Do's and Don'ts of Diafine

[sf]

Hello Jin,
No agitation with Diafine,just 4 minutes for both A and B parts.
In low contrast situations rate your TriX at 1200;rate it at 1000 in high contrast situations.
For Diafine I rate Neopan 400 at 640.It works,but I LOVE the combination Neopan400 and Calbe A49.

corneliu

The guy in the middle photo looks familiar.

 

[bmattock]

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE
1. Immerse film in Diafine Solution A for at least 3 minutes, agitating very gently for the first 5 seconds and for 5 seconds at 1 minute intervals.
2. Drain, but do not rinse.
3. Immerse film in Diafine Solution B for at least 3 minutes, agitating very gently for the first 5 seconds and for 5 seconds at 1 minute intervals.

I just got home, read this, and went to my chemical box and pulled out my instructions. You are right! Mine reads just as yours does.

I am not sure now where I got the notion that the instructions said not to agitate. Somewhere, somehow, I picked up the idea and it has stuck with me - but I was certain that it said that one the box - mea culpa.

Let me just say that I don't invert (the tanks I use can't be inverted) and I don't agitate Diafine - I just tap to dislodge bubbles. The only times I've had trouble with Diafine:

1) I used a wet reel - and the water soaked into the emulsion in places, but not everywhere. Let to underdeveloped spots.

2) I agitated (and inverted, different tank) and got weird trails that I presumed were what people call 'bromide trails'.

When I considered what agitation was for - what the purpose was - I was convinced that no agitation was best. After all, the job of solution A is to get soaked into the emulsion, which is water-soluble and acts like a sponge. Why would agitation change this? Even if it made the solution absorb faster, so what? There is no greater absorbtion than the max it will hold, so I don't see what agitation gains you there.

When it comes to solution B, its job is to react with the solution A that has absorbed into the emulsion. It is a compensating developer, which means that highlights don't get blown out while shadows get even development - the main reason we are warned against using Diafine in low-constrast situations, because it can bring down the contrast even more and make the scene 'flat'. So moving around the developer does not give us anything extra - the solution B that touches solution A develops until solution A is exhausted - and then stops. Agitation of solution B would bring more / fresh solution B into contact with the emulsion - but that would only hasten the point at which solution A is all out of steam. Once it is gone, development stops. So again, I don't see what agitation gets you, except to finish the development faster - but you're waiting three minutes anyway, which would be sufficient for the development to end on its own without agitation.

If, like many of us, you give solution A and B both an extra minute or two (and why not), then you should always have full development.

I tried to find Acufine, Inc.'s website without luck. I did find their address / phone number in Chicago. I'll try to contact them on Monday if I'm able to and will report back what they tell me about agitation.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Dougg]

Bill I share your reasoning about what is going on in that there tank... And I even sorta visualize it while it's going on. Helps get a feel for the process. 🙂 In Solution B, where the interesting stuff happens, I can imagine development byproducts collecting along the surface of the emulsion, more concentrated where the density is building faster. The nudge method of occasional agitation (pouring-in agitates, then nudge after 1 min, nudge after 2 min, then after 3 min it doesn't matter anyway, so not much agitation is involved) may serve only to cause these clouds of chemical byproducts to drift away from their positions. Is this advantageous? I have assumed so, but don't know. Might be the only reason to agitate at all...

 

[T_om]

Wow. A Diafine thread got to two pages before I arrived! Amazing.

To Diafine newbies: Experiment. You never will know how a film looks in Diafine until YOU develop it in Diafine. You may like it. You may hate it. A TREMENDOUS influence on the like-it-or-not decision depends upon your workflow AFTER you develop the film.

Film is cheap. Diafine is cheap. Life is too short to have someone else tell you what you should and should not be doing with cheap film and cheap developer. So I'm not gonna do it. Experiment.

Tom

 

[jano]

I'm not sure diafine is my thing. In following the directions, so far, I have had these weird results:
1. negatives come out feeling somewhat "powdery" once they dry. i.e. the areas that are supposed to be clear have a bit of the emulsion on them. I think they are almost.. foggy?
2. scanning them has been tough. What look like good negatives don't scan well at all, but those which look poor on occasion may scan okay.

Films done in diafine so far have been acros and trix (more so the later than former). After the developing, I rinse for 30 seconds, fix for 8 minutes, wash and hypo-clear. Almost sounds like my fixer may be done, but I recently used it with xtol and results were fine. Many of my negs have come out fairly grainy with diafine, but I think this is due to excessive agitation (I'll try without next time).

*shrug*

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Experiment.

Just don't inhale. Or ingest. One of those two has got to be a don't with Diafine 😉

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oh, once you get the hang of it, you can get some nice results...

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hmm, only three attachments?

 

[tarasi]

The guy in the middle photo looks familiar.

It`s my son.
Corneliu

 

[jrong]

Some nice results there. Do you usually shoot Tri-X with Diafine?

Seems like that is the most common film+developer combination used here...

 

[titrisol]

Bits of emulsion you say?
1.- Either the fix is too weak or old
2.- You may need to filter your diafine
3.- Rap the tank a few times to dislodge air bubbles

I'm not sure diafine is my thing. In following the directions, so far, I have had these weird results:
1. negatives come out feeling somewhat "powdery" once they dry. i.e. the areas that are supposed to be clear have a bit of the emulsion on them. I think they are almost.. foggy?
2. scanning them has been tough. What look like good negatives don't scan well at all, but those which look poor on occasion may scan okay.

Films done in diafine so far have been acros and trix (more so the later than former). After the developing, I rinse for 30 seconds, fix for 8 minutes, wash and hypo-clear. Almost sounds like my fixer may be done, but I recently used it with xtol and results were fine. Many of my negs have come out fairly grainy with diafine, but I think this is due to excessive agitation (I'll try without next time).

*shrug*

 

[bmattock]

Bits of emulsion you say?
1.- Either the fix is too weak or old
2.- You may need to filter your diafine
3.- Rap the tank a few times to dislodge air bubbles

Also, the quote you gave said "wash and hypo clear." Should that not be the other way around? Rinsing with clear water - optionally followed by a quick dip in diluted Photo-Flo, should be the last step. I do not know what effect hypo clear left on the film would have. Could be a typo, though.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[RicardoD]

Gabriel,

Thank you for the inspiration! I have my first roll of Tri-X in my Yashica GS now which will be my first roll of B&W film I will develop in Diafine.

 

[dagabel]

Hi All, I'm about to process my first roll of film - Tri-X in Diafine, and I'm wondering - is the use of a hypo clearing agent after the fixer useful or recommended for this developer? I've read that an HCA is optional with other developers, but is there any reason not to use it with Diafine?

Thanks!
Duane

 

[kmack]

I do not use a hypo clearing agent, hca can help reduce your wash time. It really does not matter what developer you use. If you have it, it will not make a difference if you use it.

My understanding is that non hardening fixers do not require as much wash time to remove all of the fixer from the film. Hardening fixer require longer time. Hypo clear can help reduce wash time by neutralizing the residual fixer.

 

[tetrisattack]

Some chemistry stuff, to add to the above:

Ammonium thiosulfate, which is the active ingredient in rapid fixer, is less soluble in water than sodium thiosulfate (plain hypo, aka non-rapid fixer). Therefore, rapid fix takes longer to rinse out of your film. Some people say up to an hour if you go straight from fixer to final wash without a dunk in the HCA, versus twenty minutes or so for plain, old-fashioned hypo.

Hypo clearing agent replaces the fixer with a compound more readily soluble in water, thus reducing wash times from an hour to 10-20 minutes. Most HCA's are also buffered to a high pH, to swell the emulsion and speed this process up.

If you care about the longevity of your negatives, then use a hypo clearing agent and give your films a final wash for the recommended times, using lots of running water stabilized to your processing temperature.

 

[Dougg]

A second to Conor's suggestion; HCA has been a standard part of my processing. I also mix in a bit of Selenium toner when I make up the HCA to help archival longevity.

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I have a gallon kit of Diafine on the way to me, once again, as we speak. I missed it so much that I had someone on APUG buy me a kit since I can't get it here. I can't wait to use it again. I'll be shooting Tri-X at 1000, HP5 at 800 and TMY at 640. I *think* that's what I used last time with good results...been a while since I had the last kit so I may have to tweak things once again.

I'll still be using Rodinal for my slower films, but it'll be nice to have my Diafine back for my faster ones.

 

[matt fury]

Does Diafine speed up TMZ at all?

 

[Stephanie Brim]

I'm going to assume so because Diafine pushes almost all film a bit. I'd do some research, though.