Diafine question

[Bingley]

I rated Tri-X at 800 or a bit higher for Diafine. I tried the claimed 1600 but found the negs were underexposed.

My experience is similar, and I now expose Tri-X at 800 when developing in Diafine. That said, there's some great advice in this thread about using Diafine and Tri-X at higher speeds.

I agree w/ the recommendation for minimal agitation. I use only two very gentle inversions per minute in both solutions.

 

[Calzone]

BTW HP5 I rate at 800 ISO, but realize that HP5 exhibits considerable pronounced grain that resembles Rodinal. Kinda looks gritty and has its use for an effect.

Arcos has more contrast than Tri-X and IMHO is also more detailed. What is so remarkable about Tri-X is that it is almost as grainless as Arcos which basically has no grain.

Cal

 

[Bingley]

Hi Henk,

Just wondering did you find the results from your Plus-X that you liked at 200 (or even 125) flat? Have not tried any diafine on rolls other than those shot at night with high contrast scenes, and wondered if normal contrast scenes would produce flat negs with diafine

One of my favorite film/developer combinations is Plus-X at 320 developed in Diafine. Great tones for daytime use. My flickr has lots of examples.

 

[Murchu]

Once I began using a 2X yellow filter for 135 I no longer had thin negatives unless I underexposed. In medium format I learned that a 2X yellow was not enough and started using 3X orange and even 4X orange/red. Without the use of filters to seriously boost contrast you will get inconsistent results that sometimes produces very thin negatives that have absolutely no contrast.

Moral of the story is when in doubt overexpose. Also the more contrast the better. Works great with noon sun in summer. To realize how drastic the contrast compensating effect is how with a properly exposed urban night shot under industrial lighting (Arcos 100 ISO 2 minute exposure on a tripod) produces amazing grey tones like Tri-X shot in daylight and developed in D-76 1:1. Of course at night no filter is required, but under daylight conditions I boost contrast to simulate urban night time contrast. Also know that you have the proper exposure when you have the most shadow details. Highlights because Diafine is a two part developer experience only a limited amount of development.

Also know that I'm a lazy slacker. The reason I made Diafine work for me is that it was crazy mixing 10 liters of ID-11 every month. Also because I could process 135 and 120 in a batch in the same 8 reel tank Diafine became my "Slacker's Brew." My mode to become a better photographer is to shoot a lot. Pretty easy to do lifestyle if you live in NYC.

Cal

Cheers for the great feedback, Cal. This thread has made me realise I may be able to make diafine work for me for all my shooting, which would be great for the mixed contrast rolls I end up with from my normal shooting.

To be honest, might even encourage me to wet print again, in my basic, but idling darkroom, making contact sheets and work prints easier and quicker to generate. Also does not hurt that my film of choice is TriX, and diafine seems to play well with it. Likewise with Acros, which is also a very attractive option due to its reciprocity failure characteristics for night and night landscape imagery I am fond of.

 

[stompyq]

Personally i find that HP5 SUCKS with Diafine. I rate it at ISO 800 and it gives results similar to rodinal (which i hate). Stick with TriX for ISO 400 film

 

[Calzone]

Cheers for the great feedback, Cal. This thread has made me realise I may be able to make diafine work for me for all my shooting, which would be great for the mixed contrast rolls I end up with from my normal shooting.

To be honest, might even encourage me to wet print again, in my basic, but idling darkroom, making contact sheets and work prints easier and quicker to generate. Also does not hurt that my film of choice is TriX, and diafine seems to play well with it. Likewise with Acros, which is also a very attractive option due to its reciprocity failure characteristics for night and night landscape imagery I am fond of.

I only use Diafine. For a while I was playing with Microphen to get 1600 ISO using RanceEric's 25 minute extended development with minimal aggitation, but the grain was kinda big.

I tried Diafine-Time-Two where Tri-X is literally processes 3+3 with a thorough water rinse and processed a second time 3+3 for a doubling of film speed for high ISO work. The results were impressive. A bit more contrast but still good grey scale and mids with fine grain. I found this aceptable, but feared killing my Part A with cross contamination of developers.

I ended up gleaning from Amy (DRabbit) that she got 1250 ISO with Tri-X using Diafine 7+4. I ended up getting results like her rather impressive examples that displayed high acutance, strong contrast and wonderful mids. The film kinda looks like Jim Marshall's work where he shot Tri-X at 800 ISO and used Acufine for a developer. IMHO his film looks like Tri-X that has not been pushed, but has strong contrast with nice midrange. Add in Diafine's compensating effect and I have similar results with a little more film speed.

I intend on doing a lot of hand held night shooting of Tri-X at 1250 ISO. I own a 75 Lux, a 50 Lux and a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. Most recently I bought a Pentax 67II. What a beastly heavy camera to carry all day, but this conditioning definately has made me steadier.

