XAos said:
So why is Diafine a cult instead of the dominant reli I mean principle method of development for people doing B&W at home?
Probably because not everyone likes the way it acts with certain films. Just read some of the threads here. Some like film X in Diafine and some like film Y.
Also, Diafine is a pretty old developer. Newspapers loved it because it was foolproof, quick and handled different films and formats all at once.
Additionally, lot of newcomers to photography simply never heard of it. It was never given much amateur photo press "back in the day" partly because photo writers like to delve into the esoteric and not the simple. You can write a hundred articles on D76 alone going on and on about certain nuances of this technique or that technique.
With Diafine, you just stick it in the soup and go.
This is very frustrating for writers used to expounding endlessly to their readers about the benefits and effects of turning tank inversions over to the right or over to the left in the Northern Hemisphere while wearing gloves to keep the increase in temperature from your hand totally ruining the film.
🙄
Photo press has almost always been about the technical side of the craft, not the artistic side. For every article about actually taking better pictures, you will find 1000 techy articles about one gizmo or another, one lens or another, one developer or another... and ceaseless, endless, interminable, arguments about dilutions, temperatures, agitation cycles, ad infinitum.
Photo shops sell stuff. How interested do you imagine they are in selling a developer that lasts for literally years instead of a one-shot-then-buy-it-again-next-week brew?
Anyway, I tell people to try it and see for themselves. Absolutely NOTHING would make me keep using something that was crap to use and produced crap as a result. So I believe people will come to their own conclusions after using it. It might not work with your favorite film... then again, it might blow your socks off. It's not like it costs a fortune to try.
🙂
Tom