lZr
L&M
I am very happy to mark my final conclusion about Diafine its push ability and Tri-X.
Today I developed my last roll, shoot at 800/1000 (Bessa R subdivisions between 400 and 1000) and I was surprised every respect. Gorgeous contrast, excellent shadows and good highlights.
So, I can say, I have a pair developer/film that can be set any ISO between 400 and 1600 in the middle of the roll at any time and successfully be scanned to get fine result. Not excellent, but very good. I need one like that, because in my country the sun can overule the f/16 very easy and the light condition changing very fast
Today I developed my last roll, shoot at 800/1000 (Bessa R subdivisions between 400 and 1000) and I was surprised every respect. Gorgeous contrast, excellent shadows and good highlights.
So, I can say, I have a pair developer/film that can be set any ISO between 400 and 1600 in the middle of the roll at any time and successfully be scanned to get fine result. Not excellent, but very good. I need one like that, because in my country the sun can overule the f/16 very easy and the light condition changing very fast
Attachments
lZr
L&M
My first shootout was at 1600. The negative was thin, but scans nice and leveling in software did it for me. Take II was with Tri-X at 400 with beautiful negative I liked.
I can say, that Diafine pushes the Tri-X in a nonlinear way, so as it is dependent on the emulsion on the film after the shot. More bright areas lead to more push activity. I need some more investigation at this point, but it is in relation to the contrast of the scene
Yes, I know A phase of Diafine sticks to the negative
I can say, that Diafine pushes the Tri-X in a nonlinear way, so as it is dependent on the emulsion on the film after the shot. More bright areas lead to more push activity. I need some more investigation at this point, but it is in relation to the contrast of the scene
Yes, I know A phase of Diafine sticks to the negative
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
Lazar:
Love those captures. Gorgeous gray tonality with nice solid blacks. The light isn't as much of an issue here in southeast PA. Nevertheless, I'm ratcheting down to 800 to check things out here. Kudos!
Love those captures. Gorgeous gray tonality with nice solid blacks. The light isn't as much of an issue here in southeast PA. Nevertheless, I'm ratcheting down to 800 to check things out here. Kudos!
sleepyhead
Well-known
Part A soaks into the emulsion. Part B activates Part A to develope. No/little agitation is given after introduction of Part B.
Areas that received alot of light exhaust the Part A more quickly (and development slows/stops without blocking up the highlights completely) compared to areas that received little light, which develop more to completion (shadow detail). I think this is what's happening with DIAFINE.
But I agree, I love DIAFINE for contrasty, quickly changing lighting situations.
Areas that received alot of light exhaust the Part A more quickly (and development slows/stops without blocking up the highlights completely) compared to areas that received little light, which develop more to completion (shadow detail). I think this is what's happening with DIAFINE.
But I agree, I love DIAFINE for contrasty, quickly changing lighting situations.
lZr
L&M
Thanks Jeff. Take your time and post some light frames. I like them
Yes, Yaron, same thoughts about what is happening with Diafine. I need to change ISO in the middle of the roll
Yes, Yaron, same thoughts about what is happening with Diafine. I need to change ISO in the middle of the roll
bmattock
Veteran
It is perhaps instructive to remember that Diafine is not a 'push' processor, which you have noted when you said it is not linear. It develops to exhaustion, as divided developers do. It is, as they say, a compensating developer as well.
But it is not a true 'push' developer, because the speed increase it gives some films cannot be controlled by more or less time in the developer. It develops to exhaustion and that's it. Yes, it often results in a speed increase, but technically, that's not a push.
This also gives the non-linear results you see - constrast is lowered because both highlights and dark areas are only developed until no more absorbed Solution A remains. A push process could be continued until all highlighted details were completely blown out, and time/temp/dilution would affect all highlights and dark areas more or less equally.
It is entirely possible that on any given frame, the Diafine Solution B is completely finished processing on one portion of the frame, while another continues to process. In a traditional developer, this does not happen unless there is literally nothing left to be processed at all.
But it is not a true 'push' developer, because the speed increase it gives some films cannot be controlled by more or less time in the developer. It develops to exhaustion and that's it. Yes, it often results in a speed increase, but technically, that's not a push.
This also gives the non-linear results you see - constrast is lowered because both highlights and dark areas are only developed until no more absorbed Solution A remains. A push process could be continued until all highlighted details were completely blown out, and time/temp/dilution would affect all highlights and dark areas more or less equally.
It is entirely possible that on any given frame, the Diafine Solution B is completely finished processing on one portion of the frame, while another continues to process. In a traditional developer, this does not happen unless there is literally nothing left to be processed at all.
lZr
L&M
Good points, bmattok. 3 minutes for A and 3 minutes for B at all ISO's is my point. If something goes wrong I am the problem and not my camera, so I am free to frame and shot. I can manage the 1600 easy in software. The interesting point I observed is when I shot at high ISO in sunny midday. I like the results more relative to those in slow speed (400 ISO).
Is that so? Is it possible to eat the celuloid at some point. I don't like development times like 1 hour, 1:30 and more.
.
Is that so? Is it possible to eat the celuloid at some point. I don't like development times like 1 hour, 1:30 and more.
bmattock
Veteran
lZr said:
I didn't mean the developer would eat the celluloid, but rather that eventually, traditional non-divided developers will convert all the available silver halide crystals, and you have no more image at all. Diafine cannot do that - although I supposed you can leave it in so long that it caused the emulsion to lift off the film, which would destroy it just as effectively.
One person on RFF told a story of accidentally leaving his film in Diafine B overnight - no harm done. I'm not recommending that, but the point is - when Diafine is done, it's done.
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
I only just started developing... at all. I use Diafine due to the characteristics I saw described on the various forums and because it was rumoured to work extremely well with Tri-X. It does.
From my very first home developed roll:
No, not taken with an RF, but with an Evil Nikon FM, 50mm f1.4 lens.
From my very first home developed roll:
No, not taken with an RF, but with an Evil Nikon FM, 50mm f1.4 lens.
lZr
L&M
Gorgeous tones, Ronald. Diafine likes contrast. ISO? I suppose Tri-X
lZr
L&M
Thanks bmattok.
R
rich815
Guest
Completely personal assessment but I am not overly enamored myself with Tri-X (which I shoot at 800-1200) in Diafine. It's great in a pinch and gives that good extra speed when needed but to my eye the tonality is missing something and simply does not "sing" or have that wonderful B&W snap or glow to me. Perhaps I'm expecting too much to see the tonality I'd see in Tri-X shot at 400 in D-76 or the smooth buttery mid-tones of even slower speeds but even relatively speaking it's missing something. Therefore I only use it for more gritty street or documentary subjects or in conditions such that shooting anything slower would make shooting useless...but I simply cannot agree that what I see from Tri-X in Diafine gives anything I'd described as gorgeous gray tonality....
Last edited by a moderator:
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
Yes Lazar, it's Tri-X. Rated at 1250 and developed in Diafine.
Using it in my all manual FM during concerts thrills me no end.
Using it in my all manual FM during concerts thrills me no end.
bmattock
Veteran
Ronald_H said:
I think it is at its best used just the way you are using it. High contrast, low light.
I don't see it as a do-all miracle developer, though. In normal situations, I'm quite happy with Tri-X in D76 1+1 in tried-and-true manner.
But when I reach for Tri-X, it is frequently because I do intend to go where few photons dare to tread, so Diafine is always handy on my shelf.
lZr
L&M
I said it gentle, I think: Good results, but not excellent. If you look againg, you will miss the grain in all examples here. I want it back, but Diafine absorbs it easy
JeffGreene
(@)^(@)
rich815 said:
"de gustibus non disputandum".
Respectfully,
Jeff
lZr
L&M
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
I recently started using diafine and really wonder why people bothering assigning a film speed with it. From my perspective, its kinda missing the whole point of this developer. If you take whatever film you are shooting and bracket a roll you'll see that all underexposure does is increase your contrast, trix seemed completely usable from 250 to 3200 depending upon your particular taste and the quality of the lighting conditions used in your exposure. Using a given film stock with this developer is certainly, for me, a totally different way of looking at the confines of an ISO and development time and agitation routine... Diafine seems nice if you are shooting in changing lighting conditions as you are just gonna get what you are gonna get as opposed to having to figure out what you are going to do with the developer...
lZr
L&M
WoolenMammoth, you opened the horizon wider. You say: Go and shot and don't worry, Diafine will do it for you. Nice. I like that