DaveW
Established
Hi Everyone,
I tried mixing some diafine homebrew recently (from the Darkroom Cookbook) to get some Tri-X to expose well at 1250 or so. I souped my negatives yesterday to find that I had grossly underexposed the negatives (most of negatives would not be printable). The numbers on teh film seem fine. My method
Part A - agitated for 30 seconds, then 5 seconds each 30 seconds for 3 minutes
Part B - remove part A from tank, pour in Part B, agitate gently for 5 seconds every 30 seconds for 3 minutes.
Plain water stop, fixed in TF-4 (alkaline fixer). Wash 10 minutes in tap water, photoflo in distilled water.
Possible problems:
The Tri-X is cold stored, expired in 1980. Would that cause the problem? I was expecting some base fog only.
The homebrew recipe calls for borax - does the store-bought diafine use sodium metaborate or carbonate? I understand that these are more active - would a less active activator necessitate more exposure or would something else do the trick?
I have read various accounts of how to handle Part B chemistry - stand develop since agitation causes the removal of the chemistry absorbed in the emulsion - how much sense does that make?
I plan to make the following changes but hope that this is not overkill:
stand develop with the Part B (if I see the film numbers nice and dark, will this make a difference? I wonder if the plastic reel blocks the agitation so that this part of the film was not adversely affected by the agitation).
expose at 640
I keep reading that many find exposures at 1250 to be about right with the store-bought diafine - anyone use the homebrew?
Any comments greatly appreciated.
Dave
I tried mixing some diafine homebrew recently (from the Darkroom Cookbook) to get some Tri-X to expose well at 1250 or so. I souped my negatives yesterday to find that I had grossly underexposed the negatives (most of negatives would not be printable). The numbers on teh film seem fine. My method
Part A - agitated for 30 seconds, then 5 seconds each 30 seconds for 3 minutes
Part B - remove part A from tank, pour in Part B, agitate gently for 5 seconds every 30 seconds for 3 minutes.
Plain water stop, fixed in TF-4 (alkaline fixer). Wash 10 minutes in tap water, photoflo in distilled water.
Possible problems:
The Tri-X is cold stored, expired in 1980. Would that cause the problem? I was expecting some base fog only.
The homebrew recipe calls for borax - does the store-bought diafine use sodium metaborate or carbonate? I understand that these are more active - would a less active activator necessitate more exposure or would something else do the trick?
I have read various accounts of how to handle Part B chemistry - stand develop since agitation causes the removal of the chemistry absorbed in the emulsion - how much sense does that make?
I plan to make the following changes but hope that this is not overkill:
stand develop with the Part B (if I see the film numbers nice and dark, will this make a difference? I wonder if the plastic reel blocks the agitation so that this part of the film was not adversely affected by the agitation).
expose at 640
I keep reading that many find exposures at 1250 to be about right with the store-bought diafine - anyone use the homebrew?
Any comments greatly appreciated.
Dave
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
I have no idea what Diafine is made of, so I can't help you with the homebrew questions, but as to 'stand' development, it doesn't matter as long as you don't soup it until the emulsion falls off. Diafine develops to completion. When it has no more part A to react against, it stops. Five minutes, five hours, same-same.
I am hip to the fun-factor, but not sure why anyone would home-brew Diafine. It lasts forever. I'm on my first A and B gallons still - it's been several years. It doesn't get much cheaper than that.
I am hip to the fun-factor, but not sure why anyone would home-brew Diafine. It lasts forever. I'm on my first A and B gallons still - it's been several years. It doesn't get much cheaper than that.
cjm
Well-known
homebrew vs store bought
homebrew vs store bought
Sorry this is a little off topic but I have a question of my own. What was your motivation for making homebrewed Diafine? Reducing cost? Lack of access to store bought? Just wanted a challenge?
I'm a big fan of Diafine but I've never tried making it myself. I use the store bought ($13.99).
homebrew vs store bought
Sorry this is a little off topic but I have a question of my own. What was your motivation for making homebrewed Diafine? Reducing cost? Lack of access to store bought? Just wanted a challenge?
I'm a big fan of Diafine but I've never tried making it myself. I use the store bought ($13.99).