If you are going to wet print I would suggest shooting Tri-X at 650 ISO, especially if you intend to print big as the added negative density records even more shadow detail for a look that moves even closer to large format. I basically just straight print my negatives because they are that consistent. My idea is to try and make perfect negatives like I'm shooting large format and contact printing.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

Personally i find that HP5 SUCKS with Diafine. I rate it at ISO 800 and it gives results similar to rodinal (which i hate). Stick with TriX for ISO 400 film

Not my favorite, but nice for an effect. The grain is kinda pronounced as stated earlier.

It would be really nice and helpful if you posted something about your impressive results with Pan F.

Cal

 

[Henk]

some more Diafine info...

some more Diafine info...

As I understand, time and temperature are not critical when
using Diafine.

I wonder if anyone has developed at 16 degrees Celcius (60 Fahrenheit)
or even lower with it ?

Thanks !

 

[Calzone]

As I understand, time and temperature are not critical when
using Diafine.

I wonder if anyone has developed at 16 degrees Celcius (60 Fahrenheit)
or even lower with it ?

Thanks !

Temperature is not critical to a point because at some threshold do not expect optimum results.

I found that times either 3+3 for Tri-X and other films should be followed or 5+5 for Arcos to have consistency. If you are sloppy with your times you will not enjoy consisency, and if you do not want consistency, or disregard it, I don't see how you can expect any good results. I want consistent negatives that are ideal to easily straight print. Lack of quality only makes printing harder.

Sorry for the hard line, but this is what I learned in art school.

My experiments with different times was to extend development to increase film speed.

Cal

 

[Murchu]

Personally i find that HP5 SUCKS with Diafine. I rate it at ISO 800 and it gives results similar to rodinal (which i hate). Stick with TriX for ISO 400 film

Just out of curiousity, why not tell us why you feel it does, and enlarge the conversation and diafine knowledge here.. 🙂

 

[Murchu]

I only use Diafine. For a while I was playing with Microphen to get 1600 ISO using RanceEric's 25 minute extended development with minimal aggitation, but the grain was kinda big.

I tried Diafine-Time-Two where Tri-X is literally processes 3+3 with a thorough water rinse and processed a second time 3+3 for a doubling of film speed for high ISO work. The results were impressive. A bit more contrast but still good grey scale and mids with fine grain. I found this aceptable, but feared killing my Part A with cross contamination of developers.

I ended up gleaning from Amy (DRabbit) that she got 1250 ISO with Tri-X using Diafine 7+4. I ended up getting results like her rather impressive examples that displayed high acutance, strong contrast and wonderful mids. The film kinda looks like Jim Marshall's work where he shot Tri-X at 800 ISO and used Acufine for a developer. IMHO his film looks like Tri-X that has not been pushed, but has strong contrast with nice midrange. Add in Diafine's compensating effect and I have similar results with a little more film speed.

I intend on doing a lot of hand held night shooting of Tri-X at 1250 ISO. I own a 75 Lux, a 50 Lux and a 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. Most recently I bought a Pentax 67II. What a beastly heavy camera to carry all day, but this conditioning definately has made me steadier.

If you are going to wet print I would suggest shooting Tri-X at 650 ISO, especially if you intend to print big as the added negative density records even more shadow detail for a look that moves even closer to large format. I basically just straight print my negatives because they are that consistent. My idea is to try and make perfect negatives like I'm shooting large format and contact printing.

Cal

Cal, you are after everything I want in diafine. I like your philosophy of aiming for straight negs that print well, just like a contact print would.

To be honest, I don't shoot as much as you, and the light levels I typically shoot in over a single roll could be all over the place, making getting a contact sheet with 36 decently exposed frames to judge the roll from, an interesting experience and ultimately a greater waste of larger size paper than I liked. A roll that printed easily, whether as a sheet of contacts, or as individual easy to print work-prints, it would be perfect to me, and am quite keen to give diafine a crack and see how it works out.

The idea of anything other than a straight 3 + 3 is interesting, and would be curious to see how such variations work out, given that there is little to lose by trying it. Must check out and try find some of Amy's (DRabbit) work.

TriX @ 1250, handheld at night. All I can say is you are a man after my own heart. I remember the looks of mild confusion when I met up with a group to shoot at night, as they saw I was shooting handheld. Not sure what it is, but find I have an unnatural resistance to using a tripod for anything, unless absolutely necessary, although going back through some night landscapes I shot digitally when I travelled, remind that of the value of a tripod sometimes..

