Diafine Diaries

Looks good to me Rover ! Some people also claim that Diafine is the way to go if you expect to mix very different exposure frames on a same roll. I take that as 'leave the meter at home' :) and most times it's true if you are a bit experienced at guessing exposure.

Other times ... it's not :rolleyes:

Keep 'em coming !
 
If you blow the exposure Diafine isn't going to save you any more than other developers. These are from a batch of 10 images, 2 strips, of which 4 were from a quick shot to finish off the roll. I needed a P&S that afternoon because I obviously wasn't paying attention to the camera settings. Pretty bad stuff. I will perhaps scan the images again to see if I can get something better, but I doubt it.

I tried a couple new things I have learned here over the past couple weeks. I tried to scan the images as trasparency postives with the intention to convert them in PS, need to work on this. I did roll the film to take out the curl, that worked to some degree, no Newtonian Rings. And I sepia toned the first shot a little.
 
I love the title of this thread, Rover.

I've had a box of the stuff for like 3 months now and just can't find the initiative to mix it up. I look at the side of the box and see all those E.I.'s and take exception to a developer telling me how to expose my film. :eek:

I like the idea of the compensating action of two bath developers which are great for high contrast scenes, so I know I'll get around to trying them out; but since almost every published formula I've seen for two-bath developers state a 3 minute time, and a wide temperature range, without stating a recommended EI, I start to wonder just how flexible Diafine really is. Just some thoughts. :angel:
 
RayPA said:
since almost every published formula I've seen for two-bath developers state a 3 minute time, and a wide temperature range, without stating a recommended EI, I start to wonder just how flexible Diafine really is. Just some thoughts. :angel:
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Diafine flexible, but it does have it's uses. Its great for traveling because it is panthermic and It does a nice job in constrasty situations. In addition, you can shoot Tri-X at 1250 without the effects of pushing film and you can shoot Pan F+ at its rated ISO 50. I'm not sure I would use it for every film, but you can almost always get a good print from it unless you shot under flat light. I consider it another tool in my toolbox; not grandpa's shovel, but not the bent screwdriver either.

- Randy
 
Ray, I attached the directions and recommended film ratings in this thread.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5291

General opinion is that the recommended aggitation amount is too much, particularly for Solution B.

I am quite pleased with the first rolls I developed shot at 1250. I think my next film purchase will be of both Plus X and Tri X as both seem to work well with Diafine. I am shooting some Acros and Tmax 100 right now which I will not develop in Diafine, but I don't know in what yet, probably my D76.
 
Looking good, Ralph! It handled the difficult sun/shade lighting pretty well, with decent detail in both areas.
 
reellis67 said:
I wouldn't call Diafine flexible, but it does have it's uses. Its great for traveling because it is panthermic and It does a nice job in constrasty situations. In addition, you can shoot Tri-X at 1250 without the effects of pushing film and you can shoot Pan F+ at its rated ISO 50. I'm not sure I would use it for every film, but you can almost always get a good print from it unless you shot under flat light. I consider it another tool in my toolbox; not grandpa's shovel, but not the bent screwdriver either.

- Randy
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider Diafine's temperature range as panthermic, or panthermal, or whatever the word is, :) It's been I a while since I've tried it, but I think you can calculate or lookup times for D76 from 65 and up to 80, which is a wider range. If I were travelling I'd probably prefer D76 or one of the liquid concetrate developers like Rodinal. D76 is a good developer for pushing and is way more flexible through dilution. Anyway, sorry for belabouring the point, but it interests me. Thanks reellis67! :angel:
 
RayPA said:
I wouldn't consider Diafine's temperature range as panthermic, or panthermal, or whatever the word is, :) It's been I a while since I've tried it, but I think you can calculate or lookup times for D76 from 65 and up to 80, which is a wider range.
Click to expand...


Actually, no.

Diafine (per the label on the box) is good from 70° to 85°. It was designed to work over normal "room temperature" ranges without having to either heat it or chill it.

But what was meant by panthermal, is that the temperature does not matter when you are actually developing the film. You can use Diafine across the temperature range (panthermic) without regard for the temperature affecting development time or contrast characteristics. Temperature does not matter. VERY different than using D-76 because with D-76 temperature matters a great deal indeed.

Tom
 
T_om said:
Actually, no.

Diafine (per the label on the box) is good from 70° to 85°. It was designed to work over normal "room temperature" ranges without having to either heat it or chill it.

But what was meant by panthermal, is that the temperature does not matter when you are actually developing the film. You can use Diafine across the temperature range (panthermic) without regard for the temperature affecting development time or contrast characteristics. Temperature does not matter. VERY different than using D-76 because with D-76 temperature matters a great deal indeed.

Tom
Click to expand...

Thanks Tom, I understand that. :) The time actually compensates for the temperature. That was my point. Somewhere in that range, I'm sure I could get D76 down to 6 minutes, and if I found myself on the road somewhere with 65 degree solution, I could still process my film. I guess I'm trying to understand how Diafine can actually function as someone's one and only developer.

Two part/divided developers, which have been around for many many years, are great for controlling high contrast scenes, but they are not the best developer choice for lower contrast situations, making it almost a specialized developer, and not the best general purpose developer. Diafine certainly isn't the only two part/divided developer (albeit, probably one of the few commercially available). (BTW, I've seen recipes for divided D76.) And as far as two part/divided developers go, it appears to be one of the more restrictive and least flexible. I've seen published recipes for two part/divided developers that don't require an exposure index, are "panthermal" (by your definition), and have three minute developing times.

I think reellis67's summation is dead-on. Diafine is probably not suitable as a general purpose developer, and is a great tool to have.
 
I think it was Tom who suggested that in flat lighting conditions, adjusting film ISO to the films normal suggested speed, will bump up the density to get good whites. Is this so? If it is, then Diafine could be a universal standard everyday developer (but perhaps maybe not the best for flat lighting.)
 
RayPA said:
I guess I'm trying to understand how Diafine can actually function as someone's one and only developer.

.
Click to expand...

It functions quite well as a "one and only" provided you are happy with the results, just like any other tool.

As I have said in past posts, I use ONLY Tri-X or HP/FP emulsions for my B&W stuff. It is not that I have not tried other emulsions, it is because I DID try most all of them at one time or another and liked what I got best with Tri-X and HP/FP films. I cannot speak to all the different films people use, only what I use.

Given the characteristics of both, Tri-X and Diafine were almost custom made for each other. I find no limitations whatsoever in using it as my only developer because I shoot it at 1250 and love the results. In my opinion, you cannot get better results with Tri-X in any other developer.

That using Diafine is as easy as falling down just adds to the benefits derived.

Last, the only drawback to using Diafine is that it produces somewhat flat negatives in flat lighting. This can easily be overcome in two ways. One, give it more exposure. Shoot it at ISO ratings of 600 to 800. Second, and this TOTALLY overcomes the problem, use PhotoShop on the scanned files and you will not ever see a problem.

Just as you cannot see why Diafine could not function as someone's only developer, I am equally puzzled as to why it could not easily do so.


Two part/divided developers, which have been around for many many years, are great for controlling high contrast scenes, but they are not the best developer choice for lower contrast situations, making it almost a specialized developer,
Click to expand...

Thanks, I understand that. ;) But Diafine is not a 'specialized' developer any more than D-76 is a specialized developer. By the way, the handling of contrast is vastly different in some two-part developers, they are NOT all the same in that department.


I've seen published recipes for two part/divided developers that don't require an exposure index, are "panthermal" (by your definition), and have three minute developing times.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but ALL film must be exposed at SOME e.i. All current B&W emulsions have a 'native speed' that produces the best result. At least, the film and developer manufacturers recommend a speed rating for their products based on densitometry testing. And there you are. If you deviate from that speed, you have to accept the limitations that imposes. Diafine produces its best result with a 'native' index of about 1250 with Tri-X. The latitude of the film will allow some lee-way of course.

If we were on a large-format forum discussing contrast control with individual pieces of sheet film for say, landscape photography, we would not be talking about Diafine.

But this being a rangefinder shooters forum, I think Diafine fits that sort of shooter right down to the ground.

There are also darkroom twiddlers that love just messing about with chemistry. Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I was in that category myself once upon a time. No more. I want simple, fast and high quality. And yes, you can have all three. :)

Tom
 
Thanks Tom! :) We can debate the virtues of developers endlessly; and it does, and will, come down to personal preferences. I like the results Rover has been getting and look forward to any other examples. I'll get around to mixing up my batch of Diafine and when I do I'll post 'em, too. Thanks again. :)
 
So far, I've souped 3 flavors of B&W in Diafine to my delight.... Kodak PXP125, TX400, and J&C100.

Here are some examples, all shot without a meter, mixed lighting as you will see, standard dev in Diafine, give or take... I sometimes forget to set my timer and/or agitate.

The 6x6 shots are from my Kowa 6/85mm, shot on TX400 and J&C. 6x4.5 are from my Daiichi-Rapid Zenobia, shot on PXP125. Obvious push on the gears shot, taken on a grey day inside a shed with very little available lighting.
 
More samples... this is the J&C roll, shot in a very dimly lit room. J&C stood its ground against Diafine, was pleased by it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom