Question regarding Diafine

[david.elliott]

Hello,

I've decided to go ahead and start developing my own black and white film. I have never developed any film before, or been inside a darkroom, etc.

I am not able to go out and photograph as much as I'd like, so I did some reading about what developer might fit me best. It would have to be very long-lasting (maybe 1 or 2 dozen rolls per year at most is my expected rate) and pretty easy to use.

It seems like diafine fits the bill (it sounds easier to use than Rodinal, which sounds like the other best choice for me?). I would rather not have to worry about temperature control or precise timing.

The only black and white film I have is about twenty rolls of Arista Premium 400. I want to use up this film before I purchase any more.

Here is where my question arises. If I understand what I read (on this forum and on flickr) correctly, then to use Tri-x 400 in diafine, I have to basically expose at ISO 800 to 1250 or so. Is that correct?

So diafine would not work with Tri-x at the box rated speed of 400? The developed negatives would be unusable at this speed?

Thanks for your help.

-David

 

[dazedgonebye]

I rate tri-x at 1250 iso in diafine and that seems about right.

If you want those same qualities in a developer for tri-x and many other films, try Barry Thornton's Two Bath developer forumula.
You have to mix it yourself from dry chemicals, but it is quite simple to do. It is long lasting, relatively insensitive to time or temperature and reusable for a dozen or more films per batch.

http://www.photosensitive.ca/wp/archives/115

The bulk chemicals are available at freestyle photo online. You need a cheap digital scale ($15 off of ebay) and the other normal things for developing film.

For my lazy and imprecise nature, it's the only way to fly.

 

[Gradskater]

I have been using diafine and arista premium 400 (and 100) lately. Yes, 1250 does seem about right, but 800 works too. If you check my flickr page you can see some pictures exposed at 1600 as well. I tried 3200, too, and thats just too fast for the film. Incidentally, arista 400 exposed at 1250 looks to have about the same amount of grain as arista 100 exposed at 200.

this is 400 at 1250:

 

[david.elliott]

I rate tri-x at 1250 iso in diafine and that seems about right.

If you want those same qualities in a developer for tri-x and many other films, try Barry Thornton's Two Bath developer forumula.
You have to mix it yourself from dry chemicals, but it is quite simple to do. It is long lasting, relatively insensitive to time or temperature and reusable for a dozen or more films per batch.

http://www.photosensitive.ca/wp/archives/115

The bulk chemicals are available at freestyle photo online. You need a cheap digital scale ($15 off of ebay) and the other normal things for developing film.

For my lazy and imprecise nature, it's the only way to fly.

Thanks. I will have to check that out. I dont mind a bit of chemistry before the developing process.

Tri-x at 1250 should be fine for me since I do mostly indoor, relatively low-light shooting. I rarely take photos out in daylight.

 

[david.elliott]

I have been using diafine and arista premium 400 (and 100) lately. Yes, 1250 does seem about right, but 800 works too. If you check my flickr page you can see some pictures exposed at 1600 as well. I tried 3200, too, and thats just too fast for the film. Incidentally, arista 400 exposed at 1250 looks to have about the same amount of grain as arista 100 exposed at 200.

this is 400 at 1250:

Thanks. Nice to know I would have a range of ISO values to work with, where I wouldnt have to adjust develop times at all thanks to the nature of diafine.

So, if I expose it at 1250 and develop in diafine, I would have less grain than if I exposed it at 1250 and pushed it there in another developer? That sounds pretty awesome.

I currently have a roll of arista 400 that I am working on, set ot 1600. Maybe I can develop that one myself in diafine. 🙂

I will check out your flickr tomorrow.

 

[bmattock]

Actually, you can get away with quite a lot with Tri-X and Diafine.

This is Tri-x rated at EI 400, Diafine:



The shadows on the horse blocked up maybe a little, but I could have adjusted that if I had wanted those details - it was there, I just chose to let it go.

This is Tri-X at EI 1250 - by the way, shot through a Yashica Lynx 14 at 1/30 and f/1.4. Nice lens on that camera. Use a lens hood even indoors, though.




So Diafine is pretty nifty stuff. Not the be-all, end-all, especially if you like slower films, but it's good. And yes, it's economical as they get and so very easy to use.

 

[Gradskater]

So, if I expose it at 1250 and develop in diafine, I would have less grain than if I exposed it at 1250 and pushed it there in another developer? That sounds pretty awesome.

Im not sure. I haven't used any other developer, just Diafine. I was just mentioning that I didn't get a tremendous difference in grain between the slower arista premium (plus-x I think) and the faster rebadged tri-x.

 

[david.elliott]

Actually, you can get away with quite a lot with Tri-X and Diafine.

This is Tri-x rated at EI 400, Diafine:

The shadows on the horse blocked up maybe a little, but I could have adjusted that if I had wanted those details - it was there, I just chose to let it go.

This is Tri-X at EI 1250 - by the way, shot through a Yashica Lynx 14 at 1/30 and f/1.4. Nice lens on that camera. Use a lens hood even indoors, though.

So Diafine is pretty nifty stuff. Not the be-all, end-all, especially if you like slower films, but it's good. And yes, it's economical as they get and so very easy to use.

Looks very good to me! Thanks for the photo @ 400.

Economical and ease of use sounds ideal.

