zumbido
-
I use it for certain projects, mostly "single-feature" landscapes (such as a small smoking geyser that fills most of the frame). When I use it, I use it for both the film and the print, generally printing with a #3.5 contrast filter. Sometimes 4 depending on the scene. Occasionally with split-contrast printing, but trial-and-error has shown me that's really only necessary if I overexposed the shot to begin with.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I'm new to Diafine, but I have been experimenting to find its best use.
The contrast compression can be too dramatic in a bad way if your shot is of moderate contrast. With Pan F my negatives were too thin and were tonally mostly mids.
What I found exciting is using Fuji Arcos at night shot at 160 ISO under the most extreame lighting/contrast conditions. I got negatives that have a tonal range that resembles Tri-X shot at 400 or 320 in daylight and developed in ID-11, 1+1.
I have some Tri-X shot at 1250 and some HP5 shot at 800 that I will tank up later this week. Not sure how useful these speeds are for daylight, but it could be great for night shooting.
In the past, I liked shooting HP5 at 650 for the extra speed, but I used Microphen diluted 1+3 to moderate the contrast boost from the slight push. Not sure where Diafine will work for me. Trying to avoid the contrast enhancement to bring out detail.
From what I've seen on Fuji Arcos is amazing detail. It seems to help to meter deeper into the shadows for night shooting. When I bracketed, the best exposures with the most detail seemed to be twice my initial exposure, so much so that next time I will just double my meter reading and not bracket.
From what I've gleened, perhaps even 1250 is too high an ISO. Perhaps 800 or 650 will give me negatives without extra contrast with a Tri-X like midrange for shooting at night.
I will also add that in use processing is easy and fast. I mixed up 3 quarts so I can fill my large tank. Also obsessively thought about how convenient it is to be able to process HP5, Tri-X, Pan F, TXP (all shot at differant speeds, both 120, 220 and 135) in the same tank at the same time (3 minutes Part A and 3 minutes Part B). I usually mix ID-11 up 10 liters at a time because I dilute 1+1 as a one-shot. I figure Diafine will save me a lot of time and money.
Cal
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Just to throw a wrench in here...
Thornton's 2 bath formula allows the same flexibility and you expose at box speed rather than a speed determined by Diafine's properties depending on film.
Thornton's 2 bath formula allows the same flexibility and you expose at box speed rather than a speed determined by Diafine's properties depending on film.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I developed 1 roll HP5 650, 1 roll HP5 800, and two rolls Tri-X at 1250 using Diafine 3+3 over the weekend.
The results are mixed. The HP5 at 650 I liked a lot. Since the 70's I've been a big fan of HP5 at 650 and developing using Microphen 1+3 with extended time to moderate the boost in conttrast that is the result of the gentle push. I already like Diafine better at this speed for three reasons: more shadow detail, economy and processing speed. The negatives seem sharper and have about the same midrange, but there is more shadow detail.
The HP5 at 800 seemed to be a bit thin. Probably alright for scanning, but I want to just straight print on a condenser enlarger without any filters on a number 2 graded paper.
The Tri-X at 1250 wasn't that good. For my wet printing, I'm thinking 650 for HP5 and perhaps 800 for Tri-X. To me HP5 has more contrast and Tri-X has better mid-range tones and because of this Tri-X can get more useful film speed with Diafine.
I'm under the opinion that some of the recomended film speeds for Diafine are too high. So far I love Diafine with Fuji Arcos at 160 for night shooting with a tripod.
And it seems that Diafine eclipsed Microphen that use to be a favorite.
I want to try Arcos at 100 and even 80 for daylight shooting and Tri-X at 800. I'll post the results later.
Cal
The results are mixed. The HP5 at 650 I liked a lot. Since the 70's I've been a big fan of HP5 at 650 and developing using Microphen 1+3 with extended time to moderate the boost in conttrast that is the result of the gentle push. I already like Diafine better at this speed for three reasons: more shadow detail, economy and processing speed. The negatives seem sharper and have about the same midrange, but there is more shadow detail.
The HP5 at 800 seemed to be a bit thin. Probably alright for scanning, but I want to just straight print on a condenser enlarger without any filters on a number 2 graded paper.
The Tri-X at 1250 wasn't that good. For my wet printing, I'm thinking 650 for HP5 and perhaps 800 for Tri-X. To me HP5 has more contrast and Tri-X has better mid-range tones and because of this Tri-X can get more useful film speed with Diafine.
I'm under the opinion that some of the recomended film speeds for Diafine are too high. So far I love Diafine with Fuji Arcos at 160 for night shooting with a tripod.
And it seems that Diafine eclipsed Microphen that use to be a favorite.
I want to try Arcos at 100 and even 80 for daylight shooting and Tri-X at 800. I'll post the results later.
Cal
chrism
Well-known
I have always shot Tri-X at 1250 for development in Diafine. It's true that there is reduced contrast, but for scanning negatives this works very well. A little twitch of the Curves and all is well. But now I am re-activating my darkroom, and I may find Diafine-developed negatives defeat even the max contrast setting on the enlarger, in which case I do have a few bottles of T-Max to use up prior to experimenting with others. But I still say if you intend to scan your negatives there is no reason to look further than Diafine. It is foolproof in use.
Chris
Chris
mgd711
Medium Format Baby!!
Neopan 1600 in Diafine...
Camera was a Rollei 35SE which is probably not the best tool for night time shooting, more experimentation is needed but so far I like what I see (you may not though)
Camera was a Rollei 35SE which is probably not the best tool for night time shooting, more experimentation is needed but so far I like what I see (you may not though)
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Diafine seems to require some experimenting, but it didn't take long to get some great results with a lot of potential.
Kinda like "Project Runway" when Tim Gunn says, "Make it work."
So far Fuji Arcos shot at 160, 5+5 (times) for night shooting with a tripod kills under the harshest contrast with extream mixed lighting; and HP5 at 650, 3+3 (times) beats my old favorite Microphen 1+3 (dilution).
In particular I'm hoping Tri-X at 800 will work for me so I can shoot mucho 120 Tri-X at night hand held with my Rollei and Mamiya. Shooting a lot of 120 in the past meant buying and mixing ID-11 ten liters at a time. In practical use I will have to "make it work" to take advantage of living in NYC. Since pour times are not so critical, I'm already thinking of getting an eight reel tank for 120 use.
Cal
Kinda like "Project Runway" when Tim Gunn says, "Make it work."
So far Fuji Arcos shot at 160, 5+5 (times) for night shooting with a tripod kills under the harshest contrast with extream mixed lighting; and HP5 at 650, 3+3 (times) beats my old favorite Microphen 1+3 (dilution).
In particular I'm hoping Tri-X at 800 will work for me so I can shoot mucho 120 Tri-X at night hand held with my Rollei and Mamiya. Shooting a lot of 120 in the past meant buying and mixing ID-11 ten liters at a time. In practical use I will have to "make it work" to take advantage of living in NYC. Since pour times are not so critical, I'm already thinking of getting an eight reel tank for 120 use.
Cal
Tim Gray
Well-known
I've shot Tri-X in Diafine anywhere from 400-1600. As Roger said, all useable, but not necessarily ideal. The shots I've done at 1250 (at concerts) were scannable and printable in the dark room as well. Maybe not ideal, but acceptable. Also, while I've shot 400TX at 1250 (and 1600) in Diafine, I make no claims that it's actually making that speed. I'd be willing to wager money that TMZ and Delta 3200 make more shadow detail, but it's not something I've ever bothered testing. Maybe I'll do that soon.
Contrast can be funny in Diafine. For a given scene, contrast varies with exposure index. This could cause more problems in the darkroom than while scanning.
Contrast can be funny in Diafine. For a given scene, contrast varies with exposure index. This could cause more problems in the darkroom than while scanning.
venchka
Veteran
2 bath developers are good at evening out scenes of varying brightness range on the same roll. Oick an ISO. Almost anything will work after a fashion.
Diafine isn't alone. Barry Thornton's 2 bath, Sandy King's Pyrocat-HD or -MC, etc. work well in this regard.
Some people even dilute Diafine 1:1 and discard after a single use.
Pure Diafine......all of Westley's film is developed in Diafine.
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/wclavey/
Diafine isn't alone. Barry Thornton's 2 bath, Sandy King's Pyrocat-HD or -MC, etc. work well in this regard.
Some people even dilute Diafine 1:1 and discard after a single use.
Pure Diafine......all of Westley's film is developed in Diafine.
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/wclavey/
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I've already had some funny things happen, not so much when taking the same shot bracketing a night scene with 120 (with only 12 exposures results have been very consistent), but on a roll of thirty-six contrast varied widely at higher film speeds.
Surprisingly, a low contrast shot in overcast light displayed a nice tonal range, but Tri-X was all over the place. At this point, hard to predict, and somewhat random.
I'll see if I can repeat the good results with HP5 at 650. Hopefully it wasn't a fluke.
Cal
gnashings
Member
I don't think Diafine is a magic wand or a silver bullet - but, it is a pretty amazing exercise in versatility. My very humble opinion is that you should always shoot a whole roll at one ISO rating and develop with that (and the conditions and desired results) in mind. However, life is funny and sometimes stuff happens - when that "stuff" does happen, your best shot at useable results across a wide range of exposure is indeed Diafine.
It is not, however, an approach I would ever recommend - do your best to tailor your approach to the result you want, and the best way to do that is consistency, and even something I am horrible at but can whole-heartedly recommend - note taking. I know that shooting the style that an RF camera so very much encourages is not exactly the Ansel Adams school of "pre-visualize", plan, be clinically precise and deliberate about every step - but, a little consistency and forethought certainly does not hurt.
On my darkroom shelf, Diafine is the "I need to push this Tri-X" or "ooops what did I do?" developer - which is to say, a useful tool in a tool box, bot I am certainly not among the crowd who thinks that Diafine came about when Jesus was turning water into wine and lost his concentration for a second - as far as I know it still develops film through a chemical process and not divine intervention
It is not, however, an approach I would ever recommend - do your best to tailor your approach to the result you want, and the best way to do that is consistency, and even something I am horrible at but can whole-heartedly recommend - note taking. I know that shooting the style that an RF camera so very much encourages is not exactly the Ansel Adams school of "pre-visualize", plan, be clinically precise and deliberate about every step - but, a little consistency and forethought certainly does not hurt.
On my darkroom shelf, Diafine is the "I need to push this Tri-X" or "ooops what did I do?" developer - which is to say, a useful tool in a tool box, bot I am certainly not among the crowd who thinks that Diafine came about when Jesus was turning water into wine and lost his concentration for a second - as far as I know it still develops film through a chemical process and not divine intervention
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
... as far as I know it still develops film through a chemical process and not divine intervention
but it does come damn close to that
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
I developed some rolls of HP5 that were shot at 650 and 800. I also threw in a roll of Pan F shot at 50 instead of the Diafine box recomendation of 80 into the same tank.
I got very consistent results with the HP5 and negatives that will wet print nicely that also have nicely textured detail.
The Pan F is a bit thin, displaying low contrast in about half the negatives. Perhaps I will drop the film speed further next time.
All of the above were shot in daylight, and I can live with HP5 shot in daylight without filters to increase contrast. 800 speed created moderate contrast with more mids, but 650 was kinda punchy in a good way. The mids are kind of marvelous at both speeds and varying the speed/exposure kinda sets the blacks while the highlights kinda remain the same. Very different than the typical underexpose and overdevelope of other developers.
I also had three rolls of Tri-X that were shot in rapidly diminishing light that quickly led to night. (Earlier in good light I was shooting 5 rolls of expired Kodachrome 64.)The event was the NYC Halloween Parade; I set the meter on my camera to 800 when I started, and I began shooting B&W just before twilight. I ended up blowing through about a two rolls before the actual parade began in the staging area before 7:00 PM.
As time went on, exposures became more and more marginal and eventually limited exposures on a Noct-Nikkor to be wide open with the shutter speed at 1/30th. I figured at one point that with my film speed set at 800 most of my shots on the third roll would be as if at 1000 or 1250 at best and perhaps even 1600 when I was on the parade route (I acually was allowed to became part of the parade).
I was floored by the results and greatly surprised. I was not expecting any positive results and blew off the entire last roll as just an experiment. I was shooting a pair of Nikon F3's weighed down with motordrives that day, so the ballast helped steady the cameras; and even though I was shooting at 1/30th of a second I got consistent sharp focus.
Many of the later negatives will print a lot of black, but the lit areas that capured light express mucho detail. Kinda suits the occassion in a dreamy sureal way.
I realize that Diafine works well for very mixed high contast situations. Now that daylight savings time makes my walk home at dusk and my walk to work in the morning daylight, it is only half as useful to carry a camera every work week day. I'll be exploring shooting Tri-X at 1250 for at dusk, and will add contrast by using an orange filter for shooting in the mornings. I'm going to make Diafine work for me.
Cal
I got very consistent results with the HP5 and negatives that will wet print nicely that also have nicely textured detail.
The Pan F is a bit thin, displaying low contrast in about half the negatives. Perhaps I will drop the film speed further next time.
All of the above were shot in daylight, and I can live with HP5 shot in daylight without filters to increase contrast. 800 speed created moderate contrast with more mids, but 650 was kinda punchy in a good way. The mids are kind of marvelous at both speeds and varying the speed/exposure kinda sets the blacks while the highlights kinda remain the same. Very different than the typical underexpose and overdevelope of other developers.
I also had three rolls of Tri-X that were shot in rapidly diminishing light that quickly led to night. (Earlier in good light I was shooting 5 rolls of expired Kodachrome 64.)The event was the NYC Halloween Parade; I set the meter on my camera to 800 when I started, and I began shooting B&W just before twilight. I ended up blowing through about a two rolls before the actual parade began in the staging area before 7:00 PM.
As time went on, exposures became more and more marginal and eventually limited exposures on a Noct-Nikkor to be wide open with the shutter speed at 1/30th. I figured at one point that with my film speed set at 800 most of my shots on the third roll would be as if at 1000 or 1250 at best and perhaps even 1600 when I was on the parade route (I acually was allowed to became part of the parade).
I was floored by the results and greatly surprised. I was not expecting any positive results and blew off the entire last roll as just an experiment. I was shooting a pair of Nikon F3's weighed down with motordrives that day, so the ballast helped steady the cameras; and even though I was shooting at 1/30th of a second I got consistent sharp focus.
Many of the later negatives will print a lot of black, but the lit areas that capured light express mucho detail. Kinda suits the occassion in a dreamy sureal way.
I realize that Diafine works well for very mixed high contast situations. Now that daylight savings time makes my walk home at dusk and my walk to work in the morning daylight, it is only half as useful to carry a camera every work week day. I'll be exploring shooting Tri-X at 1250 for at dusk, and will add contrast by using an orange filter for shooting in the mornings. I'm going to make Diafine work for me.
Cal