Austerby
Well-known
Diafine: it seems a wonder-developer - any exposure, any speed, everything will come out and there don't seem to be any time differences for different films or exposures.
Why aren't we all using it as the only developer we'll ever need?
I've never used it but I'm tempted to try it out - what's the catch and what are the benefits?
Why aren't we all using it as the only developer we'll ever need?
I've never used it but I'm tempted to try it out - what's the catch and what are the benefits?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Yes, it is too good to be true.
It's a compensating developer which compresses the mid-tones.
For the right subject -- especially long tonal ranges under contrasty lighting -- it can be superb IF (as is usually the case) you want both shadows and highlights but not mid-tones.
You have hit on exactly the question: if it's perfect, why doesn't everyone use it?
By all means try it. It may suit you perfectly. But equally, you may think, "Hang on, what's all the fuss about?"
Cheers,
R.
It's a compensating developer which compresses the mid-tones.
For the right subject -- especially long tonal ranges under contrasty lighting -- it can be superb IF (as is usually the case) you want both shadows and highlights but not mid-tones.
You have hit on exactly the question: if it's perfect, why doesn't everyone use it?
By all means try it. It may suit you perfectly. But equally, you may think, "Hang on, what's all the fuss about?"
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Bobbie
-
FrankS
Registered User
Like Roger said, it's a compensating developer and it works to exhaustion. There is no contrast control as with other developers. One can't alter time, temp, concentration, or agitation to affect development characteristics in a positive way.
Also, agitation technique is very important: too little and one gets bromide drag - ruining the negs, and too much agitation in solution b and one washes the developer out of the emulsion resulting in underdevelopment, and ruined negs. Blah!
It does have advantages, but it also has these negatives.
Also, agitation technique is very important: too little and one gets bromide drag - ruining the negs, and too much agitation in solution b and one washes the developer out of the emulsion resulting in underdevelopment, and ruined negs. Blah!
It does have advantages, but it also has these negatives.
Last edited:
iñaki
Well-known
I thougt it was perfect for me (begginer) and tried it. It works well, very easy to use, but negatives came too grainy. Maybe I did something wrong or they are not so grainy. I´ll post two examples.
Fuji Presto (400 shot at 640).
Fuji Acros (100 shot at 200)
Fuji Presto (400 shot at 640).
Fuji Acros (100 shot at 200)
Last edited:
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
I think of Diafine as a "lowest common denominator" developer; it always gives mediocre negatives from any film at just about any speed. I only use it for those mystery rolls that turn up and make me scratch my head thinking "What the hell was that, and how did I shoot it?" When the film is important and I know how it was exposed, I'll always choose another developer to get better results.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Ha! Glad to help, Roger. I can't tell you how many times I've benefited from your experience and observations, so I'm glad to return the favor! Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to process a few rolls of film I just found in the bottom of an old camera bag.
Harry Lime
Practitioner
Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine is quite nice.
Morca007
Matt
I find this a bit offensive, this image is almost a straight scan of Tri-x at EI640 in Diafine, and the neg looks great:
Diafine isn't perfect, but to say it gives only mediocre results is just silly.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Matt: No offense but lots of other "mainstream" developers could have produced those results. I see very few Diafine negs that are mire than mediocre. Yours is very good, but as Roger said, it seems that it takes a very specific set of conditions to produce good negs in Diafine. When it eorks, fine. But most of the time it's not worth wasting negs.
mcgrattan
Well-known
I've had some very nice results from Diafine with some slowish films pushed a stop or so, e.g. APX100 at around 200-250ASA. Surprisingly fine grained and without the tonal compression that Diafine usually gives. That said, I agree with the comments above, it'd almost never be my first choice developer as it often does unpleasant things to the tones.
Using it as a lowest common denominator developer is a nice description [very dilute Rodinal sometimes works the same way]. But 99% of the time I end up using Aculux or DD-X.
Using it as a lowest common denominator developer is a nice description [very dilute Rodinal sometimes works the same way]. But 99% of the time I end up using Aculux or DD-X.
mfogiel
Veteran
Diafine is very forgiving, but I think it is better suited for scanning than wet printing - you have to work quite a lot with curves to get the best tonality out of it. I also find that the grain is sort of poorly defined, at least in Tri X, so the acutance is missing and this is lowering the perceived sharpness. Also, surprisingly, it will give you much better results if you "overexpose" quite a bit, e.g. Tri X works best between EI 400 and 800
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
mcgratten: Your comments about APX 100 in Diafine seem logical. My experience with APX is that there is a lot of "midtone goodness" (highly technical term!) in this film, and compensating developers are a really good match in most lighting conditions. I hadn't thought about pushing a stop, but it makes sense, as my subjective impression is that it has good latitude on the underexposure side.
Tim Gray
Well-known
I have found that it's perfectly usable. Seems to work best with Tri-X, but I use it a lot for random films that I don't feel like testing in XTOL. I shot Tri-X a lot at 1250. Since you don't have control over contrast in the developing stage, you can do it in the exposure stage. Expose it anywhere from 400-1250 depending on the lighting conditions.
venchka
Veteran
If you're several clicks past the Middle of Nowhere, you have no electricity, no climate control and no refrigeration, Diafine is a god send.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
After one and a half years and many rolls (which counts here as 'not much experience at all, really) I have to admit that my results with Diafine are the most consistent. I got the trick early on that you can control contrast with exposure, not development. It is a godsend for really contrasty situations, e.g. concerts with spots on the performers.
If I get my stuff right with HC-110 (the other developer that I use), results are noticably better though. But I have seen a few rolls where I should have used Diafine instead.
With C-41 color film in my manual cams (all of them) I have my old consistency back. But the extra variables that I introduce by (apperently sloppy) development make the results unpredictable. But hey, that's just me
Diafine IS very good. But it has limitations, juts like anything else.
If I get my stuff right with HC-110 (the other developer that I use), results are noticably better though. But I have seen a few rolls where I should have used Diafine instead.
With C-41 color film in my manual cams (all of them) I have my old consistency back. But the extra variables that I introduce by (apperently sloppy) development make the results unpredictable. But hey, that's just me
Diafine IS very good. But it has limitations, juts like anything else.
Turtle
Veteran
Current Xtol is in fact too good to be true, hence the constant resurrection of ancient sudden death syndrome, as if it were yesterday, to keep the curious away!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I like it for higher speedfilms. For iso 100-200 or even below 100, i'd say it is unwise to use it since the advantage of such slow films (tonal range, small grain, sharpness) isthrown out with Diafine.
For tri-x, neopan1600, it is just great.
Once by mistake i also exposed half a roll of neopan 100SS at e.i.400, while the first half was e.i.100. Since i considered the second half more important i decided to develop it in diafine 5+5minutes. The e.i.400 side of the film turned out great, although the scene was high contrast, the neg is very nice looking. The e.i.100 part is a bit mushy and, i swear it looks like it has bigger grain!
For tri-x, neopan1600, it is just great.
Once by mistake i also exposed half a roll of neopan 100SS at e.i.400, while the first half was e.i.100. Since i considered the second half more important i decided to develop it in diafine 5+5minutes. The e.i.400 side of the film turned out great, although the scene was high contrast, the neg is very nice looking. The e.i.100 part is a bit mushy and, i swear it looks like it has bigger grain!
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
JSU: 40 gallons? That's enough for a few lifetimes i guess! I bought the 1 gallon edition three years ago and i still have one 1L bottle untouched, the second one used a bit and the third (half litre bottle - in total 2.5L is about 1 gallon) sol.A more or less consumed and very dirty.