Diafine tri x @ 100 and 1250

[jasperamsterdam]

Thank you all!

i guess i stired op quite a discussion, cool that even Steven swung by, his site made me really intersted in using diafine in de first place.

i guess i understand that there is no free lunch,but i really want to get started on the right track since i want my basic workflow and filmchoice figured out before my trip to NYC.

so to recap, i want to shoot 2 films, one slow (100-160, acros or plusx) and one fast (400-1000, triix or new tmy or neopan) and i would like to develop them to scan them.

I like the idea of using a developer that gives the neg a bit of a "shadows and highlight" filter so i can add contrast later.(sorry guys im from the PS generation, forgive me) i though Diafine would do that.

The other thing is grain, Stephen showed on its website and 1250 tri-x with nice sharp and small grain, not unlike a 400 iso film, so i figured the grain is really good too with Diafine.

so is this still the right path, or should i learn to use, lets say new tmax 400 in xtol, or tri-x in D76

 

[vieri]

so to recap, i want to shoot 2 films, one slow (100-160, acros or plusx) and one fast (400-1000, triix or new tmy or neopan) and i would like to develop them to scan them.

I like the idea of using a developer that gives the neg a bit of a "shadows and highlight" filter so i can add contrast later.(sorry guys im from the PS generation, forgive me) i though Diafine would do that.

You are right on track so far - my suggestion, however, would be not to use T-grain films and similar, as TMY or Acros because they don't look too good in Diafine (of course, IMHO) but to stick with older style emulsions like Plus-X, Tri-X. You can rate Plus-X @ 200 and Tri-X @ 1000-1250 and you are good to go.

 

[schmoozit]

tri-x will come out just fine even if you rate it between 100 - 1250 on the same role. I've gone between 50 - 1600 and gotten usable negs from Diafine. The only caution is that I was scanning them with a relatively good scanner (Canon FS4000), and Vuescan which I can get just so from lots of practice. I don't know what your work flow is and you may not like/be able to deal with that much variance. It's a YMMV thing.

 

[jasperamsterdam]

mmm

mmm

This last post confuses me again... The level of discussion so far was already a bit over my head but made me realise to stick to 1000-1250 for tri-x.

Now i'm told i can expose whatever i want from 50 to 1600 on the same roll.

I guess al that is left for me to do is go out and try it all out! I wonder what the differences are..

I let you know what comes out!

Thanks all!

Greetings from Amsterdam,

Some of my (mostly digital) photos on
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasperamsterdam/

 

[bmattock]

You can rate your Tri-X at EI 100 and process in Diafine if you wish. You may get a usable negative for scanning purposes, but it will be in no way a 'correct' exposure, and I doubt you'll be happy with it. There are sample photos here from others who have rated their Tri-X at anything from EI 400 to EI 1600 and processed in Diafine and the results at EI 400 were not very happy. Just search for the Diafine threads.

 

[findwolfhard]

Kodax Tri-X

Kodax Tri-X

If you want it really nice, expose to 400 and then use Xtol 1:1, wonderful tones and superfine grain!
Best regs Wolfhard

 

[findwolfhard]

You are right on track so far - my suggestion, however, would be not to use T-grain films and similar, as TMY or Acros because they don't look too good in Diafine (of course, IMHO) but to stick with older style emulsions like Plus-X, Tri-X. You can rate Plus-X @ 200 and Tri-X @ 1000-1250 and you are good to go.

That`s what I meant, too!
regards Wolfhard

 

[ebauman]

Ok, I was curious to know if you could develop film using just part A, so I sacrificed an exposed roll of Tri-X I had laying around (taken with a FED-2 btw). I developed it for 20 min. at 72 degrees, inverting the tank every 10 secs. Guess what - the negatives came out with normal looking density, although a little foggy. I'm not suggesting it as a practice, but it does make you wonder about why 10min A, 3 min B might work for 100 asa - or maybe I'm from the same planet as he is.

 

[sniki]

Me too for Findwolfhard recipe:
Kodak Tri-X & Xtol 1:1 & be happy!

sniki

(anyway IMO Diafine is very handy if you just plan to scan your negatives for digital purposes)

 

[Ronald_H]

I ONLY used Diafine so far.

It really is amazing with Tri-X at 1250ISO, especially with contrasty lighting. But how negs would look exposed at 50, I'm not really sure. 1250 really is a sweet spot for what I do with it (concerts mostly) and no matter the latitude, you can still overexposure to the point that the negs are unscannable.

I also like to use FP4+. The negs have good density and tonality but appear quite grainy. This can be tamed quite succesfully after scanning though. As you guessed I do not do 'wet' printing, but I'd like to explore further with slower (and finer grained) films. I have come to the point where the fast films I use (Tri-X, HP5+, Neopan 1600) come out really nice in Diafine, as long as I expose well and find myself in constrasty situations.

Now it's time to go 'smooth' with a new developer and FP4+.