my affair with Diafine

I use Diafine mostly for Tri-X and I do scan most of my stuff. APX100 & FP4+ usually goes into Rodinal or HC-110. HP5+ usually gets HC-110.

Can you tell that I like developers with a _long_ shelf life :) That was the main reason why I left Ilfosol-s & id-11.
 
FrankS, those of us who formerly lived in cold places used to sit the chemicals and developing tank in a water bath in a stainless steel pan sitting atop your garden-variety heating pad. Putting it on the low setting with a thickish towel over it is usually enough to maintain a working temperature.
I prefer the adaptability of HC-110 as a one-shot, myself.
 
I've never, EVER been tempted by Diafine. Does that make me dull? A stick-in-the-mud? I've been seduced by HC-110 & Rodinal and am thoroughly in their charms. FG-7 has been a good lover in the past, and one roll-in-the hay with Pan F+ and DDX was quite fun ... but in my old age I think two lovers is enough. Ilfosol? Hmmm. Nah, unless it has charms the others don't have I'll stay with my two lovers, with another roll with DDX if the Pan F negs print well.
 
MCTuomey said:
I'm developmentally a virgin, so fidelity isn't the question. I burst out of my mild-mannered, lab-dependent self and just bought some HC-110 to go with a changing bag, a Samigon tank , and some other stuff. Have I done wrong? Have I plighted my troth poorly? What will my HP5 and Delta films think of me in the morning?
Click to expand...
I'm with you Mike, also just got some HC-110 as my first developer. Plus I like cute & intrepid... ;)

It may be the scans (heaven only knows that I'm bad enough at scanning) but the Diafine picures I've seen online seem kind of gray to me. I like contrasty and the only ones I consistently likes are Tri-X in Diafine. They are really excellent!

 
Of course not Tom. But I'm just describing my own experience. The Tri-X ones have been outstanding, as I said. (At least to my eyes.)

 
FrankS said:
Is no one else willing to admit to an affair?
Click to expand...
I tried Diafine about 25 years ago on my favoured films of the time (FP4 and HP4) ... didn't like it and discovered Ilfosol and Rodinal. Haven't really felt the need to try any other developers since. I do have the mix for some ID-11 ... but it's still in the box.

Peter
 
Before you unpack your suitcase, why not go on a date with one of the semi-stand sisters: HC-110 or Rodinal? The standing compensates the highlights, and they're known to let you drive when it comes to highlights. More total agitation, more contrast.
 
Are these scans from negs or scans from prints? Did you make silver wet prints with these negs? That is my point: Diafine negs may scan well but I have more diffculty making prints that satisfy me from them thean I do from negs developed in other developers. Too flat for my printing style/abilities.
 
I've had a couple of stints of Diafine.... mostly with APX100 and I was not satisfied.
HP5 and TriX gave very decent results though.

I came back to the good ol'Rodinal afterwards
 
FrankS said:
Maybe it's just me then. :(
Click to expand...


Frank, I have refrained from really commenting on your giving up Diafine because I am the biggest Diafine Pimp on the forum and it would just sound like me beating the drum again.

But here is the thing... did you REALLY give it a try? How many rolls did you put through Diafine during your trial? Unless it was at least 40 or 50, then you really didn't try it at all.

If you are wet printing the Diafine negatives just like you do those of other developers, then problems are to be expected. What type enlarger? How many prints did you try? 50? 100? How many papers?

See? There are just too many variables for me to try and persuade anyone to really put Diafine through the wringer if they are not so inclined.

Diafine, dead easy and consistent as it is, is not a 'regular' developer and if you just try tossing it into your 'regular' developer workflow... well, you are going to have problems. About the only people that can do that are the ones scanning the negatives. They can do the film tests to get exposures down pat and then the digital workflow takes care of everything else. They don't have to worry about wet printing and the limitations imposed by a finite numbers of papers and contrast grades available.

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Try something else.

Tom
 
"If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Try something else."


Thanks Tom, I was hoping for your blessing. :)
(I developed 15-20 rolls and made about 10-15 prints on a condensor enlarger.)
 
I must say my own experiences made me forget about Ilford films in Diafine, of course your mileage may vary, but in my case, after seeing how Tri-X and Neopan 400 looked on it I just went for them and never looked back.
 
For most films, I stick to Rodinal, either 1+50 or more usually 1+100.

I have been dabbling a little bit with Diafine and TriX though, shooting it at EI1000 (120). Quite happy with the results for scanning - good detail and the grain's not bad either. It has proved useful when taking photos of our baby.

It won't become my standard developer, but it is nice to have around, and it should keep for a long time.

Attached is TriX 400 at EI1000 taken on a typically dull Dutch winter's day.
 
I thought I'd add this to this thread, after getting a new scanner it seems some of the shots that I previously said were 'spikey' or really flat (lacking dynamic range - it's QUITE evident on the histogram) were actually scanner related. I just got an Epson 3170. This is one of those shots - Arista Edu Ultra 100 in Diafine. Don't recall what I shot it at - no more than 200, possibly 100. Apologies that it's not a rangefinder - my only MF rangefinder has leaky bellows - haven't fixed it yet. I may still try something else - since I just bought a couple spools of Neopan 1600, depending on how it does in Diafine - but I'm not mad at Diafine any more.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom