This is why I like Diafine.

Goodyear

Goodyear

Happy-snap ninja
Local time
9:36 AM
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
820
Just developed my first roll in weeks, shot around my place of work last week with the Autocord (shh, don't tell anyone).

No water bath, just 15-20 secs in the microwave for each jug, thermometer in the first one to make sure I was in the right are. No timer.

Won't be able to scan until tomorrow or the next day, but the negs look sweet hanging in my shower.

Here's hoping they still look as pretty on screen.

And that's why I love Diafine.

(If you're wondering, it was Neopan 400, which I partocularly like in Diafine.)
 
I've been looking for a new developer for my HP5 and FP4 in 35 and 120. I keep hearing about diafine on these boards.. what kind of characteristics does it have? Seems to be versitile the way you're talking about it!
 
I saw a page earlier this week with some examples of Tmax and delta400 developed in Diafine. You'll find them down the page HERE . It seems to do allright with those films from these examples. Some of the highlights look a little blown in them though. See for youself ;)
 
I've been using it since the 60's and it does all I could ever ask of a developer. Fast, simple, extremely wide processing latitude.

With the film I use, TX, PX, HP & FP emulsions, I couldn't ask for more.

Tom
 
I only started developing my own when I discovered Diafine - with a 3, nearly 4, year old in the house a time and temp critical developer is the last thing I need. I once left a roll of 120 Tri-X in the A bath for several hours as a result of a minor booboo... Anything else I'd have had to toss the roll.

OTOH, do not, I say again, do not pour the B into the A jug by mistake... :( I am now waiting on a special order through my FLCS (Could have had it a long time ago by Internet. But I want that store still to be here in a few years. Especially since they've started giving me the "professional" discount <lol> and let me tell you that helps with the 4x5 orders!)

William
 
I'm not a fan of HP5+ in Diafine. I know there are those here (T_om ;) ) who swear by by it, by I'm not that keen on the look of the grain it gives.

Now, FP4+ is another matter. And , as I said, Neopan 400 is the business in it.
 
Goodyear, (and everyone else) do you use your Diafine for producing images to the scanner only, or do the negs end up in the enlarger ?
I'm asking this because like the title of the thread I have found Diafine great for ease of use, extra speed, etc, but for wet printing I just cant seem to produce a print that wouldn't of been better souped with another developer. I'm using HP5+ by the way.
 
Scanner.

I'm living longing for a wet darkroom... When that happens, I know I may not carry on with diafine. It does make for nice easy scans, though.
 
Dave H said:
Goodyear, (and everyone else) do you use your Diafine for producing images to the scanner only, or do the negs end up in the enlarger ?
Click to expand...


Scanner only. I would never go back to a wet darkroom, even if a pro lab quality turn-key setup were offered to me for free.

Tom
 
I've used Diafine with a bunch of films. I'm not a fan of HP5 Plus in Diafine (we discussed it another thread too) but FP4 Plus, Efke 25, Efke 100, and Neopan 1600 have all worked well for me in it. (The Neopan 1600 did really well, nice tight grain -- very pleasing and easy to scan.)

I too once had an "incident" where I had to leave some film (I think FP4 Plus) in Bath A for about 20 minutes. There were no ill effects that I could see.

I like it for trying out new films -- as long as you select the correct EI you'll get usable negs. I'm about to test this theory with some Fomapan 200, which I'll likely rate at 250 or 320 (anticipating a moderate "speed boost").

I only wish Diafine were available in Canada. The batch I'm using now was purchased when I lived in the USA, but fortunately Diafine is renowned for the longevity of the working solutions (barring cross-contamination). Anyone got any "world record" Diafine lifetimes to share?
 
Diafine's great. It does produce "flat" negatives that might require some adjustments to give more contrast at scanning or printing. I just scan the full range at 16 bits and use curves to achieve the contrast I want. It's possibly much more difficult with wet printing.

Sometimes I just want a crunchy contrasty negative, and in those cases Rodinal's a better choice. Semi-stand development in Rodinal 1+100 is relatively low maintenance and produces a compensated, low contrast image but with sharper grain and the much debated "edge effects."
 
I definately agree with the flat negative comment. I think it is nice to work with because you can always give more contrast to an image (via filter or photoshop). I have been using diafine for a little while now. I find that is a waste on slower film like PanF (shot at 80 to compinsate). I find that the images come out abnormally grainy. I don't see the point in shooting 80iso, if 400 looks the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom