TriX @ 1600 in Diafine

[lZr]

My first experience with Diafine. in 5 words - I failed, but not dispirited.
Every shot was exposed as told by my Besssa R (good meter, hope not mis leded)

Bulk loaded TriX good film.

4 min in A, then 4 min in B, stop with 22C water. 7 min fix time and 10 min rinse in 22C water. Results? Thin negative as you can see attached.

 

[bmattock]

That has generally been my experience too, sorry for yours. I rate Tri-X at 1200 in Diafine most of the time, and the results seem better to me. However, I have seen people get 1600 out of Diafine reliably. I don't know why their experience differs from mine.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

Why do you say you failed? I like the tonality. What do you want to be different about these pictures?

Ben Marks

 

[steamer]

The Diafine box rates tri-x at 1600, but like Bill says, it seems like 1200 is closer to the mark.

 

[RF-Addict]

Just yesterday I was at an old Blacksmith shop and used TriX400 pushed to 1600. It was very dark inside the job - the only light coming in through the door and a window high behind the blacksmith. I had never pushed TriX that far and was real curious about the outcome. I used Diafine for 3 minutes each (A & B), 30 sec wash with water, 4 min fix, 5 min. wash, 5 min Hydro wash and another 5 min wash. The results were very surprising - the pictures are all usable- I printed them to 8.5 x 11 and they are sharp and grain is very well contained.

 

[lZr]

On the box we have:
Trix Pan (TX)-35 mm and Roll - 1600
TriX Pan Pro (TXP/TXT) - Roll - 1000
TriX Pan Pro (TXP/TXT) - Sheet - 1200

Why failed? Because the negative was thin. Scans ok and leveling works nice, so you can see the black in the tunnel (image up), but the contrast is missing. I like my negatives normal contrast.
Also, I don't want to show the bad frames with excessive grain (ashamed)
I'll step down to 1200 and may be 800.

Thanks

 

[bmattock]

On the box we have:
Trix Pan (TX)-35 mm and Roll - 1600
TriX Pan Pro (TXP/TXT) - Roll - 1000
TriX Pan Pro (TXP/TXT) - Sheet - 1200

Why failed? Because the negative was thin. Scans ok and leveling works nice, so you can see the black in the tunnel (image up), but the contrast is missing. I like my negatives normal contrast.
Also, I don't want to show the bad frames with excessive grain (ashamed)
I'll step down to 1200 and may be 800.

Thanks

I suspect you may not like it at EI 800 either. I've gotten the best results at EI 1200, but I've also rated it at EI 1000 and it wasn't too bad. Any more exposure than that and it tends to block up - at least for me.

 

[lZr]

Thanks RF-Addict. Can you post the negative, not manipulated, scaned as document or positive?

 

[lZr]

Thanks bmattock. I'll keep that close to me

 

[RF-Addict]

Here is the raw scan - I always scan B&W as positives - so I am not sure how much this will help you

 

[lZr]

Good negative and good for scan. Thanks

 

[titrisol]

I see plenty of shadow detail and nice contrast.....
I think that in such tricky light conditions it is better to double guess your camera and bracket

 

[lZr]

From my gallery. This one is XP2 c41 frame. Of course, dif timing for the sun

titrisol, I was in look for contrasts in my shootout, since the last thread about trix and diafine.

 

[charjohncarter]

lZr, those are both difficult metering situations. Do you have any 'normal' shots on that roll.

 

[lZr]

That has generally been my experience too, sorry for yours. I rate Tri-X at 1200 in Diafine most of the time, and the results seem better to me. However, I have seen people get 1600 out of Diafine reliably. I don't know why their experience differs from mine.

I think the water is important. I used destilled water and did a good dillution in our chemistry lab. The tech staff used stirring magnetic device. B powder was harder to dilute

 

[lZr]

Hi, charjohncarter. Yes I have. let me show some

I can level the puddle shot to be darker and even black, but I don't like the grain on the ground

 

[rich815]

Those negs do not look overly thin to me and the tonality looks good in your scans I think. Plus if you're scanning I generally feel you want a slightly thinner neg, much better than a bullet-proof contrasty one that the scanner will have trouble with. That said I usually shoot Tri-X at 1200 for Diafine too. Why did you bathe them for 4 minutes in each bath? I believe 3 min is the norm....

 

[lZr]

rich815 - Yes, they scan good and easy leveled in software, but perhaps hardly printable. I saw a video at YouTube as pointed by prev thread about Trix in Diafine here in RFF. The guy asked 10 min in dil A

 

[bmattock]

rich815 - Yes, they scan good and easy leveled in software, but perhaps hardly printable. I saw a video at YouTube as pointed by prev thread about Trix in Diafine here in RFF. The guy asked 10 min in dil A

I don't know what that guy was thinking of. I saw his video and it did not make much sense.

Part A is simply designed to absorb into the gelatin of the film emulsion. It remains very nearly inert there - it does nothing until acted upon by Part B. So 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 10 minutes - should not make much difference - assuming it is all being absorbed by 3 minutes (Diafine's recommendation) then an extra minute (or 7) won't do anything.

The same for Part B - it develops to exhaustion, meaning it acts on the Part A it finds in the film emulsion and continues to remain active until all of Part A is exhausted. Again, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, or 10 minutes - should not make much difference.

We had a discussion on the subject once here long ago and someone (as I recall) said they had accidentally wandered off and left the film in the Part B for hours or overnight or something - no harm. I think the worst risk would be reticulation if the emulsion actually began to float off the film base, but development itself should have stopped.

And the fellow in the video also said he rates Tri-X, nominally an ISO 400 film, at EI 100 when he processes it in Diafine. I have no idea why. I have not tried it, but I have found that negatives shot at EI 800 and processed in Diafine are quite thick indeed - very dense and nearly unscannable. I would imagine EI 100 would produce nice black rectangles with no detail whatsoever.

However, I have never tried it as he recommends - maybe he knows something I don't. I just don't think he makes any sense. From some of the comments, it appears that some people know him and think he's insane.

 

[LeicaM3]

I don't know what that guy was thinking of. I saw his video and it did not make much sense.

Part A is simply designed to absorb into the gelatin of the film emulsion. It remains very nearly inert there - it does nothing until acted upon by Part B. So 3 minutes, 4 minutes, 10 minutes - should not make much difference - assuming it is all being absorbed by 3 minutes (Diafine's recommendation) then an extra minute (or 7) won't do anything.

The same for Part B - it develops to exhaustion, meaning it acts on the Part A it finds in the film emulsion and continues to remain active until all of Part A is exhausted. Again, 3 minutes, 4 minutes, or 10 minutes - should not make much difference.


[snip]

Agree.
Diafine was made for TriX. It works best as others have stated at 1250/1000.
Negs scan and print fine. Certainly the best combo I have found for any film shot at 1000-1600.