Jim Evidon
Jim
I am returning to film after 10 years in digital, having just purchased a very clean M4P 70 Jahre # L128. Don't get my wrong. Digital is great. It's just that film offers a different media to work with and to add to my photographic tools and experience. Years ago when I was doing my own B&W processing, pre-digital, my standby was Rodinol with every film.
My first roll of B&W film will be HP5, and I want to try something else besides Rodinol. I have read various opinions on what developer to use. I am interested in trying Diafin, because I read that it is insensitive to time and temperature. I have even read that it makes no difference what ISO rating you choose to shoot at and you can change ISO mid roll to compensate for changing lighting conditions. I would like to know if this is correct.
I would appreciate your thoughts on the above mentioned claims as well as any opinions regarding this combination of film and developer together with any recommended techniques that should be used.
My first roll of B&W film will be HP5, and I want to try something else besides Rodinol. I have read various opinions on what developer to use. I am interested in trying Diafin, because I read that it is insensitive to time and temperature. I have even read that it makes no difference what ISO rating you choose to shoot at and you can change ISO mid roll to compensate for changing lighting conditions. I would like to know if this is correct.
I would appreciate your thoughts on the above mentioned claims as well as any opinions regarding this combination of film and developer together with any recommended techniques that should be used.
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
I have no experience with Diafine, but Rodinal makes the grain more visible and for my own taste gives not so much good blacks.
I now, after trying Rodinal some time, use D-76 mostly.
The latest results were with the Adox CHM 400 pro films in D-76.
I now, after trying Rodinal some time, use D-76 mostly.
The latest results were with the Adox CHM 400 pro films in D-76.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jim,
A wise choice to avoid Rodinal with HP5 Plus: big grain and low speed.
Diafine is a good developer but the claims for it (as for most two-baths) are wildly exaggerated. Its proponents sing its praises very loudly; too loudly, in the view of some others.
The principle of a two-bath is that in the first bath, the emulsion imbibes the developing agent and begins development; in the second, the developer is in effect activated, and the remaining developing agent is used up, thereby limiting over-development. Perhaps the most convincing argument against ANY developer -- Rodinal, D-76, Diafine, DD-X, FX-39, you name it -- is that if it were clearly the best in all circumstances, it would soon become the only developer on the market.
So by all means try it, but don't necessarily expect a magic bullet. Personally I prefer Ilford DD-X.
Cheers,
Roger
Al Kaplan
Veteran
Diafine allows for a wide range of time and temperature variation but it's NOT magic. The emulsion soaks up as much developer as it can, but there's no activator. When it gets in solution B the developer gets activated. You hasve no way of controlling contrast by increasing or decreasing either temperature or developing time. With most films you'll get a slightly low contrast negative, which is more forgiving of exposure errors, and a speed boost of 1/2 to a full stop. When it was first marketed about 40 years ago it gave a speed boost of at least two stops with Tri-X, but less with other films. Supposedly it was formulated for use with Tri-X. At least that was the rumor. Tri-X has gone through God-only-knows how many "NEW IMPROVED!" versions since then. Now it's sharper, has finer grain, and has a thinner emulsion layer, so it can't soak up as much "Solution A" as it did in the old days. Figure that an ISO of 650 to 800 for a max, and the lower contrast will allow a stop or more of overexposure before the highlights block up too badly.
Keep in mind that it was formulated for "quick & dirty" processing by newspaper photographers who might not have time to get their chemicals to a specific temperature as they rushed to get a print on the editor's desk. They hadn't even invented fast drying resin coated (RC) paper yet. The speed boost was a welcome plus, but the fine grain didn't mean squat with the course screen zinc half-tone plates used back then with letterpress printing on newsprint.
Use Diafine because it simplifies development, but you'll still want to figure out what film speed it's really giving you if you want to produce decent looking prints.
Keep in mind that it was formulated for "quick & dirty" processing by newspaper photographers who might not have time to get their chemicals to a specific temperature as they rushed to get a print on the editor's desk. They hadn't even invented fast drying resin coated (RC) paper yet. The speed boost was a welcome plus, but the fine grain didn't mean squat with the course screen zinc half-tone plates used back then with letterpress printing on newsprint.
Use Diafine because it simplifies development, but you'll still want to figure out what film speed it's really giving you if you want to produce decent looking prints.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Ilford Microphen
Ilford Microphen
I am like you a retro guy returning. Back in the decades I used Ilford Microphen with a three to one dilution and extended time to 18 or 21 minutes agutating gently every 30 seconds. This allowed me to push the HP5 to 650 ASA (yes this was decades ago) and achieve both fine grain and wide dynamic range. I was in art school back in the late 70's. Negitives had strong contrasts, but my best negitives were a bit thin.
Currently Ilford does not suggest using HP5 nor Microphen in this manner. Essentially Using an aggessive developer to atain fine grain results. I was able to print without contrast filters and used a #2 graded contrast paper.
This was for all hand held work.
The best of luck.
Cal
Ilford Microphen
I am like you a retro guy returning. Back in the decades I used Ilford Microphen with a three to one dilution and extended time to 18 or 21 minutes agutating gently every 30 seconds. This allowed me to push the HP5 to 650 ASA (yes this was decades ago) and achieve both fine grain and wide dynamic range. I was in art school back in the late 70's. Negitives had strong contrasts, but my best negitives were a bit thin.
Currently Ilford does not suggest using HP5 nor Microphen in this manner. Essentially Using an aggessive developer to atain fine grain results. I was able to print without contrast filters and used a #2 graded contrast paper.
This was for all hand held work.
The best of luck.
Cal
jfujita
Established
I've had luck with HP5 and rodinal. I've also tried acros and neopan 400 in diafine to good effect.
I find that the diafine does result in lower contrast so its a better combo to use if this is your desired look. In my case the lower contrast and speed compensation made acros and diafine a good combo for shooting a sunny high-contrast scene at the beach using hyperfocal.
printscan
hp5 @ 400
dev: rodinal 1:50 14min @20 C.
35 cron IV + green filter
negscan
acros @ 200
dev: diafine 5+5
35 lux asph
I find that the diafine does result in lower contrast so its a better combo to use if this is your desired look. In my case the lower contrast and speed compensation made acros and diafine a good combo for shooting a sunny high-contrast scene at the beach using hyperfocal.
printscan
hp5 @ 400
dev: rodinal 1:50 14min @20 C.
35 cron IV + green filter
negscan
acros @ 200
dev: diafine 5+5
35 lux asph
venchka
Veteran
I'm finishing up a 100 sheet box of 4x5 and I also developed several rolls of 120 HP5+.
I used D-76 1:1 and Xtol 1:3. Either produced nice negatives. My time for Xtol 1:3 in a Jobo tank and continous agitation started at 12 minutes, then 10 minutes and now I'm down to 9 minutes @ 68F. I also tried Xtol 1:3 and Rodinal at 1:100 in the same tank at the same time for 8 minutes with continuous agitation. Very nice indeed.
I like HP5+. I'm going to buy a box of Tmax 400 Improved. When I finish that box I will make a choice between the two and stick with it. I am sold on Xtol 1:3.
I used D-76 1:1 and Xtol 1:3. Either produced nice negatives. My time for Xtol 1:3 in a Jobo tank and continous agitation started at 12 minutes, then 10 minutes and now I'm down to 9 minutes @ 68F. I also tried Xtol 1:3 and Rodinal at 1:100 in the same tank at the same time for 8 minutes with continuous agitation. Very nice indeed.
I like HP5+. I'm going to buy a box of Tmax 400 Improved. When I finish that box I will make a choice between the two and stick with it. I am sold on Xtol 1:3.
cosmonaut
Well-known
I have developed HP5 with TMax with very nice results.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
ID11 is boring but works - I've also used rodinal to stand develop pushed (iso1600) HP5+. Normal rodinal/HP5 is too grainy for me mostly.
John Elder
Well-known
I have been shooting Hp5+ since it was originaly made , and Hp5 before that. My current developer is HC-110. I process 35mm in a 5 roll Patterson tank. I use distilled water for development. I rate the film speed at EI 320. I use 1 oz deveoper to 50 0z water(fills tank exactly). I develop for 7 minutes and agitate 5 seconds every 30 seconds. Temp at 68 degrees. Negs developed for Cold Light diffusion enlargement. I would think this would be a good starting point.
Jim Evidon
Jim
To ifujita, nice pics. I thought the tone and texture of the HP5+Rodinol was surprisingly excellent. The second one with Acros+Diafine was more contrasty, but it was obviously shot in a more contrasty light, so no surprise. Grain and tonal range in both was excellent.
To the rest of you, please keep the comments coming. they are really helpful and it may be that Diafine may not be the answer, although the convenience factor is still appealing.
To the rest of you, please keep the comments coming. they are really helpful and it may be that Diafine may not be the answer, although the convenience factor is still appealing.
John Elder
Well-known
HC-110 is a liquid syrup that lasts along time, if you are giving great weight to convenience. Before Hc-110 my developer of choice was Rodinal. I used Rodinal with Hp5 for at least 7 years. The negatives were fine. God tonality, low speed , IE 200, large frain which didn't bother me at all due to cold light enlargement. I changed because after testing the 2 developers i decided that Hc110 actaully had better resolution. Iwas sharper when examined under a 8x loupe. Also the grain was finer and speed was higher.
Both are good developers. In fact its hard to find a bad developer these days.
Both are good developers. In fact its hard to find a bad developer these days.
ully
ully
John, how do you know the speed is higher by looking at grain under a loop.
I have never really understood the speed thing.
Richard
I have never really understood the speed thing.
Richard
kaiyen
local man of mystery
I think that he looked at the grain through a loupe as one step. And found the speed as another step. Two different things.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
two bath developers have certain qualities that are convinient. The lack of "blowing" highlights and reasonable cost among them. The newer films have much thinner emulsions and does not really suck up enough of the A solution to develop fully in B unless you make it up for that. Diafine has always been my "emergency" developer, quick and reasonable, but can be hell to print from but as was said before. Old newspaper printing technology was quite happy with 4-5 of Ansel's zones!
Get hold of "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Anchell and start mixing your own instead of relying on commercial developers (expensive and has to be formulated for shipping and long storage).
There are multiple 2 bath soups that work very well with modern thin emulsion films, TD 201, Split D76 (Farmer's version), Stoeckler, split D-23 etc. Shoot a lot and try the various ones until you find what works for you. For the last 350 rolls I have been using Sandy King's Pyrocat HD for just about everything. Reasonable grain, reasonable speed (if it says 400 on the box, thats what you get) and cheap (my averaged out cost for 350 rolls was $0.09/roll!!
As with any question like this: go to Flickr and type in the film and the developer you want to find out about and somebody there knows about it and have pictures that show what it looks like.
P.S. I think the photographic worlds is divided (or used to be) into two camps. Those of us who used Tri X for everything and those who used HP5/HP5+!!
Get hold of "The Darkroom Cookbook" by Anchell and start mixing your own instead of relying on commercial developers (expensive and has to be formulated for shipping and long storage).
There are multiple 2 bath soups that work very well with modern thin emulsion films, TD 201, Split D76 (Farmer's version), Stoeckler, split D-23 etc. Shoot a lot and try the various ones until you find what works for you. For the last 350 rolls I have been using Sandy King's Pyrocat HD for just about everything. Reasonable grain, reasonable speed (if it says 400 on the box, thats what you get) and cheap (my averaged out cost for 350 rolls was $0.09/roll!!
As with any question like this: go to Flickr and type in the film and the developer you want to find out about and somebody there knows about it and have pictures that show what it looks like.
P.S. I think the photographic worlds is divided (or used to be) into two camps. Those of us who used Tri X for everything and those who used HP5/HP5+!!
Last edited:
Tim Gray
Well-known
I use Diafine for two uses. First is for Tri-X. I do find that it gives a convincing 1250. Is it true speed? Maybe not, but shadows are there and everything looks decent. Usually this is only done for concert shooting - very high contrast situations, so the low contrast development can help.
The second scenario I've used Diafine is for films that I don't know the development times for. Shoot it at box speed and dev in Diafine and you'll get something.
It is low contrast. Highlights tend not to blow out. I don't wet print my Diafine negs very much, I scan them, so low contrast isn't a big deal. Something easily fixed in Photoshop.
The big problem with Diafine in my mind is that you can't adjust development at all. The only adjustment you have is to adjust exposure, knowing that the highlights won't really blow out. To a certain extent, you're controlling the amount of exposure you give the shadows and not the highlights. Lower EI gives more exposure to the shadows, and lowers over contrast when developed.
That being said, I never worry about this and just shoot at 1250. For 400 and 800, I just use XTOL. For 1600 and 3200, I use TMZ in XTOL.
The second scenario I've used Diafine is for films that I don't know the development times for. Shoot it at box speed and dev in Diafine and you'll get something.
It is low contrast. Highlights tend not to blow out. I don't wet print my Diafine negs very much, I scan them, so low contrast isn't a big deal. Something easily fixed in Photoshop.
The big problem with Diafine in my mind is that you can't adjust development at all. The only adjustment you have is to adjust exposure, knowing that the highlights won't really blow out. To a certain extent, you're controlling the amount of exposure you give the shadows and not the highlights. Lower EI gives more exposure to the shadows, and lowers over contrast when developed.
That being said, I never worry about this and just shoot at 1250. For 400 and 800, I just use XTOL. For 1600 and 3200, I use TMZ in XTOL.
vieri
Leica Ambassador
Again on the Pyro developer's side: I am using exclusively 510-Pyro for the last few months, maybe a year, and I am very very happy with the results. Pyro gives great tones and is considered one of the best developing agents though a tough one to handle, thus the two-bath solution; however, 510-Pyro is a one-bath, C-Vitamin, very viscous developer which you can keep forever without problems; I develop Efke 25, 50, Pan-F+, Plus-X, Tri-X & their Arista Premium equivalents, Neopan 1600, HP5+ (in 120) in it, and I am always very happy with what I see. You can find information about it on Jay de Fehr's blog. Very worth a try IMHO.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
What Tim said.
I'm only intermediate, so I haven't tried much yet. But I have a pretty good idea about what Diafine can and cannot do. Convincing 1250 during concerts indeed!
I now use HC-110 to get more control over development. Pretty good standard developer and with my low volumes very convenient as well. My first Tri-X negs are drying as we speak, HP5+ will be next!
I'm only intermediate, so I haven't tried much yet. But I have a pretty good idea about what Diafine can and cannot do. Convincing 1250 during concerts indeed!
I now use HC-110 to get more control over development. Pretty good standard developer and with my low volumes very convenient as well. My first Tri-X negs are drying as we speak, HP5+ will be next!
Dogman
Veteran
Try HP5+ in Rodinal 1:75 w/a tablespoon of sodium sulfite. At 68 degrees F, give it 11-12 minutes for a thin, low-contrast negative that prints easily. Works with Tri-X too.
Or use D76 1:3 and decrease development time by about 30% from what Ilford's development chart suggests. About the same results as with Rodinal & sulfite but easier to mix.
HP5+ gives decent results in just about any developer.
Or use D76 1:3 and decrease development time by about 30% from what Ilford's development chart suggests. About the same results as with Rodinal & sulfite but easier to mix.
HP5+ gives decent results in just about any developer.
kxl
Social Documentary
@ 400 EI, HP5+ is best with HC-110, dil B -- rich tonality and smooth as buttah'