 

[david.elliott]

Im not sure. I haven't used any other developer, just Diafine. I was just mentioning that I didn't get a tremendous difference in grain between the slower arista premium (plus-x I think) and the faster rebadged tri-x.

Thanks for the follow up. The grain looks fine to me. I looked through your flickr stream too and it was very helpful. Lovely photos.

 

[Ronald_H]

Diafine was my first developer. It works great with Tri-X at 1250. Good shadow detail and no excessive grain. Negs are easy to scan and manipulate in PP too.

It is especially suited for high contrast lighting, less so for 'flat' lighting, e.g. overcast days.

After a few dozen rolls in Diafine I tried a more standard developer, HC-110. A bit more hassle, but it keeps forever when you mix from the syrup, and a lot more flexibility with different films, ratings and lighting conditions.

Still, Diafine and Tri-X work extremely well together. Only disadvantage I could find was that although it is claimed to last forever, my fist batch died after about a year.

 

[DRabbit]

I'm going to ask a dumb question since I'm new to film and considering developing my own for the first time.

When you say you shoot Arista Premium 400 exposed for 1250 - does that mean you had the ISO setting on the camera set to 1250?

 

[dazedgonebye]

I'm going to ask a dumb question since I'm new to film and considering developing my own for the first time.

When you say you shoot Arista Premium 400 exposed for 1250 - does that mean you had the ISO setting on the camera set to 1250?

That's what it means.

 

[david.elliott]

Diafine was my first developer. It works great with Tri-X at 1250. Good shadow detail and no excessive grain. Negs are easy to scan and manipulate in PP too.

It is especially suited for high contrast lighting, less so for 'flat' lighting, e.g. overcast days.

After a few dozen rolls in Diafine I tried a more standard developer, HC-110. A bit more hassle, but it keeps forever when you mix from the syrup, and a lot more flexibility with different films, ratings and lighting conditions.

Still, Diafine and Tri-X work extremely well together. Only disadvantage I could find was that although it is claimed to last forever, my fist batch died after about a year.

Thanks for the comments Ronald. I am happy to hear that the combo scans well!

Is there any way to tell when the batch has died? Or do you just end up with an accidentally undeveloped roll?

 

[DRabbit]

That's what it means.

Okay then... I guess I have to decide pretty quick if I'm going to try my hand at developing myself then (especially if I'm going to use Diafine).

Another dumb question. If I wanted to try different ISOs, could I do that with one roll of film developing in the Diafine? In other words, 1/2 the roll at 800, 1/2 at 1250 to see which I like better?

 

[david.elliott]

I'm going to ask a dumb question since I'm new to film and considering developing my own for the first time.

When you say you shoot Arista Premium 400 exposed for 1250 - does that mean you had the ISO setting on the camera set to 1250?

Yup. As Steve said, that is what it means. Just meter as if you were using ISO 1250 film rather than 400 speed film.

There are no dumb questions. Really.

 

[david.elliott]

Okay then... I guess I have to decide pretty quick if I'm going to try my hand at developing myself then (especially if I'm going to use Diafine).

My understanding is that it doesnt matter too much what iso you exposed at. I am sure that somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

For example, in diafine you could develop rolls exposed at iso 400, iso 800, and iso 1600 all in the same tank. Or you could develop a roll with photos shot at various iso levels too.

The reason for this is that diafine is a compensating developer that develops to completion.

That said, you have to be within a certain range. I.e. if you are too many stops different from the film's rated speed, the results might not be so great. For example, shooting tri-x 400 at ISO 50 would not be so good.

Different films react differently in diafine. Tri-x seems to gain more of a "push" than other films do. Some seem to hardly gain any push at all. If you google "diafine and _your film of choice_," you will probably find some discussion about what ISO range to use.

Hope that wasnt too incoherent.

 

[Al Kaplan]

When you put the undeveloped dry film in Solution A it soaks up some of it. It doesn't soak up Solution B. As you process more rolls you'll end up with more Solution B than Solution A.

When you first mix up the solutions divide each into two bottles. Top off the bottle of Solution A that's in use with fresh Solution A. Discard enough of your Solution B so you can top it of and "replenish" it with a like amount of fresh Solution B.

You might want to filter the solutions on occasion. If you develop a time or two every week, in theory you could keep the stuff going forever.

 

[cjm]

I've used Diafine and Arista Premium 400 almost exclusively for the past few months. I love it.

Here are some examples.

 

[Gradskater]

Another dumb question. If I wanted to try different ISOs, could I do that with one roll of film developing in the Diafine? In other words, 1/2 the roll at 800, 1/2 at 1250 to see which I like better?

Yes, exactly. Thats what I did in this set of pictures, but with 100 speed film. See here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gradskater/sets/72157614918726829/

 

[cjm]

My understanding is that it doesnt matter too much what iso you exposed at. I am sure that somebody will correct me if I am wrong.

For example, in diafine you could develop rolls exposed at iso 400, iso 800, and iso 1600 all in the same tank. Or you could develop a roll with photos shot at various iso levels too.

The reason for this is that diafine is a compensating developer that develops to completion.

Yes, you can get acceptable results at 400 or 1600, but a picture exposed at 400 will not look the same as one exposed at 1600. As previous posters have said, the optimum exposure is at about 1250. So, it does matter to some extent what iso you expose at, 1250 IMO beng the best. But you can still get OK exposures at the extremes of the range, i.e., 400 and 1600.

Hope this helps.