Diafine question

[Calzone]

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.

Just trying to add helpful detail. Hopefully I still come over as being humble. I think our differences need to be clear to be helpful. Even for my analog work flow my density might be too much for some shooters.

Cal

 

[Henk]

First testprints

First testprints

I have made the first testprints. Best where the negs shot at 200 asa.
Still less dense than my Rodinal negs, I had to close on extra stop on the
enlarger to get workable print times. (24x30 cm prints)

Prints had to be made at grade 4 to get results I liked.

Conclusion : I will test some more in other lighting conditions and see
what that gives.

So far I have the impression that Rodinal gives better tonality, but as said
I will continue to use Diafine to see in what conditions it performs best

 

[Murchu]

I have made the first testprints. Best where the negs shot at 200 asa.
Still less dense than my Rodinal negs, I had to close on extra stop on the
enlarger to get workable print times. (24x30 cm prints)

Prints had to be made at grade 4 to get results I liked.

Conclusion : I will test some more in other lighting conditions and see
what that gives.

So far I have the impression that Rodinal gives better tonality, but as said
I will continue to use Diafine to see in what conditions it performs best

Good to hear - PlusX without filtration?

 

[Henk]

Indeed, Plus-x without filtration.
What I know of filters for B&W is that they can be used as contrast filters.
But this is of course depending on the color in the scene,
so filtration would not give a contrast boost to every picture, or am I wrong in this ? I would like to hear your opinions on this matter.

I Did some Rodinal/Plus-x prints today. Grain is certainly less pronounced with
Diafine/Plus-x

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Indeed, Plus-x without filtration.
What I know of filters for B&W is that they can be used as contrast filters.
But this is of course depending on the color in the scene,
so filtration would not give a contrast boost to every picture, or am I wrong in this ? I would like to hear your opinions on this matter.

I was thinking the same thing, Henk. Yellow or orange filters will boost contrast in some situations but not all. Indoor shots, for instance, might show the odd lighter or darker colour but it's not going to be marked. An orange filter on a landscape with a blue sky will darken the sky by a tone or two but will also depress shadow detail, particularly where green foliage is dimly lit by the blue light fom open sky. Filters can do a good job in some situations but I wouldn't use them all the time. They're not a panacea.

 

[Calzone]

I was thinking the same thing, Henk. Yellow or orange filters will boost contrast in some situations but not all. Indoor shots, for instance, might show the odd lighter or darker colour but it's not going to be marked. An orange filter on a landscape with a blue sky will darken the sky by a tone or two but will also depress shadow detail, particularly where green foliage is dimly lit by the blue light fom open sky. Filters can do a good job in some situations but I wouldn't use them all the time. They're not a panacea.

Over time I have learned to agree. As a result I'm expanding my selection of developers, but Diafine will still be used extensively with Arcos, pushing Tri-X to 1250 via 7+4, and for when that profound compensating effect is needed.

BTW Arcos in Diafine for night shooting with a tripod is absolutely unbeatable. I shoot at box speed (100 ISO) for wet printing. No grain, detail and great-great tonality. Especially great on medium format.

Cal

 

[Fotohuis]

Yes, the Diafine - Acros 100 film is a very good combination. Depending on the light E.I. 100-160.
The same for Tri-X 400 and Diafine, E.I. 800-1250. In split grade wet prints my optimum is around iso 1000. It is a pity Neopan 1600 is not available anymore. It was also a good high speed combination on E.I. 1600.
About the developing temperature: Do not developing under 21C with Diafine.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

I've no experience of Diafine/Acros but 35mm Tri X at 1250 ISO is great. It's particularly good for indoor shooting with a fast lens or handheld on bright city streets at night. I've found grain to be vey acceptable bearing in mind the speed and I can't say I've found the shadows lacking although you don't need full shadow detail if you want a night shot to look like a night shot.

Here are a few:

 

[Calzone]

I've no experience of Diafine/Acros but 35mm Tri X at 1250 ISO is great. It's particulaly good for indoor shooting with a fast lens or handheld on bright city streets. I've found grain to be vey acceptable bearing in mind the speed and I can't say I've found the shadows lacking although you don't need full shadow detail if you want a night shot to look like a night shot.

Here are a few:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_trYfM1m9OGY/RzY8xLoUzDI/AAAAAAAAA7w/Hx2QZmYCnIw/s1600-h/stairwell.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_trYfM1m9OGY/RzY7vboUy7I/AAAAAAAAA6w/Qg84XOIAKkI/s1600-h/cafe3.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_trYfM1m9OGY/RzY717oUy8I/AAAAAAAAA64/2BKVJk_cVhc/s1600-h/Christmas-Shop.jpg

Good examples of what can be done with Tri-X at 1250. I go lower in ISO (800) for more density and for wet printing.

Arcos has this inherent strong contrast and mucho shadow detail that resembles the next larger format. To me Tri-X produces strong mids, especially for the film speed.

Cal