Last edited:
DaveW
Established
Excitement
Excitement
This is a hard question, but I feel more ownership of it, that I accomplished something if I do it from scratch. Why do I drive a stick when automatic is available? Feeling like I am part of the process is a reward, a big reward when it comes out right. I cannot tell you how excited I was when I was developing the film - twice the normal anticipation. I was just vibrating! I imagine it would be a lot easier to do c41 monochromes, but the process of developing is super fun. So the process matters to me, not just the end product. Surely others in this group feel this way.
Is there also something in the back of my head telling me to prepare for the day when my favorite chemicals are no longer available? Maybe just a minor smiggin.
So I suppose just plain curiosity and cheapness all apply as well. But mainly, the fun and excitement of it.
Excitement
This is a hard question, but I feel more ownership of it, that I accomplished something if I do it from scratch. Why do I drive a stick when automatic is available? Feeling like I am part of the process is a reward, a big reward when it comes out right. I cannot tell you how excited I was when I was developing the film - twice the normal anticipation. I was just vibrating! I imagine it would be a lot easier to do c41 monochromes, but the process of developing is super fun. So the process matters to me, not just the end product. Surely others in this group feel this way.
Is there also something in the back of my head telling me to prepare for the day when my favorite chemicals are no longer available? Maybe just a minor smiggin.
So I suppose just plain curiosity and cheapness all apply as well. But mainly, the fun and excitement of it.
bmattock
Veteran
I definitely get all that, and making my own soup is on my list of things to do this year - but I guess the question is why Diafine. Sorry, I'm sure you have your reasons, this is not meant as an attack. If the homebrew was for something no longer commonly found, or hard to get, or expensive...then I'd be seeing it a bit easier. Anyway, carry on, nothing meant by it.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
Unless you really messed up with the A-bath, your problem might be in the B-bath. Do you have any more of the 'defunct" Tri X to waste?
Do a run with the Borax B'bath - reducing e.i to 640 and see if that helps. Do another run with another roll and Metaborate - same time as the previous roll. Shoot the film and bracket 640/1200/1600 and process it. This will give you an idea were your e.i is with that film (and your exposure measurements - we all do that differently anyway).
You can try one roll with Sodium Carbonate too - it is considerably more active so be prepared for dense negatives.
'Shooting" in a developer takes a couple of rolls, but once it is done you are set. Worth the effort. Just remember to filter the A bath occasionally as they tend to collect dust, specks and pieces falling off the camera! Just use a Melitta type coffee filter. The B- bath I assume you make up fresh each time anyway.
The Borax will give you moderate contrast, The Kodalk a bit more snap and the Carbonate is quite contrasty - based on using the same times for each one.
The Darkroom cookbook also has the recipe for the Td 201 - great two part developer - very good result even with T grain films like Tmax 100/400.
Welcome to that dark space of the chemically addicted!
Do a run with the Borax B'bath - reducing e.i to 640 and see if that helps. Do another run with another roll and Metaborate - same time as the previous roll. Shoot the film and bracket 640/1200/1600 and process it. This will give you an idea were your e.i is with that film (and your exposure measurements - we all do that differently anyway).
You can try one roll with Sodium Carbonate too - it is considerably more active so be prepared for dense negatives.
'Shooting" in a developer takes a couple of rolls, but once it is done you are set. Worth the effort. Just remember to filter the A bath occasionally as they tend to collect dust, specks and pieces falling off the camera! Just use a Melitta type coffee filter. The B- bath I assume you make up fresh each time anyway.
The Borax will give you moderate contrast, The Kodalk a bit more snap and the Carbonate is quite contrasty - based on using the same times for each one.
The Darkroom cookbook also has the recipe for the Td 201 - great two part developer - very good result even with T grain films like Tmax 100/400.
Welcome to that dark space of the chemically addicted!
MartinP
Veteran
I have never made up any pseudo-diafine, but in order to narrow down the problem you could shoot a couple of tests (ideally from the same batch of film) with a spread of exposures, say +/- two stops, then develop one in a 100% certain good developer and the other in your homebrew. You would only need 1/2 dozen shots for each test so you can just clip it and not use up a whole roll.
That would check the exposure-index you are using, the relative activity of your homebrew and the viability of the old film.
Wanting to make everything yourself and control the whole shebang is certainly not a bad idea
Edit: Tom's advice is way more detailed, as one would expect ! Try all of that, and I am curious how you get on.
That would check the exposure-index you are using, the relative activity of your homebrew and the viability of the old film.
Wanting to make everything yourself and control the whole shebang is certainly not a bad idea
Edit: Tom's advice is way more detailed, as one would expect ! Try all of that, and I am curious how you get on.
Last edited:
DaveW
Established
Ah, doing it the hard way! Yep, I was going to do that tomorrow -I was hoping there was a shortcut. Tom - you are suggesting that the activity controls contrast only, yes? I notice some dilute the B bath - are they trying to accomplish a decrease in contrast as well?
As to throwing away Part B, is the advisable? I just threw it back in to the original solution after using it.
Anyhow, wish me luck!
As to throwing away Part B, is the advisable? I just threw it back in to the original solution after using it.
Anyhow, wish me luck!
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The contrast and the "density" of the negative is affected by how active the B bath is. I even tried some really old Kodak Royal X Pan (about 1250 asa out of the box) and rated it at 6400. Soaked it in Stoeckler A for 5-6 minutes and then dumped it in a 10% solution of Sodium Hydroxide. Got the speed, but that roll was "ugly" contrast wise!!!!
Making your own soups requires consistency. Only change one thing at a time, otherwise you have no idea what caused something.
I have tried Diafine over the years, both storebought and home brewed. It is OK, but I find that for my way of shooting, I am better off with something like split D-76, TD 201 or D23 divided (the last one for high contrast stuff).
Pick up a 100 ft roll of whatever film you are thinking of using and "waste" it on trying out the various combinations. keep a record of times/dilutions/agitation/exposures. It sounds bit boring, but the results are worth it. Once you got it down pat - you can baffle your friends by sagely stating "Oh, I soup this in developer X, made from scratch and it always gives me what I want".
As for dumping the 2 nd bath - Borax (20 mule team) is cheap and so is Metaborate (Kodalk) - crud accumulates and by dumping the 2nd bath after use, you eliminate another source of spots on the negs! Spotting prints is truly one of the most mind killing occupations I know!!!
The good thing is that darkroom chemistry is a/not that complex and b/ once you get it right - you are set (at least until some overachiever in a plant decides to change something in the next batch of film).
At the moment I am trying to figure out what speed to shoot 1200 ft of Agfa Scopix X-ray film that was given to me. Ortho chromatic, thin emulsion etc - great fun. So far I have done it in D96 (Kodak's movie stock developer for XX). Seems to give around 50 iso - so of course I shot another roll at 64 just to see what happens. The good thing is that 1200 feet is almost 240 rolls - lots of film to experiment with.
I use my "regular" XX as a reference film with these experiments - one roll of Scopix at whatever speed i am trying and a roll of XX. This way I can judge changes in concentration and densities from a "known" film to the unknown. I think the local dogs are avoiding me as I try to use them as subjects - and i am not willing to throw the camera for them to fetch!
Making your own soups requires consistency. Only change one thing at a time, otherwise you have no idea what caused something.
I have tried Diafine over the years, both storebought and home brewed. It is OK, but I find that for my way of shooting, I am better off with something like split D-76, TD 201 or D23 divided (the last one for high contrast stuff).
Pick up a 100 ft roll of whatever film you are thinking of using and "waste" it on trying out the various combinations. keep a record of times/dilutions/agitation/exposures. It sounds bit boring, but the results are worth it. Once you got it down pat - you can baffle your friends by sagely stating "Oh, I soup this in developer X, made from scratch and it always gives me what I want".
As for dumping the 2 nd bath - Borax (20 mule team) is cheap and so is Metaborate (Kodalk) - crud accumulates and by dumping the 2nd bath after use, you eliminate another source of spots on the negs! Spotting prints is truly one of the most mind killing occupations I know!!!
The good thing is that darkroom chemistry is a/not that complex and b/ once you get it right - you are set (at least until some overachiever in a plant decides to change something in the next batch of film).
At the moment I am trying to figure out what speed to shoot 1200 ft of Agfa Scopix X-ray film that was given to me. Ortho chromatic, thin emulsion etc - great fun. So far I have done it in D96 (Kodak's movie stock developer for XX). Seems to give around 50 iso - so of course I shot another roll at 64 just to see what happens. The good thing is that 1200 feet is almost 240 rolls - lots of film to experiment with.
I use my "regular" XX as a reference film with these experiments - one roll of Scopix at whatever speed i am trying and a roll of XX. This way I can judge changes in concentration and densities from a "known" film to the unknown. I think the local dogs are avoiding me as I try to use them as subjects - and i am not willing to throw the camera for them to fetch!
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Tom, I bow to your knowledge and patience with odd films and home made chemicals. After slightly more than a year I have not progressed further than bought Diafine and HC-110.
The point is, my Diafine has died. It was about a year old. I mixed 1liter 'A' and 1liter 'B' with distilled water and used the tsuff heavily. All is relative, but my bottle of 'A' had 'shrunk' significantly. I use compressible plastic harmonica style bottles.
Because I started using HC-110, my Diafine bottles weren't touched for a few months. My first roll souped in it again yielded borderline useable negatives (very thin). The solutions looked very dirty with lots and lots of crud in them. I filtered the solutions but the next roll developed in it was teriible. Severely underdeveloped negs, VERY spotty too.
Any idea what might have happened?
The point is, my Diafine has died. It was about a year old. I mixed 1liter 'A' and 1liter 'B' with distilled water and used the tsuff heavily. All is relative, but my bottle of 'A' had 'shrunk' significantly. I use compressible plastic harmonica style bottles.
Because I started using HC-110, my Diafine bottles weren't touched for a few months. My first roll souped in it again yielded borderline useable negatives (very thin). The solutions looked very dirty with lots and lots of crud in them. I filtered the solutions but the next roll developed in it was teriible. Severely underdeveloped negs, VERY spotty too.
Any idea what might have happened?
DaveW
Established
Tom, if you can, could you email or post the recipe for TD 201? It does not seem to be in my edition of the Cookbook (well, I have not found it in edition 1 and 2).
DaveW
Established
Today I took another swipe at using my homebrew.
First metered a scene in my backyard of some old pots, maybe 65% in the shade. Using handheld meter at EI 400, measured 125@f11 off of my palm, so I would normally expose film at f8. Measured incident light at 1000 f8, so 3 stop difference.
Exposed at the following:
125 f8
125 between f8-f11
125 f11
125 between f11-f16
60 f11
so that was exposure from EI 400 to 1600 in half stops.
Just for laughs, exposed at 1000 f8 as well.
Developed at about 72 degrees F, 4 minutes each bath, agitate A first 30 seconds, 5 seconds on half minute. Did not agitate B except to knock out bubbles, 3 raps at about 15 seconds and 1 rap about 2 minutes. Stop with water, fix in TF-4, wash, photoflo. Look over negatives - a world of difference! At first glance, all exposures look usable (am about to do a contact of them after writing this) except for the 100 f8 which is mighty thin, just like yesterday.
So I decide to do a few strip tests of the 1600 amd 1250 exposures, leaving the enlarger head where it was for exposures of fuji ss using Rodinal stand. negaives both look decent, a bit muted in contrast. The filter was a number 2, so I switch it to a number 3, and presto, the print of the 1600 it looks great! Nice details in highlights and shadows. I might go to a 3 1/2, but overall, I am very happy.
I guess my problem yesterday was I didn't expose for the shadows.
I still need to experiment some more, but I see light at the end of the tunnel. I have to see how it is under a low contrast lighting, and I still have to look at a contact sheet for what I just did. And that trix, Whatever base fog there is, it isn't enough to make the film unusable. Just freeze the stuff, you can get many years of life out of it.
First metered a scene in my backyard of some old pots, maybe 65% in the shade. Using handheld meter at EI 400, measured 125@f11 off of my palm, so I would normally expose film at f8. Measured incident light at 1000 f8, so 3 stop difference.
Exposed at the following:
125 f8
125 between f8-f11
125 f11
125 between f11-f16
60 f11
so that was exposure from EI 400 to 1600 in half stops.
Just for laughs, exposed at 1000 f8 as well.
Developed at about 72 degrees F, 4 minutes each bath, agitate A first 30 seconds, 5 seconds on half minute. Did not agitate B except to knock out bubbles, 3 raps at about 15 seconds and 1 rap about 2 minutes. Stop with water, fix in TF-4, wash, photoflo. Look over negatives - a world of difference! At first glance, all exposures look usable (am about to do a contact of them after writing this) except for the 100 f8 which is mighty thin, just like yesterday.
So I decide to do a few strip tests of the 1600 amd 1250 exposures, leaving the enlarger head where it was for exposures of fuji ss using Rodinal stand. negaives both look decent, a bit muted in contrast. The filter was a number 2, so I switch it to a number 3, and presto, the print of the 1600 it looks great! Nice details in highlights and shadows. I might go to a 3 1/2, but overall, I am very happy.
I guess my problem yesterday was I didn't expose for the shadows.
I still need to experiment some more, but I see light at the end of the tunnel. I have to see how it is under a low contrast lighting, and I still have to look at a contact sheet for what I just did. And that trix, Whatever base fog there is, it isn't enough to make the film unusable. Just freeze the stuff, you can get many years of life out of it.
ed1k
Well-known
30 years old Tri-X and you expect it be 400 ISO... and capable to be pushed to EI 1250? I would not say it's a reasonable expectation, at least. This film probably still may be used at EI 50 or 100 and slightly pulled (to reduce fog) by almost any developer of your taste.
DaveW
Established
Whoops, just noticed I went the wrong way with that last exposure, probably because I am use to overexposing (with underdevelopment). I thought something was up. So I guess I got a good print at the exposure in the shadows at EI 400. Back to the darkroom to test
the other ones.
the other ones.
DaveW
Established
edik,
I don't know what is reasonable at all with this combination (because of the age of the film and the use of homebrew diafine), hence the experimentation. Might as well assume something good will happen until it is proven otherwise.
I don't know what is reasonable at all with this combination (because of the age of the film and the use of homebrew diafine), hence the experimentation. Might as well assume something good will happen until it is proven otherwise.
ed1k
Well-known
Dave,
I didn't mean you're doing something wrong, maybe a bit over optimistic. However, if the film was frozen all that time, it may be better that I thought. So, you're on right track.
Regarding to my home brew developing technique, I use Stoeckler developer (with borax in second bath) almost all the time. Here is a good article
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html
I hope it helps in your experimentation.
Ed
I didn't mean you're doing something wrong, maybe a bit over optimistic. However, if the film was frozen all that time, it may be better that I thought. So, you're on right track.
Regarding to my home brew developing technique, I use Stoeckler developer (with borax in second bath) almost all the time. Here is a good article
http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html
I hope it helps in your experimentation.
Ed
DaveW
Established
Ed, I plead guilty to the "optimistic" label, but like I said, this project (making the homebrew) for whatever reason has re-energized my darkroom work which had been sadly neglected the past year and a half. I had been buying equipment and not using it much and have been in a creative funk. Not now though!
I am sorry for sounding offended - I was right in the middle of the darkroom work, just stepped out and read your note while getting a drink.
It is starting to look like I might not get as much speed out of this as I was hoping, which is okay. I am trying to perfect my diafine technique, then switch film to the new Arista film which is suppose to be Tri-X like (I understand the newer film will be very different from the old and will need another learning curve). I am going to be in Boston at the end of May and will be going on a tour of Fenway Park. I am anticipating either needing the extra speed and/or encountering extreme lighting conditions hence my motivation for this project. When I was looking at diafine, the homebrew with the borax was said to have smoother grain, less contrasty, so I thought it would be the better option. And anyhow, I thought it would be more fun, and I was curious!
Maybe there is a better developer for extreme lighting conditions? Did I read Xtol 1:1 or I mght be mistaken...
Thanks for the link - it looks interesting. I have some metol here so ...!
Dave
I am sorry for sounding offended - I was right in the middle of the darkroom work, just stepped out and read your note while getting a drink.
It is starting to look like I might not get as much speed out of this as I was hoping, which is okay. I am trying to perfect my diafine technique, then switch film to the new Arista film which is suppose to be Tri-X like (I understand the newer film will be very different from the old and will need another learning curve). I am going to be in Boston at the end of May and will be going on a tour of Fenway Park. I am anticipating either needing the extra speed and/or encountering extreme lighting conditions hence my motivation for this project. When I was looking at diafine, the homebrew with the borax was said to have smoother grain, less contrasty, so I thought it would be the better option. And anyhow, I thought it would be more fun, and I was curious!
Maybe there is a better developer for extreme lighting conditions? Did I read Xtol 1:1 or I mght be mistaken...
Thanks for the link - it looks interesting. I have some metol here so ...!
Dave
ed1k
Well-known
Yes, indeed Kodak XTOL is a good candidate for push processing, use straight or up to 1+3 diluted.
Ed
Ed