Two Bath Developing?

Two Bath Developing?

  • never used two bath development

    Votes: 47 48.5%

  • used two bath development and swear by it

    Votes: 32 33.0%

  • used two bath development but remain sceptical

    Votes: 18 18.6%
  • Total voters
    97
P

photorat

Registered Abuser
Local time
10:02 PM
Joined
May 4, 2007
Messages
173
If you read this, one does indeed wonder why the hell one hasn't done it all one's life. But before I try two bath development, I wonder if anyone here has some experience with it and could testify to its effectiveness. Is this really the miracle solution for guesstimated exposures and slap-bang development?
 
I was hooked the first time I tried Diafine (2-bath). I usually shoot between 400-1600 and the exposure is fine for my taste. If I need more control over exposure, I use HC110.
 
Last edited:
With modern films there is little if any net advantage in two-bath.

I used to do it 40 years ago, with outdated FP3, and even then, it was marginal. I liked the tonality. With modern films, there's even less advantage.

It's cheap, long-lasting and if not idiot-proof, then at least idiot-resistant. But anyone who tells you it's completely independent of time and temperature, instead of tolerant of sloppy time and temperature control, is outside even the idiot-resistant camp.

Cheers,

R.
 
I used (still do when needed) Diafine for Tri-X @ 1250-1600, and like what I see. However, I'd suggest to add a 4th possible answer to the poll:

"Like it and use it occasionally"

or something like that - none of the answers you offered suits in my case :D
 
I've read that piece and I decided to do the 'two teaspoon two bath development.' I altered it, but I use it all the time. In fact, I used it today. Here are two from today:

3047049714_bc7e31cb62.jpg


3047041280_1c79d4dcb3.jpg


I couldn't resist the second one; two bath development and a Brownie Hawkeye lens (flipped) mounted on my Pentax 6x7.
 
I use Barry's 2 bath developer as my primary and Diafine for pushing tri-x.

I use the Barry's at room temperature and am not precise about the time. It seems to work great for me for Efke 25, Efke 50, Efke 100, Ilford PanF and Ilford FP4.

It certainly has proven "Idiot resistant" enough for this particular idiot.
 
Steve, my method which is just my own fooling around is to use my primary developer (in my case HC-110h or Rodinal 1+50), and then cut three minutes off my normal time time and then use 5.0 Cs (about a teaspoon and half of Twenty Mule Team Borax 500 per ml of water) for the final three minutes. Agitation stays the same. Here is one in HOC-H:

2978140323_ba2b9a1a43.jpg


Taken at AM, no inside lighting.
 
Last edited:
charjohncarter said:
Steve, my method which is just my own fooling around is to use my primary developer (in my case HC-110h and Rodinal 1+50), and then cut three minutes off my normal time time and then use 5.0 Cs (about a teaspoon and half of Twenty Mule Team Borax 500 per ml of water) for the final three minutes. Agitation stays the same. Here is one in HOC-H:

2978140323_ba2b9a1a43.jpg


Taken at AM, no inside lighting.
Click to expand...

That's interesting John. Why do you chose to do this?

BTW, I rate tri-x at 1250 iso in diafine...opinions differ on that rating, and I haven't shot enough to say anything definite either way.
 
I got started with B&W development a couple of years ago and used Diafine exclusively (mostly with Arista EDU Ultra) until it gave out a couple of months ago. I've recently been trying HC-110 dilution h with 4x5 sheets (again, Arista EDU Ultra), but it requires obviously more discipline. As an aside, I also notice that developing with HC-110 requires a bit more water (pre-soak, one-shot development and water stop). I like the idea of gaining more control over my development than Diafine offers, but I still have yet to achieve any kind of competency.

Duane
 
Duane's comment at the end is what nails it for me. I just like having more control over all the variables. Exposure to the various areas based on my pre-visualization. Development of highlights to get tonal range desired. Change exposure and development to get the contrast desired.

Depends on my goal.

And I rewind film half way all the time if I suddenly need something totally different. Only way to fight it with roll film, though my fine art work is all medium or large format so that's a lot easier. 35mm is more for street or just for having with me at random times.
 
Steve, I modified Barry's method because I wanted a little more shadow, but I didn't want to mess with all that mixing. Now I only have to put the Borax in a graduate, so one more step. Control, as Kaiyen says, is the answer, but it takes a lot of testing to great what you want. I thought I had it a year ago, but then it started doing this method. I just hope I don't get another brain storm.
 
I've been using Barry's 2-bath for a few weeks but haven't liked the results much. I've used Diafine, and usually keep some on hand because it's so useful, but it's never going to be my primary developer.
 
Perhaps I should add that when I said 'idiot proof' and 'idiot resistant' , I was NOT calling anyone an idiot for using it -- I LIKE stuff that's idiot-resistant as it greatly reduces my own chances of making stupid mistakes.

All I meant was that some users make wildly exaggerated claims for two-bath (especially Diafine, for some reason). Yes, it is very tolerant -- but equally, yes, you can go beyond even its tolerance levels, for example by using it too cool; or leaving the film so long in the first bath that significant development takes place in that bath (many two-baths can be used as fine-grain, speed-reducing developers by omitting the second bath and greatly extending the first); or not leaving the film in the second bath long enough to exhaust the developing agent; or of course any combination of the above.

It also tends to be in the nature of two-baths that they are compensating developers, so either you like the tonality for your subjects, or you don't.

Cheers,

Roger
 
I agree there is a lot of myths about Diafine in particular.

I don't get why folks claim that Tri-X is "natural" 1250 in it: shouldn't they surely notice the blank shadows?

At EI 800 it is close to what I get in EI 640 in Microphen, except highlights tend to be denser. The grain however is not nice.
 
Roger Hicks said:
But anyone who tells you it's completely independent of time and temperature, instead of tolerant of sloppy time and temperature control, is outside even the idiot-resistant camp.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and the crud that accumulates in the bottom of your diafine bottles eventually gets all over your negs:bang:
 
Matt(1pt4) said:
Indeed, and the crud that accumulates in the bottom of your diafine bottles eventually gets all over your negs:bang:
Click to expand...

Two words: Coffee filter.

Anyway, I love Tri-X in Diafine for high contrast work. 1250 seems about right. But I moved on since then. Diafine was just the first step in my 'home development' career. Fine if you know its limitations, but pretty darn handy all the same.

Posted this pic many times before. From the first roll I ever developed at home. Tri-X in Diafine rated at 1250ISO. Reason enough to stick with it I'd say.

Image037_sb.jpg
 
I certainly take on offense at the term.
I chose my processes largely because of the idiot proof factor. The level of precision needed for some aspects of photography does not appeal to me...sucks the fun right out of it.

Roger Hicks said:
Perhaps I should add that when I said 'idiot proof' and 'idiot resistant' , I was NOT calling anyone an idiot for using it -- I LIKE stuff that's idiot-resistant as it greatly reduces my own chances of making stupid mistakes.

All I meant was that some users make wildly exaggerated claims for two-bath (especially Diafine, for some reason). Yes, it is very tolerant -- but equally, yes, you can go beyond even its tolerance levels, for example by using it too cool; or leaving the film so long in the first bath that significant development takes place in that bath (many two-baths can be used as fine-grain, speed-reducing developers by omitting the second bath and greatly extending the first); or not leaving the film in the second bath long enough to exhaust the developing agent; or of course any combination of the above.

It also tends to be in the nature of two-baths that they are compensating developers, so either you like the tonality for your subjects, or you don't.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom