regit
Established
Greetings to all,
I've just begun developing my own B&W (about 2 months) and I'm using Diafine as the developer since many recommend that for starters. Recently, I've been shooting with Kodak Tech Pan (new to the film); but instead of the known method of development; i.e. 1+50 solution A (iso64) or 45s in solution B (iso80)(full strength); I souped the film in full strength A and B with 2min (instead of 45s) in B (iso80). Now, here's the question:
1) While I like the tone I get, I'm not sure what I see is necessary what I'm suppose to get. i.e. perhaps something is faulty, it maybe the film, the developer, my scanner, my eyes!!! Below is an example of Tech Pan in full-strength Diafine, 4min in A and 2min in B. Is that what I'm supposed to get?
2) Using the stated development method, at 100% of a 4000dpi image, I get very fine white specks randomly/loosely spread across the entire image. Though not a big issue since they are very small, but I couldn't help but to ask; is these white specks normal?
Any information is greatly appreciated, thank you.
PS: This is my very first post on Rangefinderforum; if I've violated any unwritten rules, do point me to the right way
I've just begun developing my own B&W (about 2 months) and I'm using Diafine as the developer since many recommend that for starters. Recently, I've been shooting with Kodak Tech Pan (new to the film); but instead of the known method of development; i.e. 1+50 solution A (iso64) or 45s in solution B (iso80)(full strength); I souped the film in full strength A and B with 2min (instead of 45s) in B (iso80). Now, here's the question:
1) While I like the tone I get, I'm not sure what I see is necessary what I'm suppose to get. i.e. perhaps something is faulty, it maybe the film, the developer, my scanner, my eyes!!! Below is an example of Tech Pan in full-strength Diafine, 4min in A and 2min in B. Is that what I'm supposed to get?
2) Using the stated development method, at 100% of a 4000dpi image, I get very fine white specks randomly/loosely spread across the entire image. Though not a big issue since they are very small, but I couldn't help but to ask; is these white specks normal?
Any information is greatly appreciated, thank you.
PS: This is my very first post on Rangefinderforum; if I've violated any unwritten rules, do point me to the right way
ben
Member
Part 1) I don't get it. What's wrong with what you're seeing?
Part 2) Dust?
Part 2) Dust?
T_om
Well-known
regit said:
I don't know. Is that what you were looking for? Really. I'm being serious here... what were you trying to achieve using Tech Pan with Diafine (probably the only film I have never dunked in the stuff and I LOVE Diafine)?
You are not using stop bath are you? Just use a water bath and go right to fixer with Diafine. I use a non-hardening fixer (regular old sodium thiosulfate). The white specks could be a result of many different things, but that is my first suspicion.
Tom
regit
Established
ben said:
Hi Ben,
Thank you for the reply. I didn't find anything wrong with it ... maybe I should reword what I said.... my apologies for the confusion.
I'm new to both film and developing, when I soup Tech Pan in diafine, I had to deviate from the known method of developing to get the "look" I want. Since I've not seen any shot of Tech Pan in diafine, I'm not sure if the deviation is necessary in order to get the look I wanted, or simply due to film damage, developer acting up or wrong scanning technique.
So if someone say.. "I've tried TP in full strength Diafine-B for 2min and I got totally different look from yours", then I would know I had to investigate the problems.
As for 2), I don't they are dust. I've tried different batch of TP and I've tried cleaning them before scanning... all have the same random white specks. I'll try cleaning again just to be sure.
regit
Established
T_om said:
Hi Tom,
Thank you for the reply. Yes, that's the look I want... As you know, I'm new to Diafine and I'm starting to soup all kind of film into it to see what I can get. While I get good results following the known methods of development with other films; I had to deviate quite a bit when using TP. This naturally sent an "newbie alarm" and I posted this just to check out others experience with TP in Diafine.
Also, I don't use stop bath. A->B->Water->Fixer->Wash, and there's no hardener in the fixer. I'll do a few more rolls and see if the issue persists.
Regit
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I think the specks are either dust, or mineral particles from the water embedded in the emulsion, or both.
My favorite film is T-Max 3200, which is so grainy that you have to get something about the size of the Rock of Gibraltar embedded in it before it's noticeable -- but with the very smooth structure of Tech Pan, you have to be extra-careful either to keep contaminants out of your processing or to spot them out of your scans afterward.
My favorite film is T-Max 3200, which is so grainy that you have to get something about the size of the Rock of Gibraltar embedded in it before it's noticeable -- but with the very smooth structure of Tech Pan, you have to be extra-careful either to keep contaminants out of your processing or to spot them out of your scans afterward.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
PS -- If you like the tones you get, then they're right. That's the great thing about b&w processing -- you can do what works best for you, and no one can say you're wrong.
The tonality looks fine to me. If it were my negative, I'd darken down that large expanse of light wall in the upper left, to draw the eye down to the figure -- but again, that's just my personal preference.
The tonality looks fine to me. If it were my negative, I'd darken down that large expanse of light wall in the upper left, to draw the eye down to the figure -- but again, that's just my personal preference.
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
My take on your problems is as follows: 1. TP is a very thin emulsion, somewhat high-contrast film. Diafine works by separating the developing agent A from the catalyst B; only the amount that soaks into the emulsion during A will remain to develop the image. The thinner the emulsion, the less soaks in. 2. Diafine also produces rather contrasty negs, which shows in your image--the highlights are already beginning to blow out.
Justin Low
J for Justin
I think what you have now looks pretty good.
T_om
Well-known
Poptart said:
I've used Diafine since the mid-sixties and this is the very first time I have EVER heard anyone say Diafine produces "contrasty" negatives. Much to the contrary, most people complain about the LACK of contrast until they learn how to use it.
Tom
Yes, Diafine is a super-compensating developer that prevents overdevelopment of the highlights and gives extra development to the shadow areas. It would seem a reasonable thing to try with Tech Pan film for continuous tone images though I've never heard of this use.
I don't grasp what it is you're referring to as a significant deviation from procedure... Except your unusually short dip in Bath B. You know that neither time nor temperature are critical with Diafine, within reasonable limits? I see no reason to give it a short time in B, and would suggest this could cause some underdevelopment. Let it develop to completion, with at least 3 minutes, and my choice is 5 minutes to make sure it does.
But your sample looks very nice to me! Have fun...
I don't grasp what it is you're referring to as a significant deviation from procedure... Except your unusually short dip in Bath B. You know that neither time nor temperature are critical with Diafine, within reasonable limits? I see no reason to give it a short time in B, and would suggest this could cause some underdevelopment. Let it develop to completion, with at least 3 minutes, and my choice is 5 minutes to make sure it does.
But your sample looks very nice to me! Have fun...
R
Roman
Guest
Well, I also suceeded in getting blown highlights (& very dense negs) with Diafine - I did not have any starting points for Efke KB100, so I exposed it at EI 200 - should have been something like 400 at least, because specular highlights are really blown, and the negs are very hard to print (in the darkroom) - skin-tones look weirdly metallic, and grain is HUGE (TriX in Rodinal looks fine-grained in comparison).
Somehow I get the feeling that Diafine is better suited for scanning negs than for wet-darkroom printing; will have to try it with TriX some time, though, since this is supposed to be the best match.
Roman
Somehow I get the feeling that Diafine is better suited for scanning negs than for wet-darkroom printing; will have to try it with TriX some time, though, since this is supposed to be the best match.
Roman
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I agree, it looks great. I'm a bit afraid of using tech pan, have only two rolls in 120... and i have no idea of the ISO is hould use it at, nor the development. No technidol around. But you gave me a hope
kmack
do your job, then let go
I am new to diafine also, so I latched on to this thread immediately.
A quick check of Tech Pan at Massive Dev Chart in diafine suggests 3 min in A and 45 sec in B when Tech Pan is exposed at 80 ASA and 3min in A and 1min in B for Tech Pan at 100 asa.
Interesting that the B solution is so much shorter.
I had also noticed the Massive Dev Chart suggests that T-Max 100 shot at 80 ASA should use a 4.5+4 dev time.
A quick check of Tech Pan at Massive Dev Chart in diafine suggests 3 min in A and 45 sec in B when Tech Pan is exposed at 80 ASA and 3min in A and 1min in B for Tech Pan at 100 asa.
Interesting that the B solution is so much shorter.
I had also noticed the Massive Dev Chart suggests that T-Max 100 shot at 80 ASA should use a 4.5+4 dev time.
I suggest the Massive Development Chart is not credible on those entries showing less than 3 min in either bath, nor on the inconsistent T-Max entries. Times should be at least 3 min, but nobody will notice any differences in the outcome between developing times of 3.5 min, 4.5 min, or 5.5 min, for instance. I might consider 45-sec or 1 min useful in Bath B only with an accompanying sensible explanation. Otherwise I believe those suggestions reveal a lack of understanding of how Diafine works.
In regard to Diafine, the Massive Development Chart can be valuable in showing film speeds that have been successful for the contributors.
In regard to Diafine, the Massive Development Chart can be valuable in showing film speeds that have been successful for the contributors.
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
I've always found that Diafine produces full contrast, which I suspect is one reason so many people here seem to like it: the average photographer likes contrasty images. Your experience may be different. It's not, at any rate, a general-purpose developer. It's easy to use and good if your exposures are inconsistent. You'd be better off learning to control a standard film in a standard general-purpose developer.
Last edited: