Some Diafine Tests

[Mark C]

This came out of some email discussion with Calzone about shooting in a particular low light venue I go to. I had used 2x Diafine a couple years ago there, and sometimes Acufine. Cal mentioned liking Diafine with extended times more than running the film through the Diafine twice. In theory, and according to the directions, this should not work, but I decided to try for myself while I was also freshening up my replenished Acufine and would have a comparison to that.

I had most of a roll of Kentmere 400 I wanted to finish up in a camera, so shot about 24 identical frames of a high contrast scene at about EI 1600, then did clip tests. Cal mentioned 7 minutes in A / 4 minutes in B. I ended up my first run in my 2 year old Diafine with about 4/4 (A/B) and 7.5/5 at about 73 degrees. The 4 minute clip had the weak results I'm used to seeing from Diafine on modern films, but was surprised to see a much better developed exposure on the 7.5 minute clip.

I mixed and tested fresh Diafine last night make sure this wasn't the result of my old developer. The 4 minute clip might have been a tiny bit better with the fresh developer, but the overall results were similar and the longer time looks identical to me (these are still clips from the same roll). I also did a much extended time of about 16/5 just to test the limits and found almost no change, but just a very slight increase in density.

Those are my test results. My HP5 and TriX results are very similar. My conclusions might be different than yours. In theory, the longer times should make almost no difference. I used Diafine a bit many years ago and did not get the weak results I see now when used at the recommended times. I've assumed this is the difference in modern film, possibly thinner emulsion or more hardening. With a direct comparison including extended time my thought is that modern films may or may not do quite as well in Diafine, but that mostly they just need longer times. Of course, if you are happy with the box times there is no reason at all to change, unless you want more density and slightly more contrast.

Sorry for the long post, but lots of ground to cover. I hope this is of interest here. Thanks to Cal for the helpful input.

 

[presspass]

Mark, thanks for the results. Have you tried the 2x Diafine to compare?

 

[lawrence]

Thanks, it's very interesting. In the past I've found Diafine to give thinnish negs even with modern Tri-X rated at 640. Seems I should have ignored the instructions 😱

 

[Mark C]

I suspect they just keep making the same product with the same directions, only adding the occasional new film. I am glad they do continue to offer Acufine and Diafine.

Diafine 2x was my best solution for this location in the past. I shot there Saturday and intended to run the film that way. I had another roll shot earlier in the day that needed the lower contrast of normal Diafine. That roll had 3 shots from this dark community dance hall at the end of the roll, and when I saw the results from Diafine 7.5/5. I decided to skip the 2x on that last roll also. I did extend the time even more just to make sure I was getting what I could out of it. The negs look good though could stand a bit more density. Perfect for scanning, and adequate for darkroom printing.

I ran out of energy for test runs last night, but have one small clip left that I plan to run in Diafine 2x tonight to have the comparison. That has worked well for me for last ditch underexposure situations like this. Most of the gain is higher up the scale as you would expect, but still significant increases in the mids and slightly lower values, but there just isn't any more to be had in the very dark areas.

I metered when I got to the event Saturday and found readings of 1/8 to 1/15 at 1.4 at EI 1600. I shot 1/15 which certainly not ideal for a dance. I got a fair number of usable shots, but don't know if any are actually keepers. This was HP5; two rolls earlier in the day were HP5 and Kentmere 100. All worked well.

 

[presspass]

Mark, did you shoot HP5+ or Tri-X for this test? Sorry to keep bothering you, but I wasn't clear on that point.

 

[Mark C]

I probably wasn't clear. The actual clip test was Kentmere 400, which happened to be in my camera. I used the same clips for the fresh batch Diafine test last night to be consistent. The film I shot at the venue was HP5. I'm mostly a TX shooter, but have been experimenting with replacements since TX is much more expensive here lately. I find TX and HP5 nearly interchangeable for this use. The K400 was surprisingly good and I'm going to give it some more shooting.

It is sunny and a balmy 64. I'm heading out for a bicycle ride, but will check back here later.

 

[Calzone]

Mark, thanks for the results. Have you tried the 2x Diafine to compare?

PP,

Way back when I did a comparision between Diafine-Times-Two against Diafine 7+4 with Tri-X, and I liked the D-T-T better for two reasons: slightly better results; and easier to do with less steps along with no risk of killing my Part "B."

Know that I tend to underdevelop slightly because I minimize aggitation to only two inversions per minute, and expose at 800 ISO. Understand I like denser negatives for wet printing, but with 7+4 I got an honest 1250. I try to keep a strong midrange.

Also know that I got the 7+4 from Amy (DRabbit). She posted a remarkable shot and I got the 7+4 and ISO from her. Unfortunately I have not seen any of her posting for a while.

Also know that the 7+4 creates grain. The reason I minimize aggitation is that Acros then displays no grain, and Tri-X grain is only visible when A-Bing Acros against Tri-X on a light table and using an 8X lupe. I almost am trying to replicate stand-like developing using Diafine.

In another test, I accidently exposed Kodak 5222 at 800 ISO, so I used 7+4. Not the best results, but 5222 looks to be a great film for Diafine.

Cal

 

[huddy]

I've gotten excellent results using Calzone's/DRabbit's 7+4 times with 35mm Tri-X. Very pleasant and reminds me more of a slightly less grainy 800 speed Tri-X in Diafine (my processing). I did find I had to add an extra inversion in the middle of my times to prevent bromide drag though.

I have 1 roll of medium format (6x7) TX @ 1250 waiting to be scanned right now so I'm eager to see what the larger format looks like too.

 

[Calzone]

I've gotten excellent results using Calzone's/DRabbit's 7+4 times with 35mm Tri-X. Very pleasant and reminds me more of a slightly less grainy 800 speed Tri-X in Diafine (my processing). I did find I had to add an extra inversion in the middle of my times to prevent bromide drag though.

I have 1 roll of medium format (6x7) TX @ 1250 waiting to be scanned right now so I'm eager to see what the larger format looks like too.

Huddy,

I wonder if one inversion every thirty seconds might be better than my two inversions per minute?

Diafine is a very strong developer with short times. It seems that aggitation has a profound difference in results as far as grain size. The difference between three inversions per minute and two has a very big difference in grain size.

You might have triggered something signifigant. Thanks for the post.

In my case I use a two liter stainless steel tank. I believe that big tanks with their larger volume offer advantages of efficiency and being more stable as far as both temperature and aggitation.

Cal

 

[huddy]

I'm definitely considering shooting some test rolls closer to Christmas time when I have a few off days to determine the effects of inversions on grain size and see what I can get by with to elimintate bromide drag. I'm currently using smaller Paterson tanks and am down to about 750 mL part A as I started with a quart kit so I can only develop 2 35mm rolls at a time. I still did 2 inversions every minute and super gentle inversions on the 30 second intervals on medium format where I'm not sensitive to grain, so I'm going to try my next roll of 35 shot at 1250 using the single inversion every 30 seconds.

I'll try to remember to report back with results, although it might be about a months; it's a pretty busy 3 weeks of work coming up.

 

[Calzone]

I'm definitely considering shooting some test rolls closer to Christmas time when I have a few off days to determine the effects of inversions on grain size and see what I can get by with to elimintate bromide drag. I'm currently using smaller Paterson tanks and am down to about 750 mL part A as I started with a quart kit so I can only develop 2 35mm rolls at a time. I still did 2 inversions every minute and super gentle inversions on the 30 second intervals on medium format where I'm not sensitive to grain, so I'm going to try my next roll of 35 shot at 1250 using the single inversion every 30 seconds.

I'll try to remember to report back with results, although it might be about a months; it's a pretty busy 3 weeks of work coming up.

Huddy,

Thanks in advance. I still have to mix up a gallon kit, and I have close to a hundred rolls of exposed film in the fridge.

About that comment about throwing away the directions: I was mixing and pouring mucho ID-11 as a one shot and pouring it down the drain, and the actual cost of developer became a lot because I was processing a lot of film. I was compelled to learn a way to make Diafine work for me. On top of that I'm stubborn. LOL.

On this forum it seemed that Diafine was not well liked, I found that the recommended times and following the directions made thin negatives, and found that for me the film speed was exaggerated. I also learned that because of the limited development of the highlights due to exhaustion that when in doubt it is always good to overexpose rather than underexpose.

I also took note that Diafine does offer expanded range in shadow detail for a near HDR film look. I did a lot of testing to learn film speeds for the way I expose. I generally can use the back of my hand as a grey card and this methode also created consistent exposure. For me Tri-X at 800 ISO and Acros at 100. The recommended film speeds on the directions to me are exaggerations.

When I tried lowering the amount of aggitation I discovered that this extended the midrange. My negatives should be able to straight print on a single grade of paper without contrast filters. Basically I am trying to shoot like a large format shooter to make and optimize a negative at image capture, even though I am shooting small and medium format and not contact printing.

Anyways it is an attempt to simulate the fine grain, high detail, and expanded tonality of large format from smaller formats. I call Diafine "Slacker's Brew" because I am lazy and I want negatives that are easy to print. I don't have to worry about temperature when developing, I don't have to mix vast amounts of developer, and I get a HDR film effect.

Cal

 

[Mark C]

Everything Cal said, plus for me the last resort for really poor light.

Diafine isn't my all purpose developer, but does several different things better than other choices. Just adding 4 or 5 minutes to the recommended A time range makes it work more like I remember in the old days.

I haven't experimented with B times; I just try to keep above the middle of the recommeneded time and temp. It would be nice to confirm, but I probably won't get around to that since things are working well for me now.