Indeed, and this is true for the slowest speed films, for instance I think Ilford Pan-F is best at EI=50 in Diafine. Might very well use some of that tomorrow!titrisol said:
peter_n
Veteran
I want to do my own developing and Diafine looks like an excellent solution. I really love Neopan 400 & 1600 and right now I'm getting my film developed in a lab using XTOL. I get really punchy negs that I like a lot.
Can anyone who's used Diafine with Fuji Neopan post their experiences or better yet a pic or two?
Can anyone who's used Diafine with Fuji Neopan post their experiences or better yet a pic or two?
T_om
Well-known
peter_n said:
According to the Diafine box, you will gain 1/2 stop using Neopan 400 (it goes up to 640 in Diafine) and loose 1/2 stop shooting the NP1600 (it goes down to about 1200 in Diafine).
This is all the info I can provide as I do not use Fuji B&W films.
Also, the 'look' you are after is very much a subjective thing. Try some and see.
Tom
Justin Low
J for Justin
Has anyone tried Arista EDU400 (Fortepan 400) in Diafine? I have part of a bulk roll left and was thinking of trying a roll or two with Diafine. Any suggestions on a starting point for exposures?
Thanks!
Thanks!
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
Tom wrote: "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."
Tom, can you please post some sections from blow-ups of your 1250 iso negs-big enough to show the grain. I'm looking for a low light black and white film/developer combination and this might just be it if it's as good as you say it is.
Cheers,
Bruce
Tom, can you please post some sections from blow-ups of your 1250 iso negs-big enough to show the grain. I'm looking for a low light black and white film/developer combination and this might just be it if it's as good as you say it is.
Cheers,
Bruce
T_om
Well-known
Koolzakukumba said:
Sure, here you go. I didn't take a lot of pains selecting very good stuff, so forgive the photography.
Each shot is followed by a 100% (actual pixel) crop of a portion shown.
Tom
T_om
Well-known
Here's one more.
Not sure how mangling these down to upload size is gonna make these look, but what the hell.
Tom
Not sure how mangling these down to upload size is gonna make these look, but what the hell.
Tom
peter_n
Veteran
I was doing a bit of research tonight on Diafine and FWIW came across this thread about a comparison between XTOL and Diafine:
Diafine and XTOL test
Diafine and XTOL test
Impressively fine grain, T_om!
Koolzakukumba
Real men use B+W
Tom,
Thanks very much for posting those pics. I'm really surprised that Tri-X rated at 1250 iso and Diafine can produce such good quality negs. The grain is very acceptable and the sharpness and tonal qualities don't leave much to be desired.
I'll definitely be giving that combination a try. Again, many thanks for your trouble.
Cheers,
Bruce
Thanks very much for posting those pics. I'm really surprised that Tri-X rated at 1250 iso and Diafine can produce such good quality negs. The grain is very acceptable and the sharpness and tonal qualities don't leave much to be desired.
I'll definitely be giving that combination a try. Again, many thanks for your trouble.
Cheers,
Bruce
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
IMHO TriX @1200 and PlusX @320 (the old one... dunno about the new one) are probably the 2 best films to use in Diafine.
Ilford's HP5+ works fine @640 or 800, and Fp4 @200
I was disatisfied with APX100, and the new APX400.
PS. I've heard mixed versions about the TMaxes - Deltas in Diafine.
I only tried Delta3200 which turned out to be work at around 1600, normal grain for it and decent contrast/shdow details
Ilford's HP5+ works fine @640 or 800, and Fp4 @200
I was disatisfied with APX100, and the new APX400.
PS. I've heard mixed versions about the TMaxes - Deltas in Diafine.
I only tried Delta3200 which turned out to be work at around 1600, normal grain for it and decent contrast/shdow details
Last edited:
Jan Cornelius
Member
... When reading through this thread, and having understood it ... (I think) A (rhetorical) question springs in mind; why bother with other stuff ? this Diafine seems the best thing since sliced bread .....
... One question though, how do you define the speed of the films used, TRIX is 400 but rated at 1250 ??? how does this work ?
... One question though, how do you define the speed of the films used, TRIX is 400 but rated at 1250 ??? how does this work ?
Jan Cornelius
Member
Anyway ... without exactly grasping what using diafine means to my development process, I have ordered 3 packets at Huron to be shipped to me Europe.
Apparantly Diafine is hard to get here in the "old countries" There is a shop in Austria who sometimes has it on stock, but this 'll be sold out in a matter of hours .... I reckon 3 packets with an extra shipping charge of $29,95 might be worth the try .... calculated down to Euro's it's less expensive than DD-X for instance. I do so wonder ... this thread has made me very curious and as my favourite film is Tri-x .....
Apparantly Diafine is hard to get here in the "old countries" There is a shop in Austria who sometimes has it on stock, but this 'll be sold out in a matter of hours .... I reckon 3 packets with an extra shipping charge of $29,95 might be worth the try .... calculated down to Euro's it's less expensive than DD-X for instance. I do so wonder ... this thread has made me very curious and as my favourite film is Tri-x .....
T_om
Well-known
Because (as others have pointed out) it might not suit YOUR particular aesthetic with the films YOU like to use. You mention that you like Tri-X and it so happens that Diafine and Tri-X were made for each other... but some other films do not produce the same results.
It is all very much a matter of personal preference and workflow.
Diafine is also coming back to the scene because it is so good for film that needs to be scanned instead of direct printed via an enlarger. Diafine produces long tone, somewhat flat negatives in flat light. It sometimes needs a considerable bump up in paper contrast grade when printing with an enlarger. Guess what though? That is just about as perfect a negative as you can get for scanning purposes where you are limited by the dMax of the scanner instead of the enlarging paper. This stuff scans beautifully.
Jan Cornelius said:
Wow. You really stocked up! I don't know what size kit you ordered, but even if you got the smaller quart kits, you have ordered enough Diafine to last you a LONG LONG time. You do realize you keep using this stuff, right? You do not throw it away? Anyway, maybe there are some other photographers near you that might like to try it also. If you ordered three kits, you will have more on hand than most camera stores.
Last, about your ISO rating question... Different films have different 'native' speeds is different developers. Diafine give a natural speed increase in most (not all) films, and works exceptionally well with Tri-X. I expose using 1250, others like the results at 1600, some as low as 800. A bit of experimentation will pin down where YOU should be shooting it.
One tip. In flat lighting, give a bit more exposure.
Anyway, enjoy shooting (which is the main thing) and the Diafine will take good care of your negatives.
Tom
FrankS
Registered User
Tom, please outline your agitation routine in sol.B with Diafine. Too much and no enough development takes place, to little and you risk Bromide drag.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Not really, I was thought to just fill the tank woth B, give it a rap to dislodge bubbles and wait....
FrankS said:
T_om
Well-known
FrankS said:
Just a couple of inversions, no particular time interval... just when I think about it.
However, you can't just let it sit there. The "over agitation" problem may have taken on more emphasis here because most people coming to Diafine from other developers tend to over-agitate, hence the warnings. Moderation in all things.
Tom
jdos2
Well-known
When I do that, I get bromide streamers obvious in low contrast areas (skys). I'm still working out a routine to even out development.
Jan Cornelius
Member
well, yeah .... being a calvinist is heart and kidneys I will order so much that it becomes reasonably priced even with the shipping cost included, need it or not, the deal has got to be worth while ... ;-) Our household goes through calculators like other milk ... ;-))
No, all BS aside, 3 was an economical quantity to order, and I'm sure I can make somebody happy with it. Diafine is quite in demand here, and hard to be had .. (profit, profit, profit!!!) .. just kidding ...
Really look forward to it though, for one I am not the most methodological developer, hate being ruled by beeps and flashing warning light, and the other is that I love testing things
No, all BS aside, 3 was an economical quantity to order, and I'm sure I can make somebody happy with it. Diafine is quite in demand here, and hard to be had .. (profit, profit, profit!!!) .. just kidding ...
Really look forward to it though, for one I am not the most methodological developer, hate being ruled by beeps and flashing warning light, and the other is that I love testing things
R
Roman
Guest
Jan Cornelius said:
Jan,
are you talking about Foto Riegler? Ordered mine on Monday, got it today, they seem to have enough supply at the moment (even sent out a newsletter to registered customers that they have all kinds of hard-to-get US cehmistry in stock - Diafine, Acufine, Edwal,...)
Shipping should be much cheaper (4.50 Euros for my two packages and other stuff - but I'm in Austria), but the item price is higher (12.95 Euros for a quart package).
Roman