ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
As to Delta 3200 rated at 1600 and above, I absolutely love the results that DDX gives me and have no intention to try Diafine or other developers with it.
I like DDX less when it comes to Neopan 1600 rated at 1600 or 3200 (no complaints at 800), especially for photos at night, as I find the negatives are quite thin.
I'm running out of Neopan 1600 and I think to replace it with TMAX400 or TRIX, being familiar with neither Delta 400 nor HP5. According to the salesman at my local store, TMAX is the better film for pushing.
I intend to rate TMAX400 at 800 or 1600. I would like to get less contrasty negatives with more details. I prefer to print them later than scanning them. The DDX is supposed to be great for bringing up the speed of the film, but I also heard Diafine works in a strange way that allows shadows to develop without burning too much highlights. However, I have never tried it myself. It seems to be a complicated developer. Some use it with TRIX rated at 1250, saying it's the sweet spot not only better than at 1600 and above but also better than at 800. I don't understand the logic. For example, Neopan 1600 in DDX is best at 640 and simply gets worse and worse when speed goes up, which is logic.
Has anyone experience with both DDX and Diafine?
Microphen is also supposed to be good for pushing but I'm guessing it's very similar to DDX?
Is Xtol good for pushing as well?
Thicker negatives (good for printing) = Less contrasty + More details ?
I like DDX less when it comes to Neopan 1600 rated at 1600 or 3200 (no complaints at 800), especially for photos at night, as I find the negatives are quite thin.
I'm running out of Neopan 1600 and I think to replace it with TMAX400 or TRIX, being familiar with neither Delta 400 nor HP5. According to the salesman at my local store, TMAX is the better film for pushing.
I intend to rate TMAX400 at 800 or 1600. I would like to get less contrasty negatives with more details. I prefer to print them later than scanning them. The DDX is supposed to be great for bringing up the speed of the film, but I also heard Diafine works in a strange way that allows shadows to develop without burning too much highlights. However, I have never tried it myself. It seems to be a complicated developer. Some use it with TRIX rated at 1250, saying it's the sweet spot not only better than at 1600 and above but also better than at 800. I don't understand the logic. For example, Neopan 1600 in DDX is best at 640 and simply gets worse and worse when speed goes up, which is logic.
Has anyone experience with both DDX and Diafine?
Microphen is also supposed to be good for pushing but I'm guessing it's very similar to DDX?
Is Xtol good for pushing as well?
Thicker negatives (good for printing) = Less contrasty + More details ?
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Highlight: I don't think you'll find many who'll agree with him.
Microphen and DDX are very close in speed and give about 2/3 stop true extra ISO with most films as compared with (say) D76, i.e. ISO 400 films rise to ISO 650+ (as you've found). Xtol gives a smaller speed increase: ISO 500-650.
After the ISO speed, you're underexposing and overdeveloping. Diafine fans have their own world-picture but it's not born out by the sensitometry. If Diafine works for you, great, but don't get misled by the more exaggerated claims.
For ANY film in ANY developer, fairy-dusted or not:
More exposure = more density (and bigger grain and lower sharpness)
More development = more contrast (and bigger grain and lower sharpness)
It really is that simple.
Personally I find that HP5 pushes better than Tri-X but (a) there's very little in it and (b) you'll find others who will tell you the exact opposite.
Cheers,
R.
mfogiel
Veteran
I find Diafine to be better at compressing range in harsh light, than at pushing, but you will get an acceptable negative in the range between EI 125 and 1250 for Tri X. If you really want a pleasant negative with normal contrast, your best bet is Tri X at EI 800 in Acufine. You could also exploit the new SPUR developer, described here:
http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2013/03/the-lowdown-on-spursinn-hcd.html
http://www.theonlinedarkroom.com/2013/03/the-lowdown-on-spursinn-hcd.html
ulrich.von.lich
Well-known
Thank you Roger and mfogiel.
I will try Acufine. It seems Diafine is actually called Acufine Diafine. I should buy Acufine alone, right? The price of Acufine on Macodirect.de is quite expansive, much more expansive than DDX, since you mostly use it at stock dilution.
I should probably shoot more often TRIX at 400 because Rodinal is almost cheaper than water.
As to TMAX compared to TRIX when pushing, I was told by the nice gentleman at Photostock Paris. Although he may not be as wise as some people on the forum, he knows a lot of stuff about films and film products and has given me nothing but useful advices. I guess when he said that, he was based on the finesse of the grain of both films when pushed. I have recently developed 2 rolls of TMAX400 pushed to 800 in DDX and I must say I find the negatives much cleaner than TRIX at 400 in either Rodinal or DDX as well as than Neopan 1600 in DDX; in fact, they look almost digital.
But unlike him, I like grain.
I will try Acufine. It seems Diafine is actually called Acufine Diafine. I should buy Acufine alone, right? The price of Acufine on Macodirect.de is quite expansive, much more expansive than DDX, since you mostly use it at stock dilution.
I should probably shoot more often TRIX at 400 because Rodinal is almost cheaper than water.
As to TMAX compared to TRIX when pushing, I was told by the nice gentleman at Photostock Paris. Although he may not be as wise as some people on the forum, he knows a lot of stuff about films and film products and has given me nothing but useful advices. I guess when he said that, he was based on the finesse of the grain of both films when pushed. I have recently developed 2 rolls of TMAX400 pushed to 800 in DDX and I must say I find the negatives much cleaner than TRIX at 400 in either Rodinal or DDX as well as than Neopan 1600 in DDX; in fact, they look almost digital.
But unlike him, I like grain.
lawrence
Veteran
So true, it's useful for controlling highlights and you get about half a stop extra speed. When you get to 800 the negs are starting to get thin and lacking in shadow detail.
I started reading the article you linked to but when I got to 'Best results for HP5 or Tri-X are said to be obtained at any speed between 25-25,600 ISO' I stopped.