Tri-X just out of Diafine

[Doug]

I'd consider the 3 minutes to be a bare minimum... I use 5 minutes just to be sure but it really doesn't matter after 3 or 4 min I think. OTOH, it does no harm to give it a little longer.

"No hypo"??? Surely that can't be right; you must be fixing your negs as in his step 4? Or do you mean "no hypo clearing" as in his step 6? Hypo = fixer, so I suppose that could also be called fixer clearing agent. But best not to confuse hypo with hypo clearing agent

Diafine isn't a particularly grainy developer in my experience, but it helps to get the exposure near optimal for a smoother look.

Years ago when I first started using Diafine my biggest problem with it was agitating like I did with other developers. Especially in Bath B, Diafine calls for particularly gentle agitation, just enough to let the byproducts of the process drift away from the surface, but not so much you rinse away the developing agent absorbed in Bath A. I now just slap the bubbles out immediately and from then on just nudge the tank a few times in the first few minutes; almost "stand development".

 

[PaulN]

Diafine isn't a particularly grainy developer in my experience, but it helps to get the exposure near optimal for a smoother look.

Years ago when I first started using Diafine my biggest problem with it was agitating like I did with other developers. Especially in Bath B, Diafine calls for particularly gentle agitation, just enough to let the byproducts of the process drift away from the surface, but not so much you rinse away the developing agent absorbed in Bath A. I now just slap the bubbles out immediately and from then on just nudge the tank a few times in the first few minutes; almost "stand development".

I finally got around to souping some film this past weekend in some diafine I had mixed up in September. My process was as follows:

1) Solution A for 3.5 minutes. Invert 4 times @ start, and then invert 2 times every 30sec. I'm using plastic patterson tanks, btw
2) Solution B for the same
3) Rinse in water (5 tank fulls)
4) Fixer (Ilford liquid fixer; I forget which one) for 30 seconds
5) Rinse in water for a few tank fulls
6) Drop the real into a tank of photoflo

I'm not sure about the grain. To me, it looks grainy. I'm just not getting the smooth tones. Then again, it may be the way I'm viewing it on the computer. I'm still too new in scanning negatives. Comparing the images to my R-D1, the film always comes out grainy; even at comparable ISO settings. I don't mind the grain though. I'm just wondering why I'm not getting the smooth tones that I see in the various galleries. As of right now, I'm compensating by turning the Grain Reduction to medium in VueScan.

Anyhow, here are a couple of samples. I believe they were shot at around 1250.

Hrmm. I thought I could embed images inline. I guess not. Anyhow, excuse the compression in the scaled versions; I just used downscaled versions from my smugmug site. I performed 'levels' corrections and contrast increases in photoshop.. Other than those two things, the scans are as-is.

 

[Doug]

What you're doing is obviously giving you great results, Paul! Love your new avatar.

These shots don't look grainy to me, but there certainly is some grain there. Nothing out of the ordinary, and its part of the look. Scanners apparently have a tendency to make the grain more noticeable than in a darkroom print, but still, to my eye, your shots look good. Nice tonality too.

 

[rami]

yesterday I made some prints from trix at 1200 in diafine (workflow similar to lido). And surprise:
when scanning those negatives - there were too difficult for my scanner (epson photo 3170) - too dense dark areas means horrible noise in scanning (similar to lido noise on night shots, maybe even worse). But prints are really nice. Noise of course dissapear. Main problem was, that I lost some things in shadows, but it is normall, even with trix Compared to pushed trix in xtol, diafine gives me:
- simplier workflow withot problems with temperature (I have really warm darkroom)
- bigger grain (but nice one, a little similar to trix-rodinal combo)
- bigger contrast (sometimes it is nice thing - depends of lightning conditions of scenes)

tomorrow or even today I'll try to scan one print and the same photo from negative and put somwhere to compare

best regards, rami

 

[Trius]

PaulN: Those are the first scans of Diafine souped TriX that I have liked. Good work. It would be interesting to see original prints.

Earl

 

[PaulN]

PaulN: Those are the first scans of Diafine souped TriX that I have liked. Good work. It would be interesting to see original prints.

Earl

Thanks! I'd love to make some wet prints, but don't have a darkroom available at the moment. I may drop the negatives off at a local lab though, provided the price isn't through the rough. Finding a place that performs non-machine prints is getting harder and harder.

I ran a bunch of Tri-X & PlusX through diafine last night. I'm in the process of scanning the negatives and will post some more pics provided they come out. So far, I'm pleased though.

-Paul

Edit- I've attached an initial scan. I performed an 'auto-levels' in PS, and resized. I'm really happy with Diafine, provided the lighting is right. Low contrast, low light situations are god awful though.

 

[situ_grrl]

This and several other posts on this board suggest that developing tri x in diafine means that a reasonable neg can be achieved without worrying about exposure....is this really the case?

I shoot a lot at night without a flash and the ability to rate tri x at 1600/3200, 1/30th @ f8 would allow me much more flexibility than f1.7 where I often end up.

Thanx
charly

 

[bmattock]

This and several other posts on this board suggest that developing tri x in diafine means that a reasonable neg can be achieved without worrying about exposure....is this really the case?

I shoot a lot at night without a flash and the ability to rate tri x at 1600/3200, 1/30th @ f8 would allow me much more flexibility than f1.7 where I often end up.

Thanx
charly

This is correct, in my understanding. Diafine notes a recommended EI of 1600 for Tri-X, less of a speed increase for other films. I believe there are also some threads you may find here at RFF in which photographers have achieved usable images rating Tri-X at EI 25,000 and souping in Diafine. It would appear that Tri-X is the only 'magic' developer for Diafine, although it gives nearly every film a boost in speed.

The deal is this - it is a two-bath developer. One solution contains the chemicals that soak into the film emulsion and activate the exposed silver halide. The second solution is the accellerant, without which the chemicals from solution A would never been activated. In this manner, two objectives are achieved. One, the two soups become very long-lived - they don't oxidize as most do and they last a long time in the bottle - and can be reused a silly long time. Two, each soak in developer is no longer time or temp dependant. That's because when you pour OUT the solution A, all that is left is what is soaked into the emulsion. When you pour IN solution B, the accellerant only works on the solution A that is soaked into the emulsion. In essence, you can't overdevelop, and all films will be developed to the degree they are capable of being developed - there is nothing left of solution A to attack clumps of unexposed silver halide when the existing solution A is exhausted.

As it happens, Tri-X is a film with a lot of potential, and Diafine brings it out.

At least, that's my understanding.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[XAos]

If you're really trying to push Tri-X, check out some of Merciful's work. Grain looked like a light-brite picture, but he got 100,000 out of it - handheld candle light pic. That's about the ragged edge of possible I'd say though - he even had the numbers printed in the paper backing visible in the image.

 

[kaiyen]

In essence, you can't overdevelop, and all films will be developed to the degree they are capable of being developed - there is nothing left of solution A to attack clumps of unexposed silver halide when the existing solution A is exhausted.

The additional benefit is that you control highlights very well with certain filim. If there isn't any more A available, then you will exhaust the developer in the highlights a whole lot faster than the in the shadows. Which means you get full development in the shadows (speed) and reduced development in the highlights (contrast control).

I think that you can get better results out of TXT if you go beyond 1600 with other developers (merciful has done a lot with Rodinal, for instance). But up to 1600 I have to admit it looks pretty good.

allan

 

[PaulN]

This and several other posts on this board suggest that developing tri x in diafine means that a reasonable neg can be achieved without worrying about exposure....is this really the case?

I shoot a lot at night without a flash and the ability to rate tri x at 1600/3200, 1/30th @ f8 would allow me much more flexibility than f1.7 where I often end up.

Thanx
charly

I'm not sure if you could do f8 @ EI of 3200. I've shot a few rolls at night in a low contrast/flat light environment with the Tri-X/diafine combo, and the pictures are _really_ bad. I've attached an example. I think the key is that although you can push the Tri-x to 3200+ you have to meter appropriately. If you are normally shooting at 1600/f2 and want to go to f8, you are talking about pushing Tri-X to 12,800. You may be pleased with the results, but I think that lighting in this situation is key.


I've souped about 8 rolls in diafine and am pleased with the results, provided that there is good lighting / good contrast. In flat light situations, diafine isn't the best. I've shot a roll of Tri-X @ EI 3200, and want to run it through Rodinal. I'm curious to see how it turns out.

-Paul

 

[T_om]

This and several other posts on this board suggest that developing tri x in diafine means that a reasonable neg can be achieved without worrying about exposure....is this really the case?

No. It is not the case at all.

I am probably the biggest Diafine booster here, and I assure you, attention to exposure means just as much with Diafine as it does with almost any other developer.

However, Diafine IS very forgiving. You can err and still get something useful. 'Useful' does not, however, mean 'optimum'.

The characteristics of the film/developer combination with Tri-X and Diafine are such that you can use different exposure values in different lighting conditions to control contrast. Perhaps this is where you got he idea that exposure did not matter, but using exposure to control the final image tonal values is not restricted to Diafine.

Exposure matters.

Tom

 

[Doug]

No. It is not the case at all.
...
Exposure matters.

Tom has it exactly right... Since there is no pushing or pulling possible with Diafine, your main control of the negative densities IS the exposure.

 

[shaaktiman]

I've been having some luck lately with Plus-X exposed at 400, then developed in diafine. While it doesn't give me the low-light capabilities that Tri-X in diafine does, there's less grain and still JUST enough light for me to use it at f2 in the subways.

 

[Doug]

Looks like you've found a winning exposure for Plus-X and its all come togehter to give you some very nice tonality and modest grain. Looking good!

Similarly, I shoot Ilford FP4 at 250 and Pan F at 50, and at this these do well in Diafine too. Have not scanned any of it though...