Diafine Comments?

[macnorfin]

I just used Diafine for the first time and the results--two rolls of 135--are drying in my bathroom. I haven't scanned the results yet, but the negatives look pretty nice.

Does anybody have any comments or opinions on this developer? I have used D76 before and decided to try some different developers for a change.

But jeez, what kind of stuff is this? You can push tri-x two stops, you don't have to worry about time and temperature, and it seems as if the stuff will last forever.

Are there drawbacks to using this stuff?

 

[bmattock]

Diafine does seem to be wonderful stuff, doesn't it? However, it doesn't allow you to extend or shorten processing time - it develops to exhaustion. Some films don't come out looking to great in it. It tends to make photographs taken in flat light even flatter. And there are not that many films that have been tested in Diafine - so no data exists as yet. And of course, some people like shooting films at their rated speed - which one may not be able to do with Diafine.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[BrianPhotog]

Never hang dry a roll of TriX or HP5+ done in Diafine in the bathroom next to a roll done in DD-X...or even LC-29... 🙁

Why don't you test it? Push TriX to 1250 and process in D76, then compare the results. 🙂

 

[macnorfin]

Why can't you hang films together? Not that I would be processing side by side like that.

 

[wlewisiii]

I've found that conventional grain films - Tri-X, Plus-X, FP-4+, Fomapan 100 - work well with it. Modern grain films - Delta & Tmax - look ugly in it. Because it is a compensating developer and gives a very big speed bump to some films it was loved by the old newspaper photojournalists. The flat negative was actually a plus for them given the constraints of the halftone process. Ironically it's that same flatness that I like it for as I find it scans better that way.

Plus-X, EI400 & Diafine is, to my eyes, a wonderful combination.

William

 

[bmattock]

I recall taking Tri-X to 1600 when I was in High School and processing it in D76, with dismal results. Mind you, that was in 1978. I believe Tri-X has been reformulated since then.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

Why can't you hang films together? Not that I would be processing side by side like that.

I think he meant that if you did, you'd see a big difference - with Diafine the second-place finish. Just a manner of speech - it doesn't matter how you hang 'em.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[BrianPhotog]

Why can't you hang films together? Not that I would be processing side by side like that.

I meant the Diafine finished roll doesn't look that great compared side-by-side with the others...looks weak. 🙂

 

[Oliver]

I'd also say the T-grain films aren't so great with it. They also don't get much of a speed boost compared with the regular B&Ws. I only played with it a few times, but I don't think the two stops are free - I prefer the look of Tri-X in D-76.

On the other hand, if I wanted that look or if I needed 1250, I'd happily use it. It does seem to keep a long time, so you can keep some around for those times you want it. If you end up liking it for everything, sure is convenient to soup your 100s and 400s in the same tank.

Davidde Stella had some speeds for various films on his site, I just found it in the wayback machine:

http://web.archive.org/web/20041010214848/www.davidde.com/articles/diafine.html

edit: obviously I meant to say "speeds" there

 

[macnorfin]

I meant the Diafine finished roll doesn't look that great compared side-by-side with the others...looks weak. 🙂

LOL! I thought there would be some chemical reaction or something!

I haven't used any Ilford developers, but I have to say that through a loupe, to my eye the negatives from both HP-5 and Tri-X that I have drying look the same as negatives I've developed in d76. Results from scanning will wait until tomorrow.

Another minor comment, and probably a very stupid one: the Diafine packaging is wonderfully retro. Isn't it ironic that it strong suit apears to be how useful it is for enahncing the results from scanning negatives?