taffer
void
jdos2 said:
JD I remember having the same problem when I tried leaving it 'sitting there' with maybe only an inversion. It may be just a matter of different tanks and reels, but to get rid of that I noticed I have to 'shake' it a bit more
And Doug...
a 1:1 dilution of Diafine... never thought about that...
N
Nick R.
Guest
Doug said: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
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...
I would guess this really limits developer available for absorbtion into highlight areas. Since diafine already prevents highlights from blocking up at normal strength, this dilution must be awful in flat lighting. Maybe it's useful with flash exposure?
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
IIRC you dilute bath B 1:1 to decrease contrast even more, and get a further compensation.
look into APUG for the diafine threads about this.
look into APUG for the diafine threads about this.
I think diluting Bath B only decreases the concentration of development activator, making it harder to get the developer that was absorbed in Bath A to get started. I don't know that we'd see any effect until dilution got pretty low, except... Dilution should mean greater necessity for agitation to bring the activator to the developer, but more agitation also washes the developer out of the film and lowers density... So I think diluting Bath B puts you into a bind.
Lowering the concentration of Bath A means less developing agent in the film available to be activated in Bath B. Increasing exposure means more work for the developer to do, more potential density. Whatever our fevered minds can imagine happening in the neg as a result, I did get quite a lot of good pics this way! Even though I was burdened at the time with habitual over-agitation in Bath B and this leads to thin negs (some of which got a bath in Chromium Intensifier).
I think I'll give it a shot with a 24-exp roll of outdated Tri-X and see what happens. If it works well now that I'm aware of the agitation issue, it will be handy for the several rolls of 220 Tri-X that are inconveniently fast (in regular Diafine) for the Bronica's leaf shutter.
Lowering the concentration of Bath A means less developing agent in the film available to be activated in Bath B. Increasing exposure means more work for the developer to do, more potential density. Whatever our fevered minds can imagine happening in the neg as a result, I did get quite a lot of good pics this way!
Even though I was burdened at the time with habitual over-agitation in Bath B and this leads to thin negs (some of which got a bath in Chromium Intensifier).I think I'll give it a shot with a 24-exp roll of outdated Tri-X and see what happens. If it works well now that I'm aware of the agitation issue, it will be handy for the several rolls of 220 Tri-X that are inconveniently fast (in regular Diafine) for the Bronica's leaf shutter.
onnovisser
Established
Hmm, I think I have a problem here...
I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast... You don't have a choice in aperture or shuttertime.. It's 1/1000 at f16 or the likes. So I have to choose to use another film that is slower in diafine, or develope my tri-x in something else.. It's so tempting to go for the ease of diafine... What film looks a bit like tri-x but stays slow (i.e 50-250 asa range).?
Cheers,
Onno
I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast... You don't have a choice in aperture or shuttertime.. It's 1/1000 at f16 or the likes. So I have to choose to use another film that is slower in diafine, or develope my tri-x in something else.. It's so tempting to go for the ease of diafine... What film looks a bit like tri-x but stays slow (i.e 50-250 asa range).?
Cheers,
Onno
GeneW
Veteran
A strong ND filter might work for you if you can find one to fit. You could use it in bright daylight and take it off for low-light shooting.onnovisser said:
Gene
onnovisser
Established
hmmm, I'll give it a thougth. But buying a set of those migth be costly too
Justin Low
J for Justin
Onno, consider using FP4+; the Diafine box recommends exposing it at EI250, and I have tried that and have obtained decent results.onnovisser said:
Also, TMAX100 responds well to Diafine (in my opinion) when it's exposed at around EI250 as well, rather than the recommended 160.
onnovisser
Established
thanks for the tips Justin, but since I really like tri-x and it has an ei of 1250 I don't think i'll try fp4+, I don't really like Tmax either.. I'm more into the oldfashioned film look.anyone use Apx-25 ? it has an ei of 50 in diafine apparently. Delta 100 goes 80, Pan F plus is 100. All nice speeds for sunny days. Any experience/photo's?
T_om
Well-known
onnovisser said:
I think you mis-read Justin's post...
FP4+ shoots at 250 in Diafine. From your post above I think you read Justin's notation "EI250" as 1250. But I may be wrong.
At any rate, the FP films have always been one of my mainstays, along with Tri-X, one of the reasons being just as you posted... I sometimes want to shoot at less than the 1250 required by Tri-X.
Plus-x is also a winner in Diafine... shoot it at the recommended speed of 400 (or just a bit less) and it looks great.
One thing you should know however, is that you can over-expose Tri-X in flat light and it holds up VERY well. As a matter of fact, it is one of the tricks we used to use to overcome the flat contrast look Diafine sometimes produces in flat lighting.
Now that I process everything with high-resolution scanning and PhotoShop, the contrast issue is moot.
Tom
onnovisser
Established
THanks, makes more sense now, I've been studying all day and I guess I'm a bit woozy..
I'll try some fp4+ then, and some plus x. I was thinking about APX 25 too for portaits, IE becomes 50. Any experience?
I'll try some fp4+ then, and some plus x. I was thinking about APX 25 too for portaits, IE becomes 50. Any experience?
I too like Ilford FP-4 at EI=250 in Diafine, very nice combination.
Tri-X's high speed in Diafine can be useful, but it's decidedly awkward outdoors in bright light, particularly when the camera's top shutter speed is 1/500, say... Without filters then you're forced to f/22, not usually the sharpest aperture.
As mentioned earlier, I used to commonly dilute Diafine 1:1 and rate Tri-X at 400, but I don't remember why. I tried that again recently, and ran the film last night. It looks ok, somewhat on the thin side, but the shadow detail is decent. I also had an orange filter on the lens, sort of forgotten, and that affects the tonality too. Next time I'd be tempted to give it a bit more exposure... but then what's the point, with Ilford FP-4 doing so well at EI=250 in full-strength Diafine?
Perhaps more usefully, I also tried shooting Tri-X at EI=640 and developing in Diafine diluted 2:1... That is, I added 3 oz of water to 6 oz of stock Diafine for 9 oz total used in a one-reel Kindermann tank. This was shot with a different camera and lens, so direct exposure comparison is kinda shaky, but this turned out quite nicely, better looking. And EI=640 is a usefully fast speed without being so overwhelming in daylight.
I'll try these two experiments again some time with somewhat more control over the variables.
Besides these two rolls of Tri-X, I was kept up to 2:30, yawning, by also "Diafining" a roll of 220 Tri-X Pro at EI=1000 along with an ancient mystery roll of Plus-X "found film" from a Mamiya C220, and two rolls of Pan-F (bulk loaded in 1984) shot at EI=50 that look really nice.
Tri-X's high speed in Diafine can be useful, but it's decidedly awkward outdoors in bright light, particularly when the camera's top shutter speed is 1/500, say... Without filters then you're forced to f/22, not usually the sharpest aperture.
As mentioned earlier, I used to commonly dilute Diafine 1:1 and rate Tri-X at 400, but I don't remember why. I tried that again recently, and ran the film last night. It looks ok, somewhat on the thin side, but the shadow detail is decent. I also had an orange filter on the lens, sort of forgotten, and that affects the tonality too. Next time I'd be tempted to give it a bit more exposure... but then what's the point, with Ilford FP-4 doing so well at EI=250 in full-strength Diafine?
Perhaps more usefully, I also tried shooting Tri-X at EI=640 and developing in Diafine diluted 2:1... That is, I added 3 oz of water to 6 oz of stock Diafine for 9 oz total used in a one-reel Kindermann tank. This was shot with a different camera and lens, so direct exposure comparison is kinda shaky, but this turned out quite nicely, better looking. And EI=640 is a usefully fast speed without being so overwhelming in daylight.
I'll try these two experiments again some time with somewhat more control over the variables.
Besides these two rolls of Tri-X, I was kept up to 2:30, yawning, by also "Diafining" a roll of 220 Tri-X Pro at EI=1000 along with an ancient mystery roll of Plus-X "found film" from a Mamiya C220, and two rolls of Pan-F (bulk loaded in 1984) shot at EI=50 that look really nice.
jdos2
Well-known
I did several days in Portugal a few weeks back (verging on a couple of months)
I shot Tri-X at 1250 (and a big ND filter- on a Noctilux!) and Pan f at 80 (Noctilux, ND filter, I was shooting wide open in the daylight) My negatives have come out of the Diafine very scan-able. I like both combos, though I did find the grain of Tri-X a bit greater than I thought it'd be- I think the new scanner is just getting detail out of the film that the older flatbed didn't, and I'm just noticing the grain.
JD
I shot Tri-X at 1250 (and a big ND filter- on a Noctilux!) and Pan f at 80 (Noctilux, ND filter, I was shooting wide open in the daylight) My negatives have come out of the Diafine very scan-able. I like both combos, though I did find the grain of Tri-X a bit greater than I thought it'd be- I think the new scanner is just getting detail out of the film that the older flatbed didn't, and I'm just noticing the grain.
JD
W
wlewisiii
Guest
I was going through my copy of "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook" by Aaron Sussman (8th edition, 1973 - 11th printing from 1983). In it is a table of suggested film and developer pairings. I was interested to notice that Diafine was included in the list. I was especially surprised to notice that it said 2 minutes rather than 3 per solution and gave ASA EI's of 2400 for Tri-X and 800 for Plus-X.
Is this rather large difference due to the change from ASA to ISO speed ratings or simply a reflection of the evolutionary changes in Kodak's emulsions?
Just a curiosity for me at this point. I'll happily continue following the directions on the box, but wanted to see what others here thought.
William
Is this rather large difference due to the change from ASA to ISO speed ratings or simply a reflection of the evolutionary changes in Kodak's emulsions?
Just a curiosity for me at this point. I'll happily continue following the directions on the box, but wanted to see what others here thought.
William
Last edited by a moderator:
FrankS
Registered User
Hi, William. I'm liking the results I'm getting from following the current directions on the Diafine package. I'm thinking that that's what's most important.
W
wlewisiii
Guest
Oh, trust me, I love the results from the box directions (except with Delta 400, but I've heard that elsewhere as well... bleah... Gotta only buy to Plus-X and Tri-X.) It just struck me as interesting in theory, so I thought I'd ask.
William
Gotta only buy to Plus-X and Tri-X.) It just struck me as interesting in theory, so I thought I'd ask. William
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
Use Plus-X instead
Great film, and Diafine brings it to 320 or so
Great film, and Diafine brings it to 320 or so
onnovisser said:hmmm, I'll give it a thougth. But buying a set of those migth be costly too
T_om
Well-known
wlewisiii said:
And then again, it just might be an error on Sussman's part.
Diafine is so forgiving, it can be shot all over the place (EI wise) and still produce reasonable results. Recommendations from people used to their own workflow tend to be based on their total workflow results, not just some arbitrary numbers.
For example, I use the EI's that I use because I scan all my stuff and want to get the most from a SCANNED negative. Wet printers may use different EI's because with their particular workflow and paper preference combinations, it requires different exposure.
Experiment, experiment, experiment.
Practice makes the master.
Tom
XAos
Well-known
titrisol said:
I just shot some Plus-X in 120 @400, but then bracketed down to about 3 stops slower. My negs came out very thin. I've been getting ok densities but not a lot of dynamic range with Tri-X (35mm and 120). It's possible that my flash calculations were wrong, it's possible that I over agitated, but I'm really beginning to wonder if Plus-X has the same speed in diafine at 120 as it does in 35mm. There were a few with differences enough to take note of.
3 stops is kinda hard to explain why it's so thin, as we're back down to 100.
FrankS
Registered User
It could very well be over-agitation. I gently rotate the film reels 180 degrees after the first minute in Diafine sol'n B, and again after 2 minutes. It is very minimal but I have not yet experienced uneven development due to bromide drag.