgium.
Perhaps that's maybe why 200 asa gave best results now, so I will
keep on bracketing for a while


This weekend I will make some testprinrs and I will post my findings
on that.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Henk

They do not look flat at all.
I must say I expected worse results because I read that diafine performs only
ok in certain light conditione, but my test roll has been
shot on an overcast day here in Belgium.
Perhaps that's maybe why 200 asa gave best results now, so I will
keep on bracketing for a while


This weekend I will make some testprinrs and I will post my findings
on that.

Ah, cool. Good to know. Will put a test roll or too through myself in the next few days too.

[anerjee]

Calzone, do you have any of your tri-x work online? I know you wet print, but still hoping ...

Also, do you suggest using the yellow filters even for night/low light shots where there is quite a bit of contrast naturally?

Originally Posted by Calzone

Your thoughts are wise. I only develope for wet printing and I make negatives that are likely a bit dense for scanning.

All you really need is mucho Tri-X and Mucho Arcos for lots of shooting. BTW Tri-X is almost as no grain as Arcos if aggitation is minimized. Acros at night is unbeatable for tripod shots. Also know that I typically process 50 rolls of film each month so solvent developers that I pour down the drain don't work for me. Basically my costs for shooting lots of film is the cost of film that I buy in bulk when on sale and a few pennies of fixer.

800 ISO is a good compromise for negatives that will both print well and scan well. The results I get look like a bigger format.

Cal

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Don't have a yellow filter to bump the contrast with it just yet, would I be looking at very flat negs, without some sort of contrast bump from a yellow filter? I think flat negs from shooting in anything other than contrasty conditions were what put me off of using my diafine for all my day to day shooting before.

Once I began using a 2X yellow filter for 135 I no longer had thin negatives unless I underexposed. In medium format I learned that a 2X yellow was not enough and started using 3X orange and even 4X orange/red. Without the use of filters to seriously boost contrast you will get inconsistent results that sometimes produces very thin negatives that have absolutely no contrast.

Moral of the story is when in doubt overexpose. Also the more contrast the better. Works great with noon sun in summer. To realize how drastic the contrast compensating effect is how with a properly exposed urban night shot under industrial lighting (Arcos 100 ISO 2 minute exposure on a tripod) produces amazing grey tones like Tri-X shot in daylight and developed in D-76 1:1. Of course at night no filter is required, but under daylight conditions I boost contrast to simulate urban night time contrast. Also know that you have the proper exposure when you have the most shadow details. Highlights because Diafine is a two part developer experience only a limited amount of development.

Also know that I'm a lazy slacker. The reason I made Diafine work for me is that it was crazy mixing 10 liters of ID-11 every month. Also because I could process 135 and 120 in a batch in the same 8 reel tank Diafine became my "Slacker's Brew." My mode to become a better photographer is to shoot a lot. Pretty easy to do lifestyle if you live in NYC.

Cal

[Calzone]

Originally Posted by anerjee

Calzone, do you have any of your tri-x work online? I know you wet print, but still hoping ...

Also, do you suggest using the yellow filters even for night/low light shots where there is quite a bit of contrast naturally?

No. I'm totally old school. I don't scan and with computers I'm pretty inept.

No filter needed for night, but for daylight you want to boost contrast rather savagely to simulate almost night time conditions.

[Bingley]

Originally Posted by k__43

I rated Tri-X at 800 or a bit higher for Diafine. I tried the claimed 1600 but found the negs were underexposed.

My experience is similar, and I now expose Tri-X at 800 when developing in Diafine. That said, there's some great advice in this thread about using Diafine and Tri-X at higher speeds.

I agree w/ the recommendation for minimal agitation. I use only two very gentle inversions per minute in both solutions.

[Calzone]

BTW HP5 I rate at 800 ISO, but realize that HP5 exhibits considerable pronounced grain that resembles Rodinal. Kinda looks gritty and has its use for an effect.

Arcos has more contrast than Tri-X and IMHO is also more detailed. What is so remarkable about Tri-X is that it is almost as grainless as Arcos which basically has no grain.

Cal

[Bingley]

Originally Posted by Murchu

Hi Henk,

Just wondering did you find the results from your Plus-X that you liked at 200 (or even 125) flat? Have not tried any diafine on rolls other than those shot at night with high contrast scenes, and wondered if normal contrast scenes would produce flat negs with diafine

One of my favorite film/developer combinations is Plus-X at 320 developed in Diafine. Great tones for daytime use. My flickr has lots of examples.

[Murchu]

Originally Posted by Calzone

Once I began using a 2X yellow filter for 135 I no longer had thin negatives unless I underexposed. In medium format I learned that a 2X yellow was not enough and started using 3X orange and even 4X orange/red. Without the use of filters to seriously boost contrast you will get inconsistent results that sometimes produces very thin negatives that have absolutely no contrast.

Moral of the story is when in doubt overexpose. Also the more contrast the better. Works great with noon sun in summer. To realize how drastic the contrast compensating effect is how with a properly exposed urban night shot under industrial lighting (Arcos 100 ISO 2 minute exposure on a tripod) produces amazing grey tones like Tri-X shot in daylight and developed in D-76 1:1. Of course at night no filter is required, but under daylight conditions I boost contrast to simulate urban night time contrast. Also know that you have the proper exposure when you have the most shadow details. Highlights because Diafine is a two part developer experience only a limited amount of development.

Also know that I'm a lazy slacker. The reason I made Diafine work for me is that it was crazy mixing 10 liters of ID-11 every month. Also because I could process 135 and 120 in a batch in the same 8 reel tank Diafine became my "Slacker's Brew." My mode to become a better photographer is to shoot a lot. Pretty easy to do lifestyle if you live in NYC.

Cal

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.

[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