Help me out of my Diafine rut

[rover]

OK, I mentioned in another thread that I am in a Diafine rut. I am so bad that when I learned that I will be getting some Pan F this weekend I went to the Diafine box and yup there it is, shoot it at 80......(I may shoot at 64 actually).

I need to spread my wings.

Here is what I am going to do.

I have stock or ordered Pan F, TriX, PlusX and Artista EDU Ultra (Foma 100).
I currently have Diafine, DDX and a package of unmixed D76.

My goal it to shoot all of this film, 2 rolls of each kind destined for each developer. So, I will try to figure out the best speed to shoot the PanF for DDX and D76, probably 32 or just 50 and process it as I see fit.

So, that is 4 films and 3 developers so far, but I want to go further. I have decided to add some Rodinal, but then saw Fomadon (http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=&pid=1000001706) I will probably will stick with the Rodinal though. And I want to give Ilford films another try, I haven't like HP5 before, so I am thinking of picking up some HC110.

So, what do you think, am I on the right track? Is there some different developer that I should try? Any tips, hints or warnings?

I figure this will be great to get me out shooting more, and that will always be a good thing.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[markinlondon]

Rover,

the Fomadon F09 is the prewar formulation of Rodinal, it works about the same with slightly altered dilutions (1:40 instead of 1:50 IIRC). I've only used the Agfa product.
I see you already have DDX and D76. I have to say these are my all-time favourites (with one exception that isn't around anymore). HP5 is excellent in both DD-X and D76 (I use ID-11, same thing). DD-X gives a slight speed increase or more shadow detail at box speed if you prefer. Tri-x is also great in both. I use recommended EI's and times and get nice easy printing negatives with a diffusion head. I think if I had to go to one film and developer it would be HP5 and D76/ID-11. I might reserve DD-X (or more likely Microphen for pushing).

Mark

 

[varjag]

Rover, I wouldn't bother with D76 if you already have DD-X.

 

[Trius]

Rover: My experience with Pan F and DDX was the negs looked good at an EI of 40. 50 was ever so slightly thin in the shadows, but this was all from inspecting the negs, not printing or scanning.

I have another roll waiting for processing, and I will use Rodinal; I haven't decided which dilution yet.

 

[Ronald M]

To do all these with every film will take ages and you still will know nothing as the pics will be all different subjects/lightiing. You will rnd up knowing everything about nothing. It will take forever to calibrate developing times for all these films and developerd and taking times off a chart is useless.

Pick one slow and one fast film at most and use them with one developer. Do not change developers until there is something you can say you do not like about that developer and the direction you want to go, sharper, finer grain,more speed.

 

[FrankS]

I ended up dumping my Diafine. It was too finicky with regards to agitation: too much and the developer is washed out of the emulsion causing weak negs, too little and my negs had streaks.
I shoot HP5+ as my fast film and develop in D76 or Ilfosol S. For slow film I'll use whatever is available least expensively, lately it's APX100, before it was FP4+, and develop it in Rodinol.
Works for me, but everyone should find their own combos and procedures that works best for them.

 

[kmack]

HC110 and Clayton F76+.

The F76+ is very similar to DD-X (a little cheaper at Freestyle) and I love it for fine grain and good tone with HP5 and FP4. I use it more with my 4x5 stuff because it works very well at 1:19 in a rotary processor.

HC110 at 1:100 is my second developer. I prefer it to Rodinal with all films except the Ekfe 25.

In deference to RonaldM, while I agree in substance, it is sometimes good to try other combinations, the overall quality of your negaitves will suffer in the short run but the experience of testing and evaluating the results can be rewarding.

I haven't dumped my Diafine, I use it on those rare occations when I am pushing. I have been using the new KB400 for a while and it seems to be a consistant 1250 for me in Diafine with good grain and tone.

 

[rich815]

Nothing wrong with Diafine and nothing wrong with a "rut", as long as it's a rut you are happy in. ;-)

Choose a new developer because of some aspect you desire that you do not get with a film/diafine combo you currently have. I personally only use Diafine for contrasty conditions and when the speed can be helpful. Mostly street shooting and night shots. But never for my more "fine art" landscape work. For that I use slower films and developers that I feel will give me better and smoother tonal range.

Each film and each developer are well known for certain characteristics. You rarely can go wrong with one or the other or any of the combos but they may not give you what you want.

Nothing wrong with a whole bunch of experimenting; I personally have played around with HC-110, Microdol-X, D-76, Rodinal, ExactolLux, DiXactol and Xtol over the past few years with Acros, Neopan 400 and 1600, APX25, 100 and 400, Tri-X, Plus-X Pan, FP4+, Delta 100 and 3200 and a smattering of others. It has taken me "forever" to learn the differences (I rarely take notes, bad I know) but an inate wisdom has "developed" in my mind and I know what I like. I've begun to settle on Diafine for the reason outlined above mostly with Tri-X and Plus-X, and Delta 100 and Tri-X in ExactolLux when I want smoother tones. That said I still love Acros and APX25 (yes, I still have some! Both 35mm and 120!) in Rodinal and will go that route occasionally.

I think the key is to stick with one film and developer for at least a few weeks and a half-dozen or so rolls so you can get a feel for the combo and your satisfaction with it. 2 rolls of each in each developer will, IMO, not tell you enough.

You will certainly drive yourself nuts if you change films and developers roll after roll because one time you'll get great results but will not know whether it just happens to be because of the lighting on that roll (or some other aspect of control)----in comparison perhaps a different roll or developer could have been even better? Only consistent experience can tell you that through getting to know a film/developer combo before moving on to the next....

I know one guy who shoots ONLY Tri-X and ONLY developed in HC-110. I personally do not like that combo but I have a hard time telling anyone this guy does not get FANTASTIC results. There's a lesson in that somewhere....

 

[ray_g]

There certainly are a number of interesting film and developer options. Personally, I have restricted myself to buying bulk film - so that means I try them 100 feet at a time.

I generally try to have one fast and one slow. I am going through my HP5, and will soon change to Neopan400. I have seen some great results with this, and would like to try it. I am finishing a roll of APX100 which I love with Rodinal.

I will be trying PanF soon, because that was what was available, and I wanted to try something slower than 100.

I am getting a third bulk loader, as you know, because I was able to get a deal on a bulk roll of Portra 160.

For developers, I restrict myself to ones with very long shelf life, and that you can mix in small amounts with no stock solution. I am happy with HC110 and Rodinal. I may try Todd's Pyro concoction at some point.

 

[RayPA]

...
...
I think the key is to stick with one film and developer for at least a few weeks and a half-dozen or so rolls so you can get a feel for the combo and your satisfaction with it. 2 rolls of each in each developer will, IMO, not tell you enough....

I agree with Rich. Although, I think that the time frame depends on how many rolls you shoot. Another thing you may want to do is work with developers based on their categories (fine grain, high acutance, etc.), and explore the developers within those groupings. You haven't really expressed what it is you're after, so you may want to define what that is first. What were the characteristics of Diafine that put you on to it (please don't say convenience 😉 )?

I've always thought of Diafine as the microwave oven of developers. I've used it and loved it for its convenience, but when I want to really cook a meal I usually don't use a microwave. 🙂 🙂 However, a lot of people use Diafine and get great results with it. I've also heard of people cooking a great Thanksgiving dinner using just a microwave. 🙂 🙂


.

 

[GeneW]

It's fun to experiment. Rather than D-76, you might want to try Xtol. Similar tonality but finer grain. My current fav combo is Tri-X and Rodinal but I also use a lot of HC-110 and have never had a bad experience with it, with any film.

Gene

 

[Trius]

Trying various films and developer combinations does not necessarily lead to knowing everything and nothing. There is a methodology for testing film/developer combinations for speed and development times that, while not instantaneous, is relatively quick, especially if you have access to a densitometer. But even without a densitometer, it can be done without getting lost.

Zone VI Workshop, by Fred Picker, is a good book for this approach. My personal preference is to have one or two film/developer combinations that are my staples; learn them very well, stick with tried and true. Getting to what works well for me can take some effort, but it's worth the effort.

 

[rover]

Trius, what time and temp on that DDX and PanF.

Thanks all for your comments. I am swamped at work but I printed and took them to lunch with me. More than anything else I just want to have fun, this really isn't a quest for the Holy Grail. I just want to play, and though it is very easy to use and I think I get very good results from Diafine, I like the results I get from DDX and D76 better in some cases. And Diafine ties me to certain films that work well with it.

 

[ray_g]

It's fun to experiment. Rather than D-76, you might want to try Xtol. Similar tonality but finer grain. My current fav combo is Tri-X and Rodinal but I also use a lot of HC-110 and have never had a bad experience with it, with any film.

Gene

Not to hijack this, but Gene (or anyone) have you tried the HC110 with Pan F and Neopan 400?

 

[jano]

I'll second the recommendation on Xtol.

If you're up for some fun, try coffetol or whatever they call it 😀

By the way, what's Pan F? How's it compare to something like efke 25?

 

[kaiyen]

To echo what I think is a very important comment from Rich, try and identify certain aspects that you are looking for, and then consider different developers for that purpose. For instance:

-control of different contrast situations through adjustment of dev times and agitation methods
-edge effects
-compensation
-shelf life
-film speed
-economy

etc.
allan

 

[ray_g]

By the way, what's Pan F? How's it compare to something like efke 25?

Never tried Efke.

Pan F.

 

[rover]

OK, I have to admit this.

I have the Darkroom Cookbook and Film Developing Cookbook. I have read both, parts of each multiple time. I understand all of that great info about as well as I understand women. I think for me this is something that I have to just get out there and experience before I can understand what I like or don't like.

 

[kaiyen]

Rover,
Yeah, the FDC really starts to make sense after you mess around with other developers. However, again, if you were to tell me "I want maximum sharpness" I could give you tips on what developers would help with that, and what you'd lose and/or compromise in pursuing such a route. So you don't have to go through all that testing and messing around to make the FDC make sense.

allan

 

[markinlondon]

OK, I have to admit this.

I have the Darkroom Cookbook and Film Developing Cookbook. I have read both, parts of each multiple time. I understand all of that great info about as well as I understand women. I think for me this is something that I have to just get out there and experience before I can understand what I like or don't like.

So true, you can read books and internet forums till your head spins but in the end the prints (or scans) are the only test of whether you're getting it right.