Diafine Diaries

Ouch, 12.05 Euros for a Quart? (~ Litre) I get a Gallon kit for about $13 US. No need to pay for shipping. I guess it's about the same if I factor in the gasoline cost to drive over there (about 5 miles)

Back on topic -- agitation is to be found like Zen...like The Force, with your eyes closed first, and then your eyes open.
 
jdos2 said:
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.
Click to expand...


jdos2,

Were you referring to my post? The two inversion one?

If so, also keep in mind that agitation is influenced GREATLY by the type tank and reels you are using. I use Stainless tanks and reels. I believe that stainless gives a bit more "bang for the buck" during agitation than plastic. The reels are thinner and occupy less of the tank volume. I think stainless has quite a free 'flow pattern', if that makes sense.

At any rate, try one inversion upon filling, then one per minute and see if that works for you.

I can't even remember the last time I had streaking. :confused:

Tom
 
I'll stir the plastic more, and thanks for sharing that. I came back from Portugal with LOTS of B&W (and NO time to develop it!). I have two reels, one stainless (and just threw another away, I bought it BENT- D'oh!) and one plastic. The film (Pan F) developed in the plastic spool is indeed the one with the streamers, the other film looks fine.

I'll double up on the agitation- two inversions to the stainless's one. Also, I don't fill the stainless tank as much- giving an air bubble that the plastic tank doesn't get, so that too might affect things.

Heck, I just got used to stainless steel reels to the point that I could tell one was bent!
 
I've recently bought several used Kindermann stainless tanks and a bunch of reels... One of the reels was bent enough to notice, but it was easy to straighten. The bend was such that the span between the two wire coils was closer on one side of the circle than the other. With a straight ruler, I determined at what points around the circumference it was worst, and applied a little muscle bending it back to true. I then checked all the other reels and found one more with a slight (1mm) bend and fixed it too. As long as I don't drop them, I hope and expect these reels will remain serviceable!
 
Doug said:
I've recently bought several used Kindermann stainless tanks and a bunch of reels... One of the reels was bent enough to notice, but it was easy to straighten. The bend was such that the span between the two wire coils was closer on one side of the circle than the other. With a straight ruler, I determined at what points around the circumference it was worst, and applied a little muscle bending it back to true. I then checked all the other reels and found one more with a slight (1mm) bend and fixed it too. As long as I don't drop them, I hope and expect these reels will remain serviceable!
Click to expand...


In my opinion, you will find it hard to beat Kindermann reels. I believe Nikkor-Honeywell and Kindermann are the best quality stainless going.

I will have to admit though (I'm so ashamed :( ) that I also have some Adorama generics that work fine too. (Please don't tell Miss K that I cheated on her).

I have to get rid of some of my reels, I must have 30 or so laying about.

Tom
 
The reel that I noticed was bent wasn't so in an extremely obvious way, it was simply impossible to load. A generic, the spirals might even not have been well aligned, but when I figured out it was impossible (after dozens of attempts) to load it in daylight without at least peaking, and the other didn't require such attention, it simply went into the trash.

If you need to get rid of some 135 /120(220) reels, please lemme know!!! :)
 
Diafine sitting on my doorstep at home. And I'm stuck here at the office. This is worse than waiting for the truck to show up, knowing its already there.
 
rover said:
I hung them to dry for a few hours then rolled them in reverse of their curl to flatten them out. Gene had mentioned this in another thread. It worked well, they should lay nice and flat when I scan them.
Click to expand...

I also have the film curvature problem when developing TRI-X in diafine. The negatives are not flat after drying and archiving and scanning them properly is impossible. Newton rings facing down, out-of-focus scans when facing up. Are you really sure this technique works well?

Another question. I have a large quantity of Delta 3200 films shot at that speed. Would it be advisable to develop them in diafine? If not, what developer should I choose that has a long shelf life?

Best,
Kevin
 
Kevin said:
I also have the film curvature problem when developing TRI-X in diafine. The negatives are not flat after drying and archiving and scanning them properly is impossible. Newton rings facing down, out-of-focus scans when facing up. Are you really sure this technique works well?

Another question. I have a large quantity of Delta 3200 films shot at that speed. Would it be advisable to develop them in diafine? If not, what developer should I choose that has a long shelf life?

Best,
Kevin
Click to expand...
I've never had this problem. My Tri-X ends up very slightly curved, but once in the film holder, they lie flat enough for a good scan.

Try weighting the film down when you hang it up to dry. I have a set of clips with weights in them for this purpose. You could hook a fishing weight onto the bottom; that'd work too.

If this doesn't flatten your film, put them under a set of heavy books for a few days.
 
I have taken to putting the negs in the pages under a bunch of books for a week prior to scanning. Before I get the last strip into the holder, the curl is back. They are resilient little bastards. :D
 
I believe the curve that comes from film drying is due to the relative humidity. In Singapore, our humidity is extremely high (on average above 80%); that could be one reason why I don't experience such problematic curling.

What one could do then, is to raise the humidity of the air around the film during drying, perhaps by running a hot shower prior to hanging the film up to dry.
 
Oh, I have the same curling problem. You have to dry the negative in a place that's draft-free; it helps. If you're hanging it one way, check in about 10 minutes later and rotate it. Put another clip on the other end too, to serve as a weight. This always helps me; it's not foolproof, but it helps a lot. Curling is kept to a minimum.

Then when I sleeve the negatives, I also curl the sleeve (with the negative in there) the opposite way and leave it curled that way for a while. Try it. Your mileage may vary.
 
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.

But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.

Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions. :)
 
Doug said:
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.

But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.

Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions. :)
Click to expand...


Thanks Doug, I will try another developer then for the delta 3200.

I always used weighted clips at the bottom of hanging negative strips but the curl is from side-to-side, not top-to-bottom. Perhaps the fixer I use is the problem? Humidity in Germany is not a problem. And I have also tried putting books on top of the archival pages for several days but they curl back within minutes. Very aggrevating believe me.

Best,
Kevin
 
Ok, I tortured enough apx400 in diafine. Now shooting Tri-X and I intend to stay with it for a long time. (That's the plan anyway). First Tri-X looks good, a hair thinner than I've been used to seeing out of diafine but I was shooting the apx at 500 and the tri-x at 1250 - gonna drop it down to 1000 like everyone else. (Hey, it said 1250, so I figured I'd do it that way first). I get a lot of curl too, with everything - not just tri-x and I dont really see that weight helps it. It helps with lengthwise curl but not cross curl - you'd have to have tension on all 4 corners during drying to help that. Keep thinking it'd be a cinch to knock out my own drying cabinet but I'm not sure where I'd put it.

Whats the dark crap floating at the bottom of the B jug anyway? antihalation precip? Do I need to filter it out or just get opaque jugs as was suggested for the white precip (undissolved B powder IIRC).
 
XAos said:
...Whats the dark crap floating at the bottom of the B jug anyway? antihalation precip? Do I need to filter it out or just get opaque jugs as was suggested for the white precip (undissolved B powder IIRC).
Click to expand...


Get darker jugs. :D

Tom

PS: The stuff floating around in Diafine is disturbing to many but in all the years I have used it, it has NEVER had an effect on the film. It does not stick to it nor does it effect development.

PPS: Some people just *cannot* stand it though, it drives them crazy. So if it causes you sleepless nights and days filled with anxiety, care and woe... filter it out with paper coffee filters.
 
First pics from the GSN - and a Diafine success too - been trying to cope with glass bead reflective striping and flash photography. The darn stuff may actually fluoresce - I know it seems to be very active with blue light. An LED or Xenon (both bluer than normal lighting) flash light will light the stuff up light its got its own power source even with a couple kilowatts of Halogens on scene. I've tried yellow, 85b, UV filters on the flash, and only the UV seemed to do much without killing everything else. This is straight out of the GSN with my little pro-master <barf> flash off the first roll, Tri-X at 1000 (highest the meter will go), stopped down to f/16 because of the distance.
 
Looks pretty good, XAos! Diafine seemed to keep those beads from blowing out, for the most part...
 
I did some tests of Ilford D3200 in Diafine a while ago thanks to David Carper who sent me some D3200.
The speed Diafine could squeeza out of it was between 1200 and 1600. I personally preferred the 1200 results.

ILFOTEC DDX or CLAYTON F76+ would give you the best results with D3200 IMHO


Doug said:
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.

But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.

Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions. :)
Click to expand...
 
I was poking through my old photo data and noted that about 55 out of 80 rolls of Tri-X shot in 1967-68 were developed in Diafine diluted 1:1 :eek:

How I came up with the idea to do that, the notes do not reveal. But perhaps it was a way to run Tri-X in Diafine when shot at EI 400, since the notes say that's what I did! In the years after that I mostly used Edwal FG-7 for Tri-X. I recall frustration with Diafine that I think now was due to over-agitation, so that may explain the switch to FG-7.

Has anyone else tried diluting Diafine's A-bath and running a lower EI? I may have to give that a try once again...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom