TriX at 1600 & 3200

Calzone said:
Jerome,

With the Diafine times above and at 1000-1250 ISO I actually get mids and a compensating effect.

Microphen would be my second choice. Recently I have been using Microphen as my normal developer. I wanted a high energy developer, but realize that I also minimized agitation for midrange, IQ and a compensating effect. To get full development I had to extend times.

Of course this was to make negatives that have added density for wet printing. You ask a very good question.

Cal
Click to expand...

I take your word on Diafine and I wish I could use it to test 1600 again, the only thing preventing me from using it on a regular basis is the unavailability in Canada
 
Lauffray said:
I take your word on Diafine and I wish I could use it to test 1600 again, the only thing preventing me from using it on a regular basis is the unavailability in Canada
Click to expand...

Jerome,

You know me: I'm a lazy slacker. Know that Diafine has a mucho long shelf life and that the developer gets reused and actually gets better though usage (more mids). At one point way back when Arista Premium was available for $2.89 a roll and close dated rebranded Acros was $1.89 I used Diafine to avoid pouring ID-11 down the drain because one summer I was shooting on 150 rolls of film a month on average.

Diafine is a compensating effect that limits development of the highlights and offers great/enhanced shadow detail. The tricky part is the mids. I kinda limited development and thus lowered contrast by minimizing agitation to only 2 inversions a minute, I lost some film speed, but grain became small like Acros even though it was Tri-X.

This was using Tri-X at 800 ISO and 3+3 for the times. Be aware that the compensating effect can produce flat negatives if the shot is not high contrast. I found that using a 2X yellow filter allowed me to shoot Arirsta Premium at 400 during the day to avoid flat negatives.

I adopted 7+4 from DRabbit from RFF, but I kept my minimized agitation and got 1000-1250 ISO. Surprisingly I still get a nice midrange, but the grain becomes pronounced.

Also know that Acros 5 1/2+ 5 1/2 with two inversions at 100 ISO is practically grainless. Also know that for bulb exposures using a tripod for night shooting that Acros does not have any reciprocy failure. This combination is magic for night shooting. IQ is mucho high and I can print big/huge.

If you are doing everything right basically it is a bit like HDR but you are shooting film. The highlights get limited development like in stand development. When in doubt overexpose with no worry of blown highlights.

I'm going to B&H later today. If you want I can buy you the kit to make a gallon of part "A" and a gallon of part "B." Even if you use a 2 liter stainless steel tank like I do there are small loses due to pouring and wetting the film. Also over time the developer after a few hundred rolls gets thicker and the color of beer piss, and I discard the black particulate which I think is silver that collects at the bottom.

A gallon kit will easily get you through over a years worth of development even if you develop a hundred rolls of film a month. Basically the cost of development is a few pennies a roll for the fixer because the cost of development is almost free.

I can either hold the Diafine for you till you come to NYC, or I can try to ship it to you in Montreal. Also know that Diafine is Panthermic, meaning as long as the developer is over 20 degrees C that temperature will not effect development. Perfect for a lazy slacker like me.

Also know that I have not had luck with other films with Diafine except Kodak 5222. HP5 has ugly grain with Diafine.

Cal
 
Back in the 1970's, Bill Pierce recommended using HC-110 replenisher mixed 1:15 @ 75f for 5 minutes with Tri-X to get EI 4000 out of it.

Since HC-110 replenisher is now long gone, you could try Freestyle's Legacy Pro L-110R replenisher. I've used their L-110 developer, and as far as I can see, it works just like HC-110. So there's a good chance that L-110R works just like HC-110 replenisher did.
 
Calzone said:
I'm going to B&H later today. If you want I can buy you the kit to make a gallon of part "A" and a gallon of part "B." Even if you use a 2 liter stainless steel tank like I do there are small loses due to pouring and wetting the film.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind offer Cal and apologies if you were waiting for answer before passing to B&H, but I think I'm going to pass on the offer. Diafine would be expensive just to try out and I'd have to rely on always having it sourced from NY. Microphen is always available in town, it's cheap and comes in small 1L packs, perfect for my unpredictable shooting frequency. I also already have my development times/routine figured out, guess that makes us two lazy slackers :)
 
Jerome,

Lazy is good.

BTW I had to back order my gallon kit. They had quart kits but that is not good for me since I use a 2 liter tank.

Cal
 
U41336I1457020890.SEQ.0.jpg



TriX @ 1600, (fujica gl690 65mm f5.6) in Rodinal 1:50 as per Massive Dev chart. This has to be quite enlarged on my Omega D3 (around 11x14) to even see grain with my grain focuser. You gotta love medium format ! Peter
 
Finally found the article about pushing Tri-X to 3200 and beyond. It's a pdf posted by Emir Shabashvili and still available if you google his name and pushing Tri-X. He tried six different developer combinations and posted results as well as formulae. A very extensive test. He found the easiest way was to use Diafine twice. Google this and check it. Good advice, clearly written.
 
presspass said:
Finally found the article about pushing Tri-X to 3200 and beyond. It's a pdf posted by Emir Shabashvili and still available if you google his name and pushing Tri-X. He tried six different developer combinations and posted results as well as formulae. A very extensive test. He found the easiest way was to use Diafine twice. Google this and check it. Good advice, clearly written.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I'll give that a read. I'm running a few tests at 1600, 3200, and 6400 for Tri-X and HP5.
 
presspass said:
Finally found the article about pushing Tri-X to 3200 and beyond. It's a pdf posted by Emir Shabashvili and still available if you google his name and pushing Tri-X. He tried six different developer combinations and posted results as well as formulae. A very extensive test. He found the easiest way was to use Diafine twice. Google this and check it. Good advice, clearly written.
Click to expand...

I tried "Diafine-Times-Two." works remarkably well.

There has to be a very careful rinse to avoid contamination of part "A" with any part "B." Any contamination will destroy the part "A" and then the developer will no longer be usable.

I just bought a gallon kit from B&H that had to be back ordered that set me back $63.00.

I found that using 7+4 with Tri-X gave me a similar results and offered no danger of contamination.

Know that with standard 3+3 and minimized agitation that Tri-X has tiny grain that is only slightly bigger than Acros which I consider almost grainless, but "Diafine-Times-Two" or Diafine 7+4 has big grain.

Also know that a test roll of Kodak 5222 at 800 ISO (shot by mistake) responded very-very well to Diafine 7+4, so much so that I would consider shooting it so for the look.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Also know that Acros 5 1/2+ 5 1/2 with two inversions at 100 ISO is practically grainless. Also know that for bulb exposures using a tripod for night shooting that Acros does not have any reciprocy failure. This combination is magic for night shooting. IQ is mucho high and I can print big/huge.

If you are doing everything right basically it is a bit like HDR but you are shooting film. The highlights get limited development like in stand development. When in doubt overexpose with no worry of blown highlights.


Cal
Click to expand...

Cal,

Could you clarify the dilutions and times and temps you are using with Acros 100 MF and Diafine to yield the results mentioned. I also wasn't quite clear if you were using a yellow filter to bring out the mids with the Acros or that just applied to your Tri X comments. An example would be great, but I'd be happy with just the processing formula you are using.
I use a lot of Acros, and always looking to refine it a little more.
Thanks for any suggestions you might be able to offer.
 
presspass said:
Finally found the article about pushing Tri-X to 3200 and beyond. It's a pdf posted by Emir Shabashvili and still available if you google his name and pushing Tri-X. He tried six different developer combinations and posted results as well as formulae. A very extensive test. He found the easiest way was to use Diafine twice. Google this and check it. Good advice, clearly written.
Click to expand...

It's good to keep in mind that regenerated bath methods are for big volume processing or labs, if you shoot less than 30-40 rolls a month you're better off with a one shot developer.

I'm a bit skeptical about his use of mixed chemistry though, not to mention the needlessly laborious process it entails
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Cal,

Could you clarify the dilutions and times and temps you are using with Acros 100 MF and Diafine to yield the results mentioned. I also wasn't quite clear if you were using a yellow filter to bring out the mids with the Acros or that just applied to your Tri X comments. An example would be great, but I'd be happy with just the processing formula you are using.
I use a lot of Acros, and always looking to refine it a little more.
Thanks for any suggestions you might be able to offer.
Click to expand...

Larry,

Diafine is "Panthermic," meaning as long as the temperature is above a threshold that temperature has no effect on development. Depending on what you read that threshold is 68 degrees F (old directions) or 70 now in the new Diafine directions. Basically if your temperature is 68-70 degrees F or more don't worry.

Also realize that Diafine is not a solvent developer, so new thinking is required. Also Diafine is a two part developer (Part "A"/ Part "B"). Here's the concept: you soak your Acros in Part "A" for 5 minutes and then empty the Part "A" to be used again. Very little or almost no development takes place during these first 5 minutes, and development really begins when you place Part "B" in the tank. Basically developer soakes into the emulsion for the first 5 minutes and then that developer gets activated by Part "B." Save part "B" to also reuse again.

A lot happens because the way I use Diafine is not following the directions or recomended film speeds. The highlights only develope untill the Part "A" is exhausted, and in a way the highlights get a stand development treatment.

Diafine is also at the same time a very active developer so another different result is added shadow detail. So you get a negative that basically is hard or difficult to blow the highlights and at the same time you get additional shadow details like a larger format if you follow the stock Diafine instructions, but here is the "Calzone" twist: I underdevelope for lower contrast for a vast midrage and lower contrast. Basically I get low contrast negative when compared to a pushed negative, but I get a full range of tone in a negative that is really easy to print.

I underdevelop via reduced agitation which has a secondary benefit of smaller grain. I only do two gentle inversions instead of the recommended three. I extend the time slightly to 5 1/2+ 5 1/2, and I'm shooting Acros at box speed (100 ISO).

I only use a 2X yellow filter with Tri-X because if you don't have a high contrast condition you likely will get mucho flat negatives. You have to understand that Diafine is a two part compensating developer that is purposely designed to unwind contrast and still have fine grain. With Tri-X I shoot at 800 ISO but effectively it is 400 ISO due to filter factor from the 2X yellow.

BTW you can think of my way of using Diafine as analog HDR, but with a single exposure. For me it is a "Slacker's Brew." Also know that Diafine gets better through use after say 25-30 rolls (more mids, smoother tonality). Realize I don't mind loosing the push or film speed. Basically I'm using a compensating developer for the compensating effect and stand development of highlights for extended detail and tonal range.

Cal
 
Calzone said:
Larry,

Diafine is "Panthermic," meaning as long as the temperature is above a threshold that temperature has no effect on development. Depending on what you read that threshold is 68 degrees F (old directions) or 70 now in the new Diafine directions. Basically if your temperature is 68-70 degrees F or more don't worry.

Also realize that Diafine is not a solvent developer, so new thinking is required. Also Diafine is a two part developer (Part "A"/ Part "B"). Here's the concept: you soak your Acros in Part "A" for 5 minutes and then empty the Part "A" to be used again. Very little or almost no development takes place during these first 5 minutes, and development really begins when you place Part "B" in the tank. Basically developer soakes into the emulsion for the first 5 minutes and then that developer gets activated by Part "B." Save part "B" to also reuse again.

A lot happens because the way I use Diafine is not following the directions or recomended film speeds. The highlights only develope untill the Part "A" is exhausted, and in a way the highlights get a stand development treatment.

Diafine is also at the same time a very active developer so another different result is added shadow detail. So you get a negative that basically is hard or difficult to blow the highlights and at the same time you get additional shadow details like a larger format if you follow the stock Diafine instructions, but here is the "Calzone" twist: I underdevelope for lower contrast for a vast midrage and lower contrast. Basically I get low contrast negative when compared to a pushed negative, but I get a full range of tone in a negative that is really easy to print.

I underdevelop via reduced agitation which has a secondary benefit of smaller grain. I only do two gentle inversions instead of the recommended three. I extend the time slightly to 5 1/2+ 5 1/2, and I'm shooting Acros at box speed (100 ISO).

I only use a 2X yellow filter with Tri-X because if you don't have a high contrast condition you likely will get mucho flat negatives. You have to understand that Diafine is a two part compensating developer that is purposely designed to unwind contrast and still have fine grain. With Tri-X I shoot at 800 ISO but effectively it is 400 ISO due to filter factor from the 2X yellow.

BTW you can think of my way of using Diafine as analog HDR, but with a single exposure. For me it is a "Slacker's Brew." Also know that Diafine gets better through use after say 25-30 rolls (more mids, smoother tonality). Realize I don't mind loosing the push or film speed. Basically I'm using a compensating developer for the compensating effect and stand development of highlights for extended detail and tonal range.

Cal
Click to expand...

Cal,

Many thanks. I will give it a go, this gives me a very useful starting point. It's an effect I try to get with Acros. Will see if this takes me where I want to go.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Larry
 
Cal:
I have used you method for both Trix and Across for quite sometime now, as you have outlined in this forum for few years now, and It Sure Works! I do wet printing and I don't like to post, as what I do is for myself, and my abilities as a photographer leave to be desired. I just want to thank you for your time spent testing and sharing your experience with us. I appreciate it.

Giorgio
 
Last edited:
peppard said:
Cal:
I have used you method for both Trix and Across for quite sometime now, as you have outlined in this forum for few years now, and It Sure Works! I do wet printing and I don't like to post, as what I do is for myself, and my abilities as a photographer leave to be desired. I just want to thank you for your time spent testing and sharing your experience with us. I appreciate it.

Giorgio
Click to expand...

Giorgio,

Good for you. I have no darkroom at this point, but I have mucho wonderful negatives.

Printing is easy if you have great negatives that are detailed and have a full range of tonality. Also the idea is to shoot, develop, and print a lot. You surely will get better.

I really appreciate the acknowledgement.

Cal
 
Larry Cloetta said:
Cal,

Many thanks. I will give it a go, this gives me a very useful starting point. It's an effect I try to get with Acros. Will see if this takes me where I want to go.
Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Larry
Click to expand...

Larry,

The results are like jumping formats. My 135 resembles medium format.

A friend of mine who is a large format shooter (Linhoff) once said, "With negatives like these you don't need a 4x5," when he was looking at some of my 6x9 negatives on a light table with an 8x lupe.

Some people will say that Acros looks too digital because it is so clean and fine grain, but these same people would probably dislike large format photography.

What I found so amazing is how small and fine grained Tri-X is due to the minimized agitation. I really had to A-B film on a light table with a 8X lupe to see that the Tri-X had slightly bigger grain.

Cal
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom