kmack
do your job, then let go
Don't....
I have the week off to play, so I wanted to see if you could "pull" with Diafine.
It is a very grey rainy day, I head up to Burkettsville and shoot a roll of T-Max 100 at 80 and process it in Diafine, 3min in A and 4.30 in B. They are drying now.
Dense, and dark is the first impression, very under exposed.
I will try to scan a few later this evening after they have dried.
I have the week off to play, so I wanted to see if you could "pull" with Diafine.
It is a very grey rainy day, I head up to Burkettsville and shoot a roll of T-Max 100 at 80 and process it in Diafine, 3min in A and 4.30 in B. They are drying now.
Dense, and dark is the first impression, very under exposed.
I will try to scan a few later this evening after they have dried.
kmack
do your job, then let go
Continued...
Continued...
Very hard to scan, very grainy. I am posting a sample.
Continued...
Very hard to scan, very grainy. I am posting a sample.
You didn't "pull" (develop less), but rather you "overexposed", seems like. And that naturally results in denser negs. The way to adjust the tonal scale with Diafine is in the exposure, and let the developer do its thing. It's not a universal-EI developer. 
Given your comment on graininess, it may be that T-Max just isn't suited to Diafine... I've never tried that film.
Actually there IS a way to develop less with Diafine, but it may not be very useful... Diluting more, like adding 50% more water to mix Bath A will mean less developing agent soaking into the film in that first processing step. But this may simply limit the maximum density that's reachable. I've tried this, exposing Tri-X at its rated 400 ISO, but have not scanned or printed the negs, yet they look fairly normal.
Given your comment on graininess, it may be that T-Max just isn't suited to Diafine... I've never tried that film.
Actually there IS a way to develop less with Diafine, but it may not be very useful... Diluting more, like adding 50% more water to mix Bath A will mean less developing agent soaking into the film in that first processing step. But this may simply limit the maximum density that's reachable. I've tried this, exposing Tri-X at its rated 400 ISO, but have not scanned or printed the negs, yet they look fairly normal.
T_om
Well-known
Like Doug said... this is not "pulling" the development at all... it is overexposing.
What you DID find however, is that Diafine can produce a usable negative even when the exposure is way off.
There is an amazing amount of shadow detail in that shot with very little blown highlights.
You are correct in that it will take a bit of post-processing to make the shot the best it could be, but that is a small price to pay for that kind of latitude.
Tom
What you DID find however, is that Diafine can produce a usable negative even when the exposure is way off.
There is an amazing amount of shadow detail in that shot with very little blown highlights.
You are correct in that it will take a bit of post-processing to make the shot the best it could be, but that is a small price to pay for that kind of latitude.
Tom
Last edited:
djon
Well-known
Looks like the film was WAY over exposed. Yes there are shadow details (expected with over exposure), but highlights are completely gone.
80 Vs 100: especially with Diafine you shouldn't see much difference (film shouldn't look dark), and the scanner should deal with it nicely. So I'd guess the meter or shutter or photographer's decision is off by a full stop..closer to ei 50 than 80.
Slower developers (eg 10 min) are generally better for push/pull than faster developers (eg 4 min).
80 Vs 100: especially with Diafine you shouldn't see much difference (film shouldn't look dark), and the scanner should deal with it nicely. So I'd guess the meter or shutter or photographer's decision is off by a full stop..closer to ei 50 than 80.
Slower developers (eg 10 min) are generally better for push/pull than faster developers (eg 4 min).
R
r-brian
Guest
I've shot a roll of TMax 100 developed in Diafine with an IE of 160, as per the Diafine box. Results are in my folder, the pictures of the Blandford church.
What I've heard about Diafine is it works great with high contract conditions but for low contrast conditions, like gray rainy days, it's not the best developer. Diafine has a tendency to tame contrast.
Brian
What I've heard about Diafine is it works great with high contract conditions but for low contrast conditions, like gray rainy days, it's not the best developer. Diafine has a tendency to tame contrast.
Brian
FrankS
Registered User
Diafine is the wrong developer to use for pulling and pushing film.
T_om
Well-known
FrankS said:
While I would agree that "pulling" (in the traditional context) is actually impossible with Diafine, pushing is another matter.
Actually, under normal conditions, Diafine produces what most would call a push anyway... it can't help it, that is just what it does.
Tom
FrankS
Registered User
Agreed Tom. What I was thinking is that it is not some thing that is adjustable by the photographer by changing temp or time.
kmack
do your job, then let go
It was an experiment, You never know until you try.
Just another step into finding my voice in film.
Thanks for the comments.
Just another step into finding my voice in film.
Thanks for the comments.