Diafine and Tri-X are now getting along wonderfully... and at amazing speeds!

[schmoozit]

You may (or may not) recall the thread HERE...

Either way, I've now found that letting my Tri-X sit in the solutions for 3:30, doing one inversion at outset, and one inversion every thirty seconds thereafter (gently), works perfectly. I've not seen cleaner negs ever. So, under-agitation it was...

Deciding to use the roll that was already in my G2, I wanted to see how far I could push the film ISO wise and get something of use. I was quite surprised!

ISO 50 through 6400 will work, if you use care metering and take into account that some scenes will probably just not work out. You can even use 25, and I dare say you could get away with 12 in some cases!

Now, if you are scanning you'll need a good dedicated film scanner, and when you get to the real extremes you'll be getting a very edgy look. I like edgy, so it's cool with me. Of course, we're talking Diafine, so you can shoot the same scene at different speeds if you aren't sure you'll like one version.

Here is a shot @ ISO 50. There are lines through the scan, but they can be dealt with if need be. I did very basic curves adjustments; nothing fancy or extreme whatsoever.

 

[PaulN]

I've recently gotten back into developing my own B&W and have primarily been using Ilford's DD-X as it is in liquid form. It has been giving me some good results but it has been a pain souping individual rolls one at a time as my film choice has varied. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that I can take Tri-X between 50 & 6400 and develop them w/o any problems if I went with diafine. Amazing.

Has anyone tried diafine with any ilford films? I have some HP5+ @ 3200 that I haven't souped yet. I'd love to know if I could mix this in with some exposed Tri-X in diafine for 3:30 and have everything look good.

Also, how messy is mixing diafine? I have an infant in the house, and we live in a small apartment. I've been using liquid developers as they are less messy. I worry about mixing powders as there might be dust that could end up on the floor when I mix. With diafine, are we talking a dusty granular powder, or large dust-free crystals that mix with water?

While I'm posting, what are the cons of Diafine? It seems to good to be true..

 

[zeos 386sx]

Considering the back-light from the window, the contrast and density seem very well behaved. Tri-x at iso 50 - I'm amazed that you don't have blocked up highlights.

 

[schmoozit]

I've recently gotten back into developing my own B&W and have primarily been using Ilford's DD-X as it is in liquid form. It has been giving me some good results but it has been a pain souping individual rolls one at a time as my film choice has varied. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that I can take Tri-X between 50 & 6400 and develop them w/o any problems if I went with diafine. Amazing.

Has anyone tried diafine with any ilford films? I have some HP5+ @ 3200 that I haven't souped yet. I'd love to know if I could mix this in with some exposed Tri-X in diafine for 3:30 and have everything look good.

Also, how messy is mixing diafine? I have an infant in the house, and we live in a small apartment. I've been using liquid developers as they are less messy. I worry about mixing powders as there might be dust that could end up on the floor when I mix. With diafine, are we talking a dusty granular powder, or large dust-free crystals that mix with water?

While I'm posting, what are the cons of Diafine? It seems to good to be true..

Yup! Diafine is quite amazing. I haven't used it much, and have had a hard time working out the correct agitation. I suspected that different tanks would require a different agitation routine, and from Tom's last post on the above linked thread, I guess I was right. That is one of the cons. You'll have to work it out, though you can probably find someone who uses a similar tank and get it right pretty much from the start.

You can practically throw your thermometer out, don't have to have a timer, can shoot at different speeds on the same roll, and..., and... It's pretty cool.

I haven't done any other powders, so I can't compare. I thought it wasn't bad at all. If you use a funnel to pour the powder through you shouldn't have to worry about spills. I'll let others respond further on this point, however.

Check this out... LINK

 

[schmoozit]

Considering the back-light from the window, the contrast and density seem very well behaved. Tri-x at iso 50 - I'm amazed that you don't have blocked up highlights.

Yeah! I thought it came out exceptionally well. Good to know it's doable, I think.

 

[jano]

Hi.. newbie here.. is that 3 hours and 30 minutes or 3 minutes and 30 seconds?

 

[schmoozit]

Hi.. newbie here.. is that 3 hours and 30 minutes or 3 minutes and 30 seconds?

Doh! 3 Minutes and 30 Seconds! Sorry for being so dull there.

Boy, could you imagine one inversion every thirty seconds for 3 and a half hours? That'd be a sure one way ticket to the white padded room for me ;-)

 

[T_om]

Doh! 3 Minutes and 30 Seconds! Sorry for being so dull there.

Boy, could you imagine one inversion every thirty seconds for 3 and a half hours? That'd be a sure one way ticket to the white padded room for me ;-)

Sounds like a Rodinal fanatic to me. :bang:

Tom 😉

 

[T_om]

I've recently gotten back into developing my own B&W and have
primarily been using Ilford's DD-X as it is in liquid form. It has been giving me
some good results but it has been a pain souping individual rolls one at a time as
my film choice has varied. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that I can
take Tri-X between 50 & 6400 and develop them w/o any problems if I went with
diafine. Amazing...

50 to 6400 is quite a stretch. I shoot Tri-X at 1250 and have for years and years.
you CAN vary the EI quite a bit with Diafine and end up with perfectly usable
negatives, but again... I would never use such a wide range as 50 to 6400.

Has anyone tried diafine with any ilford films? I have some HP5+ @ 3200
that I haven't souped yet. I'd love to know if I could mix this in with some
exposed Tri-X in diafine for 3:30 and have everything look good.

I use Ilford's HP and FP emulsions all the time. Works great.
I expose HP5 at the Diafine box speed of 800 and have never had a problem.

Also, how messy is mixing diafine? I have an infant in the house, and we live in a small apartment.

Not messy at all. Two small cans about the size of tomato paste cans.
One is dumped into a gallon jug, mixed with water, and becomes Solution A.
The other is also dumped into a gallon jug and becomes Solution B.
They will last until your child enters High School (slight exaggeration here 😉 )
so no other mixing difficulties will arise for a LONG time.

While I'm posting, what are the cons of Diafine? It seems to good to be true

Do a search on this site looking for "Diafine".
That should provide you with an evening or two of entertaining reading with varying points of view.

I think it is the best thing since sliced bread and have been using it
since the sixties. It is especially good for film being scanned.

Tom

 

[Stephanie Brim]

Thanks to the people here, I pretty much use it exclusively. I'm thinking of keeping some quart size D76 packets around (should give me 3-4 uses 1:1) for the films that I shouldn't really develop in it...but those are few and far between. I also shot my HP5 at 800. My Tri-X was actually shot at ISO 400 and came out beautifully. The long life and simplistic nature of it tend to draw me to it. 🙂

 

[Nick R.]

Paul,
Here's a shot of HP5+ souped in Diafine. It was exposed at EI 640 on my Kiev w. 50mm.