Diafine drag

LeicaM3 said:
fwiw (likely not much):
never had bromide drag in a steel tank with steel reels
had drag in plastic tank
likely coincidental...
Click to expand...

My experience is similar. I've always attributed it to the difference between inversion - steel tank - and rotation - plastic tank with paddle - agitation. I'm betting that the rotational agitation doesn't do as good of a job as inversion.
 
Matt(1pt4) said:
My experience is similar. I've always attributed it to the difference between inversion - steel tank - and rotation - plastic tank with paddle - agitation. I'm betting that the rotational agitation doesn't do as good of a job as inversion.
Click to expand...
I recall that one of the reasons that rotation agitation is frowned on is that the film is agitated more or less depending on whether it is near the centre of the spiral or towards the edge i.e. the agitation varies depending on the distance traveled by the film through the developer. No idea if there is any truth in this because I only ever use inversion.
 
Matt(1pt4) said:
My experience is similar. I've always attributed it to the difference between inversion - steel tank - and rotation - plastic tank with paddle - agitation. I'm betting that the rotational agitation doesn't do as good of a job as inversion.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough I was having bromide drag issues while using my plastic tank, someone suggested I try rotating instead, et voila, no more drag.

I would try out the steel reel I have sitting on my desk, but I can't figure out how to load the dang thing.
 
My Diafine recipe:

- NO presoak;
- use it at room temperature (between 18-26 C where I am according to season)
- 4-5 min in each solution, depending from the film; because Diafine develops to exhaustion, there is no harm in leaving it for a little longer than recommended;
- 4 inversions per minute, in Paterson plastic tanks; no stirring or gentle wiggling, but (gentle) full inversions;
- stop in plain water, fix, wash, hang;

I love it with Plus-X @ 200, Tri-X @ 1200 (1600 if really needed), Neopan 1600 @ 1600 (though I prefer 510-Pyro for the latter). Works well with Pan-F @ 50-80, OK in FP4+ @ 200, not too great in HP5 at any ISO.

Glad to hear that the increased agitation solved your drag problem! 😀
 
You can agitate in solution A, and even use 4 or 5 minutes as long as you are consstent.
Solution B is better not to agitate, keep the agitation to a minimum.
IMHO it was best to just load the tank with B, do 1 gentle movement and wait for the other 2:45 to go by.
I never saw "bromide drag"when using it though
itf said:
I used commercial purified water that has worked with XTOL for me (even with XTOL sitting for 4 months in it). I use tap water for all other devs without a problem. I'm going to agitate more next time. It was with Arista Edu Ultra as well as Tri-X, and both had problems. Not major but visible in the sky.

I think agitating more might solve it, I was being very careful to keep agitation down. I won't be diluting it for use as a one shot, I have to order it from the US.
Click to expand...
 
I am a firm believer that using stainless steel tanks and reels with Diafine will prevent bromide drag. Also suggested are developing at 70+ degrees, gentle agitation every minute and I personally use 4 minutes rather than 3.

This technique results in a negative perfect for scanning or grade 3 paper in a wet darkroom.
 
I've had it happen again and finally think I have figured it out. There are actually higher density streaks running down from between sprocket holes and they seem to be higher density than anywhere else on the negative. I'm pretty sure that after I drain solution A, there is residual A in the reels which is channelled down onto the film through the area between sprocket holes. When solution B comes in there is simply more A in the area between the top edge sprocket holes for it to react with.

Of course, the other possibility is that I'm not getting B in quick enough, allowing solution A to leach down from the top portion of the film. This would leave less A for B to work with below the sprocket holes, but the film below sprocket hole gaps continues to receive A, and the bottom edge of the film is too far down to lose A in the time given.

I think it's most likely a combination of residual A in the reels and leeching between baths. I'm using plastic reels, which it would seem don't help the situation, and its more noticable when I use my 8 reel tank instead of the 2 reel tank (more time to drain and fill with 8 reels).

So, do you get B in as quick as possible or give A more time to drain?
 
I've had quite a bit of experience with Diafine, and I find that the biggest variable for me is temperature. I live in Texas and often develop at well over the nominal 70F. The results can be ugly, especially if the temp is anywhere close to 80F. Otherwise Diafine is simple and effective. Because it's so foolproof, I like to venture into more challenging straits, like pyro and rodinal, stand developed. But those developers are not terribly difficult to use either, which just goes to show how easy Diafine can be once you've had some experience with it.
 
My friend in Katy, TX would disagree with your high temp. results. I've seen his prints. Diafine and summer water temps on the high side of 80 are why he uses Diafine. He also used Diafine on archeological digs in Peru for the same reason.

I have wonder why all the variable results??????????????
 
I've given up for now. I might try it out again sometime, but lifes too short to do roll after roll of tests, and wanted exposures are too precious to risk. Back to anything but.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Eastman Kodak 5234 in Cinestill DF96
Replies
9
Views
731
agentlossing
agentlossing
Bill Pierce
Digital Developers
2 3
Replies
42
Views
7K
willie_901
willie_901
N
HC-110 semi stand development experiment result
Replies
19
Views
2K
chrism
chrism
P
bromide drag
Replies
15
Views
4K
bence8810
bence8810
Bill Pierce
Developmental Issues
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
maigo
maigo
Back
Top Bottom