cosmonaut
Well-known
I have used Tmax developer and D-76 but am thinking of using some Diafine. How much harder to use is it and is it best to use it for pushing film? How is it for just developing film when you don't want to push it? Any tips before I order it? Also how many times can you develop with it? All tips appreciated..........
Cosmo
Cosmo
padraigm
Established
Well it's probably the easiest developer to use. Don't really need to worry about temp etc. You can't push or pull it, it does what it does so look a what speed it gives for the type of film you use. It's great for tri-x where you have an ISO between 1250 -1600 and plus-x becomes 400. As for using it, I have had mine for over 9 months and still going strong. Most people replace it after a year or so just to be safe.
shenkerian
Established
Diafine is dead simple to use. It's very forgiving of time and temperature, and even exposure - I tend to shoot Tri-X at 1250, but I've read of other people rating it all the way down to 200 with good results.
It lasts effectively forever, on the order of years.
It lasts effectively forever, on the order of years.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
The film absorbs some Solution A but it can't absorb more liquid when it goes into Solution B so your bottle of solution A gets more and more empty, but not B. On occasion dump out some solutiuon B so both bottles have the same amount in them, and top them off with fresh developer solutions. No need to dump it all and start fresh.
It does give a speed boost with most films, and seems to be formulated to work best with Tri-X. When it first hit the market in the mid 1960s the claim was a speed of 2400 fror Tri-X, but this was soon revised downward to 1600, still a two stop increase in effective film speed. Over the years Tri-X has been "improved" bunches of times so now it has much finer grain than it used to have. This was partially by way of using a thinner emulsion, and the thinner emulsion can't soak up as much Solution A as the older versions of Tri-X, so the Solution A in the emulsion depletes faster. Most people feel that ISO 800 to 1200 is realistic. You need to do your own test! You're the one that's going to print it.
Lastly, it tends to give a slightly flat negative. If you wet print figure on using a contrast filter of 3 instead of 2.
It's cheap to use, no need to check temperature as long as you're someplace close to "average room temperature", and accurate timing isn't required. 3 to 4 minutes is a good range.
It does give a speed boost with most films, and seems to be formulated to work best with Tri-X. When it first hit the market in the mid 1960s the claim was a speed of 2400 fror Tri-X, but this was soon revised downward to 1600, still a two stop increase in effective film speed. Over the years Tri-X has been "improved" bunches of times so now it has much finer grain than it used to have. This was partially by way of using a thinner emulsion, and the thinner emulsion can't soak up as much Solution A as the older versions of Tri-X, so the Solution A in the emulsion depletes faster. Most people feel that ISO 800 to 1200 is realistic. You need to do your own test! You're the one that's going to print it.
Lastly, it tends to give a slightly flat negative. If you wet print figure on using a contrast filter of 3 instead of 2.
It's cheap to use, no need to check temperature as long as you're someplace close to "average room temperature", and accurate timing isn't required. 3 to 4 minutes is a good range.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Diafine is dead easy. It gives a speed boost with most traditional films but not with T-grain films.
As stated before, it is great with Tri-X @1250 but avoid flat lighting. Under high contrast conditions (concerts) this combo is a sheer thrill though.
FP4+ also works very well at ISO 250 and so does Fomapan 100 at ISO 80-100. I don't like HP5+ in it. A roll of TMax 100 also worked well at ISO 100.
My first batch was stone dead after a year or so, no idea why. Current batch is ok.
Basically anything you plunk in it will yield usable negatives.
As stated before, it is great with Tri-X @1250 but avoid flat lighting. Under high contrast conditions (concerts) this combo is a sheer thrill though.
FP4+ also works very well at ISO 250 and so does Fomapan 100 at ISO 80-100. I don't like HP5+ in it. A roll of TMax 100 also worked well at ISO 100.
My first batch was stone dead after a year or so, no idea why. Current batch is ok.
Basically anything you plunk in it will yield usable negatives.
sniki
Well-known
It really lasts forever: last week - after almost one year - I reuse my two-year aged Diafine solutions neatly.
Only one caution: filter before reuse.
Only one caution: filter before reuse.
usagisakana
Established
While so many people seem to reccommend it, I would not- I spent about 2 or 3 months ruining negatives with it; uneven development was all I got with it, with mostly tri-x, some neopan, some acros.. 35mm and 120... no matter what I did I couldn't get it to develop evenly. The negatives had poor tonality to boot.
Give it a try, if it works for you it's certainly easy to use. But I find that it's not that much easier than using rodinal or any other liquid developer, and they not only give me dependable, even development, but nicer looking images (in my opinion).
Of course your mileage may vary- only way to know is to try it.
Give it a try, if it works for you it's certainly easy to use. But I find that it's not that much easier than using rodinal or any other liquid developer, and they not only give me dependable, even development, but nicer looking images (in my opinion).
Of course your mileage may vary- only way to know is to try it.
cosmonaut
Well-known
Thanks all for the great advice. I am currently shooting Trix. But I have been shooting it at 400 but in low light. I guess I will give it a shot and order some. What fixers do you use or what goes well with it?
V
varjag
Guest
I used it for a while, can't say am thrilled. It's only advantage is panthermic nature. The tonality is weird with most films. Processing time, when you consider you have to do 2 baths, isn't really shorter than with many traditional developers. It's speed increasing properties are over hyped, Tri-X at EI 1250 in it doesn't look anywhere close to ISO criteria. Oh, and "lasts forever" isn't really true if you shoot a lot; bath A exhausts (in volume due to absorbtion into film) pretty quick.
Summary: use Diafine if you find the idea of using a kitchen timer or thermometer too intimidating.
Summary: use Diafine if you find the idea of using a kitchen timer or thermometer too intimidating.
Last edited by a moderator:
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
i had plenty of good experience with tri-x and neopan1600 in diafine.
For slow films (meaning box speed around 100 or less) it makes no sense, they will get faster and grainier which defeats the purpose of slow film, and indeed, low contrast is for all films.
I never had uneven development problem with it. My solutions work since about 3 years. I don't even bother filtering, i just pour the liquid in carefully, not to shake off the junk at the bottom. Plenty of washing after development, anyway.
All fixers "work with it", it's not related to the developer..
For slow films (meaning box speed around 100 or less) it makes no sense, they will get faster and grainier which defeats the purpose of slow film, and indeed, low contrast is for all films.
I never had uneven development problem with it. My solutions work since about 3 years. I don't even bother filtering, i just pour the liquid in carefully, not to shake off the junk at the bottom. Plenty of washing after development, anyway.
All fixers "work with it", it's not related to the developer..
TomN
Established
i love this film with fuji acros. i use normal ilford hypham fixer and a dribble of ilford wetting agent.
bmattock
Veteran
You can't use it that way. It is a two-party developer, and by design, it develops to exhaustion. Therefore, the apparent speed increase it gives is characteristic of the developer - you cannot increase or decrease that effect.
The advice others have given in this thread is correct. I find it to be a good developer and use it a lot, but it gives a different look to negatives which some like and some do not. You reuse it until it is gone, and that may take a very very long time indeed.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Uneven development: Never seen that.
Weird tonality: Ish. I have some negs that look not as I intended but I maintain Diafine works well with Tri-X @1250, especially with high contrast scenes. YMMV.
But this is from the very first roll I ever developed myself. It looked several orders of a magnitude better than the 'pro' lab used to do with push processing that I never looked back. It's not a silver bullet, but it can work.
Weird tonality: Ish. I have some negs that look not as I intended but I maintain Diafine works well with Tri-X @1250, especially with high contrast scenes. YMMV.
But this is from the very first roll I ever developed myself. It looked several orders of a magnitude better than the 'pro' lab used to do with push processing that I never looked back. It's not a silver bullet, but it can work.
bmattock
Veteran
Great photo - but crop that microphone! Looks like it is floating in mid air! Seriously, though, great shot.
silverbullet
Well-known
I'm happy with this developer!
Thinking more about the subjects to shoot than chemical aspects this dev is very convenient for me.
It seems that especially the Acros and Neopans work in harmony.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3855775945/in/set-72157622007043813/
or:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/4025951848/in/set-72157622617514618/
or at night:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3294375193/in/set-72157613753153050/
In Germany the 2-bath developer Emofin is more known but has the same influence to the film emulsion.
Bernd
Thinking more about the subjects to shoot than chemical aspects this dev is very convenient for me.
It seems that especially the Acros and Neopans work in harmony.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3855775945/in/set-72157622007043813/
or:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/4025951848/in/set-72157622617514618/
or at night:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/3294375193/in/set-72157613753153050/
In Germany the 2-bath developer Emofin is more known but has the same influence to the film emulsion.
Bernd
feenej
Well-known
Mine went belly up after two years of heavy use. There was a change in appearance of it, but I used it anyway and ruined a roll of film. I have not got around to ordering more Diafine, but I borrow my friend's once in a while, like when I shot a roll of film at two different speeds - it was great for that!
zgeeRF
Established
Low ISO films in Diafine
Low ISO films in Diafine
I agree withn all the (favorite) comments above. My first attempt with TriX was not great, thus the value of testing your preferred ISO setting. In my case the camera had "pushed" at least 3 stops. Later I got good results. I use it extensively with slow films though. Here are some examples with Agfapan 100. I usually push 1 1/2 stops.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/1500960948/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/381326405/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/1565130184/
Another favorite combination I find is with Tech Pan for continuous tone. A modified procedure is necessary: not 3 minutes in B but ... less than one! here is what it can do:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/311091674/
Low ISO films in Diafine
I agree withn all the (favorite) comments above. My first attempt with TriX was not great, thus the value of testing your preferred ISO setting. In my case the camera had "pushed" at least 3 stops. Later I got good results. I use it extensively with slow films though. Here are some examples with Agfapan 100. I usually push 1 1/2 stops.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/1500960948/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/381326405/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/1565130184/
Another favorite combination I find is with Tech Pan for continuous tone. A modified procedure is necessary: not 3 minutes in B but ... less than one! here is what it can do:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zgee/311091674/
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
zgeeRF, what was the E.I. for your techpan in Diafine "less than a minute"?
How far less? 45 sec?
How far less? 45 sec?
Tim Gray
Well-known
It's pretty good stuff for Tri-X. You can shoot it at 400-1600, all on the same roll, and get useable shots. It does give 'non-standard' looking negatives, that tend to have lower contrast. 1250 is convincing looking. I prefer Tri-X at 400 in XTOL, and probably would also take 1600 in XTOL too. However, it's really easy to use and the times ARE quick, so if you've got a bunch of film to develop at 1250ish (like from a concert) you might be tempted to just throw it all in Diafine and let it do it's thing. I know I've certainly done that.
I've gotten uneven development from bromide drag (I think) in skies. Never seen anything like that in concert shots, but then the background usually has no exposure so it's not an issue.
I've gotten uneven development from bromide drag (I think) in skies. Never seen anything like that in concert shots, but then the background usually has no exposure so it's not an issue.
kxl
Social Documentary
One nice thing about Diafine is the fact that as long as you shoot each film at a specific EI (e.g., 1250 for Tri-X, HP5+ at 800(?), etc...), you can throw them all into the same tank and develop all of them at the same time.