My Diafine and Tri-X aren't getting along. ???

[schmoozit]

That's what I was thinking, William. Last night, however, I found out that Diafine would not give me usable negs shot at 400. At least, I think it was 400. Could I have forgotten to mark the container? Results were waaay to dark for my Canon FS4000 to do anything with. It was pretty hard to see anything on the light table either.

Thanks for the tips, Jdos. Do you use this technique with Tri-X?

 

[jdos2]

Specifically with Tri-X, yes. I saw streamers on Acros, though, so I do the same for it. I shoot Tri-X at 1600, by the way, for my personal "best to scan" negatives.

 

[Kin Lau]

Diafine can handle iso 400 for Tri-X just fine... just that our scanners can't 🙂
The neg will print with some longer times in the enlarger, although that won't help you any.

Why don't you just put the camera inside the change bag, cut the film where it is right now, and develop that in your other choice of developer and continue shooting the rest of the roll at iso 1250 or 1600.

 

[schmoozit]

Diafine can handle iso 400 for Tri-X just fine... just that our scanners can't 🙂
The neg will print with some longer times in the enlarger, although that won't help you any.

Why don't you just put the camera inside the change bag, cut the film where it is right now, and develop that in your other choice of developer and continue shooting the rest of the roll at iso 1250 or 1600.

Yeah, I could do that. I'll have to get on it tomorrow though. It's way past my bed-time now.

 

[schmoozit]

Alright! I think I finally found a workable routine. I just ran a roll and did one inversion up front, and then one inversion every thirty seconds for 3:30. The negs look perfect. I cannot make out anything funky on the edges or anything. It's very clean.

I did a "gentle" inversion in my Paterson Universal with only a single roll and a little over 300ml of solution (It's Diafine so it isn't a waste). I'll get to scanning in an hour or so.

Oh! I guess that I really screwed-up somewhere on the other roll. I thought it was shot at 400, but it couldn't have been. I probably rated it at 50 or so. I used the roll I'm drying now to see how far I could go, so rated it from ISO 12 up to 6400. I think I can use anywhere from 200 to 3200 without too much trouble, and maybe even 50 to 6400. We'll see.

I may just stick with this Diafine thing yet ;-)

Thanks for your input everyone. I hope my struggles are helpful to someone out there.

 

[T_om]

Alright! I think I finally found a workable routine. I just ran a roll and did one inversion up front, and then one inversion every thirty seconds for 3:30. The negs look perfect. I cannot make out anything funky on the edges or anything. It's very clean.

I did a "gentle" inversion in my Paterson Universal with only a single roll and a little over 300ml of solution (It's Diafine so it isn't a waste). I'll get to scanning in an hour or so.

Oh! I guess that I really screwed-up somewhere on the other roll. I thought it was shot at 400, but it couldn't have been. I probably rated it at 50 or so. I used the roll I'm drying now to see how far I could go, so rated it from ISO 12 up to 6400. I think I can use anywhere from 200 to 3200 without too much trouble, and maybe even 50 to 6400. We'll see.

I may just stick with this Diafine thing yet ;-)

Thanks for your input everyone. I hope my struggles are helpful to someone out there.

Another plastic tank user having problems with Diafine agitation... we Diafine pimps have to start warning users of plastic tanks that they need more agitation than is usually recommended.

As a LONG time stainless reel/tank user, I never had under-agitation difficulties, quite the reverse actually...

Glad you worked it all out.

Tom

 

[schmoozit]

Another plastic tank user having problems with Diafine agitation... we Diafine pimps have to start warning users of plastic tanks that they need more agitation than is usually recommended.

As a LONG time stainless reel/tank user, I never had under-agitation difficulties, quite the reverse actually...

Glad you worked it all out.

Tom

You know, I strongly suspected that if I bought a single size stainless tank and reel that it'd work out. I'm glad I found out what was going on before blowing my money, though.

It kinda started to become clear as I read here and there. I was almost positive that one inversion every thirty was gonna be the ticket.

Thanks for the thoughts. I'll file this in my memory banks so as to help other Diafine pimp wannabees! Nicely put, by the way ;-)

Brent

 

[Doug]

I'll just echo Tom's comment... I wouldn't have thought there would be such differences in agitation between plastic and SS tanks, but then I've only used stainless tanks and reels for decades. So if you've figured a workable routine suitable to your equipment, thats what counts! 🙂

 

[Gravatar]

I have hade a similiar problem with MF film only. I suspect it doesn't show up on 35mm as easily because the sprocket holes act as a buffer. Just a theory. ANyhow, at first, older emulsions like TXP, Arista and Bergger were more prone, but eventually even neopan did it. I agitate and beat well so I knew that was not the problem. Eventually I started to systematically test my reels and sure enough, it was two specific reel tops which were prone (it always happened on the top side.) I stopped using them and the problem went away. Not sure why they were doing it, though the ball bearing did have a matte feel and was dark black. Hope this helps.

Grav

p.s. Though you have to rate the film 1/2 stop lower EI than rated, PMK is REAL nice too. Toxic as hell, but beautiful negs that scan so very well. Experimenting with DIafine myself as an alternative for low light.

 

[Roma]

When I use Diafine, I make sure that I gently agitate with a spinning action in Paterson's tank. In other words, as I turn the tank upside down, I also give it a forward turn as if a have a ball in my hands. I believe it helps to have an even flow of the chamicals over the entire negative and is very important when the development time is so low.

 

[FrankS]

Diafine is supposed to be a fool proof developer, but I proved them wrong!

Too much agitation in part b and you wash out the developer. Too little and you get bromide drag.

Add to that: no control over contrast or push/pull possibilities. I dumped mine.

 

[Roma]

Yeah,
I have about half a gallon of each solution now and don't see using it after finally fine-tuning tri-x and D76 1:1 combination. Diafine is quick, but as you said Frank, no control and that defeats the purpose of your own development.

 

[einolu]

its a great developer for me since half the time i have no idea how good my exposure is, tri x is good in diafine (to scan) anywhere between 800-3200... oh, and it never dies, i have been using the same mix for almost half a year now.

i tend to get the air bubbles off in solution a and then spin the reels slowly for about 30 seconds every minute in solution b (i tend to leave it in for about a little longer than 3 minutes). i wash and then fix and everything seems to work fine. now if i could only learn how to get flat negatives...

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request