Diafine & Arista.EDU Ultra 400

[dshfoto]

After completing some exposure tests on type 120 films rated at ISO 400 and developing with Diafine, I found that Kodak Tri-X 400, Fuji Neo 400, T-Max 400 (400TMY-2), and Rollei RPX 400 all seem to work with Diafine at a speed of ISO 640. (That is, when exposed at ISO 640, developed with Diafine A+B at the recommended times, and scanned with a Flextight Scanner, the Middle gray ranged from 128-109 for those films.) However, to get a middle gray of 118, Arista.EDU Ultra 400, needed an ISO exposure of 200.

It also seemed that the Arista was not as sharp as the other ISO 400 films included in the test, but that was a very subjective conclusion.

[Note: The purpose of the test was to find the best exposure which reproduced a middle gray target value when scanned, not for printing with an enlarger.]

 

[pschauss]

From a subjective point of view I have always thought that Arista.EDU Ultra 400 (aka Foma 400) looked a bit muddy in Diafine. I prefer the results that I get with HC-110 but it is still not as good as Tri-X in HC-110.

 

[lawrence]

TMY2 v Tri-X in Diafine

TMY2 v Tri-X in Diafine

I found that Kodak Tri-X 400, Fuji Neo 400, T-Max 400 (400TMY-2), and Rollei RPX 400 all seem to work with Diafine at a speed of ISO 640. (That is, when exposed at ISO 640, developed with Diafine A+B at the recommended times, and scanned with a Flextight Scanner, the Middle gray ranged from 128-109 for those films.)

I know this is a bit off topic but how do you rate TMY2 v Tri-X in Diafine? Do you prefer one to the other?

Lawrence

 

[alienmeatsack]

That's quite a bit of variance. It's a whole stop of over exposure to get the same results that the others get when they are shot with what, a half stop under exposure?

I love Diafine, but I've been using D76 more and more lately. When I see the results from my film in Diafine vs the D76, the difference is huge. Even with fresh Diafine it's still not the same.

I shoot a ton of the Arista EDU 400 and 100 when I do BW so I think I will try your speed recommendation and see what it produces in Diafine. Maybe I can get results like what D76 gives me at box speed with it.

 

[dshfoto]

TMY2 v Tri-X in Diafine?

TMY2 v Tri-X in Diafine?

I know this is a bit off topic but how do you rate TMY2 v Tri-X in Diafine? Do you prefer one to the other?

Lawrence

I was surprised by TMY2 in Diafine. I think that I had read that because the TMY2 was different technology, it did not work well in Diafine. My initial reaction is that It seems to have same exposure time, less grain, but may lack slightly a perceived sharpness. I do think that the TMY2 will work
well for portraits, I want to shoot some more of it, and compare it with the TMY2 100 and Rollei RPX 100. (Tri-x, Neo 400, and Rollei RPX 400 all look very close)

 

[lawrence]

I was surprised by TMY2 in Diafine. I think that I had read that because the TMY2 was different technology, it did not work well in Diafine.

90% of everything you read is by someone who's never actually tried it and is simply reiterating what they've read by someone else who's never actually tried it.

My initial reaction is that It seems to have same exposure time, less grain, but may lack slightly a perceived sharpness. I do think that the TMY2 will work

I think Diafine is not particularly sharp but the grain structure with Tri-X is very nice. Nowadays I'm not crazy about developers that give you that grainy, bitingly sharp 'salt & pepper' look, although in my younger days I did use Rodinal quite a bit. As for speed, it seems to me that you gain about half a stop over D76.

well for portraits, I want to shoot some more of it, and compare it with the TMY2 100 and Rollei RPX 100. (Tri-x, Neo 400, and Rollei RPX 400 all look very close)

I think TMY2 100 = TMX

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Diafine is"lazy man`s Acifine" the only reason to use it is you can combine diferent films and they all go thru the same process. Another plus is: it is not a liquid, you can take it with you in an airplane...

 

[Calzone]

Diafine is"lazy man`s Acifine" the only reason to use it is you can combine diferent films and they all go thru the same process. Another plus is: it is not a liquid, you can take it with you in an airplane...

I kind of agree with you, but there are some real good reasons other than being easy to use. First off if you shoot 50-100 rolls a month the cost of pouring one-shot developers down the drain starts adding up, so one really good reason to use Diafine is to control costs so you can shoot a lot of film as cheap as possible. IMHO if you want to become a good photographer one way is to shoot a lot.

Another strong reason is to exploit Diafine's compensating effect. Diafine with Fuji Arcos for night shooting on a tripod is kinda unbeatable and there is no reciprocy failure. I further exploit this compensating effect to get expanded contrast range with added shadow detail than when I use solvent developers. Also know that because I minimize agitation that I exaggerate the compensating effect to get a somewhat stand development in the highlights.

"You cant print what is not there," my friend Steve once said, and with the way I use Diafine I get small format to look like medium format (fine grain and tonality) and medium format to look like large format. One of my friends at the NYC Meet-Up who shoots large format one said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5," when looking at some of my 6x9 negatives developed my way in Diafine.

Cal

 

[dshfoto]

Scan Results from Diafine Test

Scan Results from Diafine Test

Here are some examples from the Diafine / Scanner test:

Test Target
http://www.harrisfoto.com/Diafine_Test/Diafine_Tri-x_400_645N_Best_ISO_640.jpg
Kodak 400TMY2
http://www.harrisfoto.com/Diafine_Test/Section_Diafine_400TMY2_6
45N_Best_ISO_640.jpg
Kodak Tri-X 400
http://www.harrisfoto.com/Diafine_Test/Section_Diafine_Tri-X400_645N_Best_ISO_640.jpg
Fuji Neo 400
http://www.harrisfoto.com/Diafine_Test/Section_Diafine_Neo400_645N_Best_ISO_640.jpg
Rollei RPX 400
http://www.harrisfoto.com/Diafine_Test/Sectlion_Diafine_Rollei_RPX_400_Typ-120_Best.jpg

 

[dshfoto]

Cal got me started on Diafine, which was easy, as I had used Acufine for years. However, because I am going to do a lot of scanning, I wanted to walk through the workflow in a controlled way. So I shot a number of films using a Digital Calibration Target sold by Photovision (http://www.photovisionvideo.com).
I then scanned the film in the Imacon PII Scanner, and analyzed the histogram to determine at which ISO setting showed the middle gray on the target closest to the middle of the histogram. Also, it was possible to check at what ISO settings the highlights and shadows are lost. Those which still contain both the highlights and shadows from the target should be the usable ISO range for the film, developer, and scanner combination.

 

[Calzone]

Steve,

The key for me is minimizing agitation. With Arcos and Tri-X I get no grain. Even though I shoot Tri-X at 800 and Acros at 100, to see that Tri-X has more grain I have to use an 8X lupe on a light table and do an A-B side by side to see the difference.

Also I tried Diafine-Times-Two where Tri-X is processed 3+3 and 3+3 again with a very important thorough rinse in-between the two 3+3's to avoid contaminating Part "A" with any Part "B" where the slightest amount of Part "B" contamination will kill the Part "A". I found that I could get an honest 1250 ISO, I got mid-tones even though I was pushing pretty hard, but the grain grew a lot.

Being a lazy slacker I gleened from Amy (DrRabbit) that she extended development by soaking in developer "A" for 7 minutes and Part "B" for 4 minutes. I liked this even better for the mids, but the grain remains kinda big. I'll be shooting a lot of Tri-X at 1250 ISO over the summer for subway and night shooting. I think this gives a better result than Diafine-Times-Two. Again the published film speeds I found to be rather optimistic, but realize I'm making negatives that can easily just be straight printed to make wet prints on a number 2 grade fiber paper. For scanning, except perhaps an Imacon, my negatives might be deemed too dense and not the best.

For me if I want to go digital I'll just shoot my expensive Monochrom "Hand Scanner." LOL.

Cal

 

[dshfoto]

With Diafine, I found that the films have a wide exposure latitude, before clipping on the shadow or highlights. My exposure rating was based on being close to a middle gray match on the target. Tri-X at 800 also works with Diafine, no question. At 1250 there seemed to be a slight clipping on the shadows, and at 1600 it seemed like there was pronounced clipping of the shadows.
I may need to learn how to agitate for minimal grain. Kodak Gray Card black rated RBG of 9 at ISO 800, (black on the card is rated at RBG=52) At ISO 640 the Kodak Gray Card black RBG = 19.

M-Mono or something may be the way I finally go, if they kill film altogether, which may happen sooner than we think.

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

Diafine is Acufine cut in half= part A and part B with basically the same ingredients.
Diafine A sucks the cemicals into the emulsion and part B activates them. Of course you can go "middle of the road and modify agitation, but there is hardly no other adjustment available. Acufine with replinsher goes forever and is by far more consistent than Diafine when it approaches its life span. Then again Acufine in 1:1 dilution is yet totally another ball game.. Like I said:"lazy man´s stuff" this Diafine.

 

[dshfoto]

Acufine with replinsher goes forever and is by far more consistent than Diafine when it approaches its life span. [/quote]

I was never sure how to use the replinsher, so I always just used it as one shot. How much replinsher do you add in, and do you add it after developing, before storage, or just before using?

 

[Rangefinderfreak]

There is a chart for replinser. I usually dump a certain amount of developer and add the specified amount of replisher. My "soft bag" of developer Acufine is One gallon, but I mix quarts of replinsher and use that and when used I mix a new quart. My gallon has now over one year age usage with maybe hundred rolls od both Double X 522 and 120 TRI-X and it is still doing fine. If there is some black on the bottom of the bag, I filter it carefully to bring the developer all clear again and add replinsher. OK it is quite yellow, but don`t affect the times at all. The main thing is to keep all air off. a soft bag is great. I don´t do it after each rolls, maybe after ten rolls, with one gallon, it is not critical...

 

[Calzone]

Diafine is Acufine cut in half= part A and part B with basically the same ingredients.
Diafine A sucks the cemicals into the emulsion and part B activates them. Of course you can go "middle of the road and modify agitation, but there is hardly no other adjustment available. Acufine with replinsher goes forever and is by far more consistent than Diafine when it approaches its life span. Then again Acufine in 1:1 dilution is yet totally another ball game.. Like I said:"lazy man´s stuff" this Diafine.

The result I see when doing Diafine 7+4 for Tri-X at 1250 is a lot better than results with Acufine. Understand that you do not get the strong compensating effect with Acufine and you get strong contrast with Acufine and without any compensating effect. I admire Jim Marshall's work, but he only pushed Tri-X to 800 ISO with Acufine. Also know that I'm judging his work by prints that I saw at a rather large exhibition where I could get right up close and explore the detail.

How do you get the compensating effect with your Acufine development? While Acufine is a developer for pushing film speed, Diafine is promoted as a compensating developer. If Diafine is the lazy person's developer like you say it requires actually an extra step, and in my book that is extra work.

Acufine is a solvent developer where time and temperature are both important, but with Diafine temperature has lattitude and as long as kept within a range temperature is not important. In this manner Diafine is clearly different in that temperature is not critical. I think that by not having temperature as a critical element in development that Diafine can actually be more consistent than Acufine. The way I understand chemistry and chemical reactions is there are two critical elements: one is time; and the other temperature. If you can remove one critical element not only is there less variation, but also more consistent results by having one less variable.

If you are saying that you can get the same result with Acufine as Diafine with a film like Acros, I beg to differ. Diafine and Acufine to me are two very different developers and are sold and marketed as such.

Cal

 

[dshfoto]

Hope we are not straying into controversy. I started this thread to give folks a heads up that Arista.EDU Ultra did not seem to work with Diafine. I appreciate all the ancillary info, and the discussion.

 

[Calzone]

Hope we are not straying into controversy. I started this thread to give folks a heads up that Arista.EDU Ultra did not seem to work with Diafine. I appreciate all the ancillary info, and the discussion.

Steve,

No controversy here, perhaps it is more a comparison which leads to further discussion, or perhaps a debate which can also lead to further discussion.

My stand is that Diafine and Acufine can be looked upon as two different developers but both can produce a nice push and fine grained results.


Cal

 

[stompyq]

I think the final output medium is just as important to evaluate these kind of results, since wet printing vs a scanning digital hybrid workflow will require vastly different negatives.

It's interesting the results with Arista EDU 400, since I find Arista EDU 100 and Diafine to be a excellent combo. I've even been preferring it to acros of late. My limited experience with T grain films like Tmax and Diafine somewhat mirror steves results. However I can say that one T grain emulsion that does NOT work (unfortunately) with Diafine is Kentmere 100 and 400. That is unless your after grain structure that looks like mush and muddy midtones.

 

[stompyq]

I have to add that I have no experience with Acufine and have been very happy with Diafine and my hybrid digital workflow.