On that note, might be tempted into shooting some medium format night landscapes with my Rollei, and have some Acros in 120 lying around, begging to be shot. What do you do for your Acros negatives, as I would love to get some of the results you talk about, should I get off my backside to drag that tripod out at night again.. 🙂

 

[stompyq]

Just out of curiousity, why not tell us why you feel it does, and enlarge the conversation and diafine knowledge here.. 🙂

I'll try to post some examples later. Basically I find the mid tones very weak and "muddy" with HP5 and Diafine compared to TriX. The grain is also much more pronounced and ugly (to my eyes). I shott a lot of Hp5 untill Cals suggestion and tried some TriX. The results were vastly different in favor of TriX. The mid tones are wonderful and the grain is minimal and tight. The extra speed also helps with my Pentax 67. Just remember that I shoot 6x7 and don't wet print (or intend to). Everything is scanned on a Epson V700.

 

[Murchu]

I'll try to post some examples later. Basically I find the mid tones very weak and "muddy" with HP5 and Diafine compared to TriX. The grain is also much more pronounced and ugly (to my eyes). I shott a lot of Hp5 untill Cals suggestion and tried some TriX. The results were vastly different in favor of TriX. The mid tones are wonderful and the grain is minimal and tight. The extra speed also helps with my Pentax 67. Just remember that I shoot 6x7 and don't wet print (or intend to). Everything is scanned on a Epson V700.

Ah great, good to hear your feedback. Out of curiousity, what do you rate your TriX at seeing as you scan it - 1250 ?

 

[stompyq]

Not my favorite, but nice for an effect. The grain is kinda pronounced as stated earlier.

It would be really nice and helpful if you posted something about your impressive results with Pan F.

Cal

I like the results i get with PanF in full sunlight. I haven't shot it all that much (like Acros and TriX) so a little hesitant to comment. The pics from the mermaid parade on my site were almost all shot using PanF (except the last shot which was on Acros)

 

[stompyq]

Ah great, good to hear your feedback. Out of curiousity, what do you rate your TriX at seeing as you scan it - 1250 ?

Yes 1250. ISO 800 is a little too much density (the scanner seems to not do so well) while ISO 1600 is too thin. Again something like a coolscan might do better than my Epson when it comes to ISO 800 negs.

 

[Murchu]

Yes 1250. ISO 800 is a little too much density (the scanner seems to not do so well) while ISO 1600 is too thin. Again something like a coolscan might do better than my Epson when it comes to ISO 800 negs.

Cheers. Must do a bracketed roll, with shots from 400- 1250, and see which scan (and possibly wet print) best, when souped in diafine.

I like your PanF shots from the Mermaid Parade quite a bit - did you use any filters for added contrast?

 

[stompyq]

Cheers. Must do a bracketed roll, with shots from 400- 1250, and see which scan (and possibly wet print) best, when souped in diafine.

I like your PanF shots from the Mermaid Parade quite a bit - did you use any filters for added contrast?

Thanks. No filters. Filters seem to add too much contrast. I like a flat neg that scans easily. I add contrast in post

 

[Murchu]

Thanks. No filters. Filters seem to add too much contrast. I like a flat neg that scans easily. I add contrast in post

Ah cheers. Will settle down and do some testing myself, and see what works for me.

 

[Calzone]

Thanks. No filters. Filters seem to add too much contrast. I like a flat neg that scans easily. I add contrast in post

My approach is just the opposite. I want the contrast on the negative. No multi-contrast papers, print straight onto a grade 2 paper with a condenser enlarger. My negatives are very consistent except when I blow exposure, and I shoot in all kinds of light.

Also realize that I create negatives to print big, and my density might be too much for small prints. I have an archival print on fiber paper shot with a Rollei 3.5F at night with Arcos that was printed 18x18 inches on 20x24 inch paper. The quality is there that I'm not afraid to have this printed 30x30. A thin negative would create difficulties I think if printed this large.

I think the extra density adds detail, especially in the shadows. With Diafine I'm not worried about blown highlights due to how the limited development that happens due to the two part development process. I'm thinking a denser negative provides an edge here as more detail is recorded over digital. IMHO I think the above digital approach and adding contrast later looses some detail.

Cal

 

[stompyq]

I think the extra density adds detail, especially in the shadows. With Diafine I'm not worried about blown highlights due to how the limited development that happens due to the two part development process. I'm thinking a denser negative provides an edge here as more detail is recorded over digital. IMHO I think the above digital approach and adding contrast later looses some detail.

Cal

This is probably true. I'am probably not using the MF/diafine combo to it's full potential because of my hybrid workflow. However I shoot MF diafine for the tonality and shallow depth of field. Not all that worried about fine detail since i don't shoot many landscapes. For the street/walk around and shoot random crap kind of photography that i do nowadays, it works perfectly fine. Prints up to 16x20 look perfectly acceptable to my eyes but it's true, I rarely go above 8x10 prints.