Best daylight B&W film for Diafine?

[bennybo]

Howdy folks,

I've run a few folls of Tri-X through my new (old) M6, developing with Diafine.
I'm still experimenting on what is the best ASA setting for indoor shooting. My latest roll came out underexposed.

But obviously the biggest limitation with Diafine and Tri-X is shooting in daylight. In bright sun I'm limited to 1/1000 and small aperatures.

I've perused the forums on the weekend but couldn't get a good feel for a good Tri-X substitute in daylight. Plus-X at 400? FP4 at 250?

Just looking for a little polling on what you Diafine users prefer... I'd like to nail Diafine before moving on to D-76.

 

[lido]

I find Diafine works fine when I really want to push my Tri-X, but for daylight I use either TMax 100 or Ilford Delta 100 in D76. I guess you should look for a film that does not get a big push in Diafine. I don't have Diafine retail packaging with me, but if you check the box, it will have suggested ISO ratings for different films. Some of them are pretty close to factory ratings.
Hope this helps.

 

[r-brian]

I've shot Plus-X @ 250 and TMax100 @ 160 in Diafine. Examples are in my gallery. They both came out nice. Try it and see.

Brian

 

[derevaun]

Some people shoot at box speed and "pull" with Diafine using 2 minutes for both baths, or some variation on that. I rather like the look of Tri-X and Plus-X at box speed using normal Diafine times, but mostly with flat lighting. I think it's worth a try in sunlight though. IMHO it's best to evaluate Diafine on how it prints or scans rather than on how normal the neg looks.

There's also Acros at 160.

 

[T_om]

PX or FP both work fine.

Tom

 

[lido]

Just checked the package, recommended rating for Ilford Delta 100 is 80 ISO and FP4 is 200 ISO. I really like Delta 100 😉

 

[Nick R.]

Ilford's Pan F+ rated at box speed looks its best in Diafine, imo. Try it.

 

[wlewisiii]

Personally I love the look I get from Plus-X at EI400 in Diafine. It's a very nice combination, I think.

William

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Now that you've seen how very personal this question is...

I'm about to try one roll of Pan-F, shot at box speed, in Diafine. I'm going to shoot it tonight and tomorrow (and some of the shots are going to be experimental shadow shots, which should test out the shadow detail) and then develop it tomorrow night when I get home from work. I'll keep everyone posted on my results.

Over the weekend, I'm going to pick up some more Pan-F (hopefully about four rolls), some FP4 (again, hopefully about four rolls), and some HP5 (which I *love* in Diafine at 800). I'm also picking up two small bottles of Rodinal and a bottle of HC-110. Perhaps also a package of D76. I'm kind of wanting to vary my developer use (especially since I have my color film experimentation going on) and I want to try some one shot stuff. I think Fuji 100 in D76 1:3 may be an interesting experiment. 🙂

In my humble opinion, you're better off using another developer with slow films. Then again, you may like the results you get. It's all very personal and depends on the person developing the film.

 

[trittium]

Ilford's Pan F+ rated at box speed looks its best in Diafine, imo. Try it.

I have tried PanF, and I hate the results in diafine. It looks grainy (like iso 400) which is disappointing for shooting at 80.

 

[Doug]

I shoot Pan F at 50 and FP4 at 250, souped in Diafine they look great to me... And I think an EI of 250 is very useful for general purposes in daylight and brighter interiors, versatile.

 

[bennybo]

Thanks for the responses.

I'll give a couple of them a try.

I also just finished an experiment on Tri-X in Diafine.

I shot a darkish indoor scene at different ASA settings on my M6 at the metered f stop. Then I repeated with a brighter scene (but not full noon sun daylight).

I am currently scanning the negs and trying to understand the results.

One thing I can say for sure... On my camera with my metering, an ASA of 1600 is underexposed. Too much loss of shadow detail. I'm leaning toward 800-1000 which look a little overexposed on the negative but process well in Photoshop.

I'll try to figure out how to post pictures and show you the results.

 

[Doug]

One thing I can say for sure... On my camera with my metering, an ASA of 1600 is underexposed. Too much loss of shadow detail. I'm leaning toward 800-1000 which look a little overexposed on the negative but process well in Photoshop.

I'll try to figure out how to post pictures and show you the results.

I think this is pretty much in agreement with experiences posted here and in Photo.net. Most seem to find EI around 1000-1250 as being about right for Tri-X. But scanning and printing may call for a little difference too, and if you find 800-1000 does well for your scanning, then you have found your own comfort point you can use with confidence. 🙂