Trius
Waiting on Maitani
eric mac: what you said.
Slainte,
Trius
Slainte,
Trius
V
varjag
Guest
I scratch mix my developers from expired aerial film development kits, these days it is usually Microphen substitute. I often shoot in available darkness so that extra notch of speed comes handy. Microphen or other speed enchancing developers are great when you intend to push film. I only ever pushed Tri-X to 1600, but I do like the results:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9472&cat=5069&page=1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15945&cat=500&page=1
I've used D-76, stock and 1:1, and Russian ST-2 developer; both are in the same league. The supposed finer grain of these developers isn't obvious enough to me though to justify lesser effective speed.
Hope to mix some Diafine one day, but so far I can't locate its crucial component, kodalk, anywhere here in Minsk.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9472&cat=5069&page=1
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=15945&cat=500&page=1
I've used D-76, stock and 1:1, and Russian ST-2 developer; both are in the same league. The supposed finer grain of these developers isn't obvious enough to me though to justify lesser effective speed.
Hope to mix some Diafine one day, but so far I can't locate its crucial component, kodalk, anywhere here in Minsk.
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
S
sunsworth
Guest
Xtol for most things - diluted 1:3 where that works. Rodinal for the slower Efke films - i.e. ISO 25 & 50.
Steve
Steve
impact07
Mayor McCheese
Diafine for pretty much everything.
V
varjag
Guest
Inedeed titrisol, but creating kodalk requires precise weighting and high temperatures, not something I can do easily yet. Don't have pure Natrium to obtain NaOH so far, too.
x-ray
Veteran
Ilford HC 1:31with delta 100 & 400 and Rodinal 1:25 or 1:50 with Efke 25. HC-110 will do if i don't have Ilford HC.
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045
siverta
Member
Any homepage for Diafine so I can read up on the tech-specs?
It seems a bit strange that dev.time is not that important, and that it can be used "forever" and with different filmspeeds (and filmtypes) in one go.
As I have gathered, Rodinal and Diafine seems to be the favourite developer. Perhaps we are all a bit lazy =)
Sivert
It seems a bit strange that dev.time is not that important, and that it can be used "forever" and with different filmspeeds (and filmtypes) in one go.
As I have gathered, Rodinal and Diafine seems to be the favourite developer. Perhaps we are all a bit lazy =)
Sivert
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Siverta,
I believe that Diafine is a 2-bath developerv (I have never used it) which explains its properties.
Two-bath developers are interesting things. All the dev agent is contained in bath 1, with only enough sulphite to act as a preservative, while the active alkali is in bath 2. Development in bath 1 alone is very slow -- 15-20 minutes -- but the normal drill is a variable time in bath 1 (to control the amount of solution A imbibed) followed by a fixed time in bath 2, where ijn effect, all the dev agent from solution A is used up.
This is why time and temperature are less critical than for conventional devs: the rate of imbibition in the first bath is reasonably constant regardless of temperature (though as noted, time should be varied, shorter for slow film, longer for fast film), while development in the second bath need only be long enough to exhaust the first bath: in other words, it can be prolonged a great deal, but not shortened below the point where the dev agent is used up.
It also explains the long life: A is a stock solution, with the long life that implies, and B isn't a developer at all, just an alkaline solution, so there's nothing to go off.
The way in which films of different speeds can be developed for the same time can be explained in several ways, not all of them flattering. First, there is the enormous flexibility inherent in B+W photography, despite the maunderings of the Zone System. Second, there is the fact that many people are just plain sloppy and don't care about small variations in speed and density.
Third, as Diafine is promoted (I believe) as a speed-increasing developer, the soak time in A is presumably long enough to ensure a high level of imbibition in any film, which is therefore 'pushed' to a greater or lesser degree, i.e. the contrast varies quite widely, higher (and with more of a push) for slow films, closer to normal (less of a push) with faster films.
In other words, it isn't a speed increasing developer in the same sense as Microphen or DDX, which give higher toe speed at ISO contrast, but merely a means of over-developing with an inbuilt limit on the degree that you can over-develop (the dev agent runs out).
Lest anyone take this as a personal attack on them for using Diafine or other 2-bath developers, it isn't: if it works for you, it works for you. I used the Leitz 2-bath formula in the 60s with HP4 and got nice tonality, but when I made some up again a few years ago I saw no advantages and reverted to proprietary developers.
Likewise, I don't much care for Rodinal: lovely tonality with some (but not all) films, but big grain and poor film speed. Because there's a wild excess of dev agent in it, the stuff lasts forever, and I suspect (perhaps unkindly) that this is why so many people like it so much: it's cheap and long-lived. Again, if it works for you, don't knock it.
Cheers,
Roger
I believe that Diafine is a 2-bath developerv (I have never used it) which explains its properties.
Two-bath developers are interesting things. All the dev agent is contained in bath 1, with only enough sulphite to act as a preservative, while the active alkali is in bath 2. Development in bath 1 alone is very slow -- 15-20 minutes -- but the normal drill is a variable time in bath 1 (to control the amount of solution A imbibed) followed by a fixed time in bath 2, where ijn effect, all the dev agent from solution A is used up.
This is why time and temperature are less critical than for conventional devs: the rate of imbibition in the first bath is reasonably constant regardless of temperature (though as noted, time should be varied, shorter for slow film, longer for fast film), while development in the second bath need only be long enough to exhaust the first bath: in other words, it can be prolonged a great deal, but not shortened below the point where the dev agent is used up.
It also explains the long life: A is a stock solution, with the long life that implies, and B isn't a developer at all, just an alkaline solution, so there's nothing to go off.
The way in which films of different speeds can be developed for the same time can be explained in several ways, not all of them flattering. First, there is the enormous flexibility inherent in B+W photography, despite the maunderings of the Zone System. Second, there is the fact that many people are just plain sloppy and don't care about small variations in speed and density.
Third, as Diafine is promoted (I believe) as a speed-increasing developer, the soak time in A is presumably long enough to ensure a high level of imbibition in any film, which is therefore 'pushed' to a greater or lesser degree, i.e. the contrast varies quite widely, higher (and with more of a push) for slow films, closer to normal (less of a push) with faster films.
In other words, it isn't a speed increasing developer in the same sense as Microphen or DDX, which give higher toe speed at ISO contrast, but merely a means of over-developing with an inbuilt limit on the degree that you can over-develop (the dev agent runs out).
Lest anyone take this as a personal attack on them for using Diafine or other 2-bath developers, it isn't: if it works for you, it works for you. I used the Leitz 2-bath formula in the 60s with HP4 and got nice tonality, but when I made some up again a few years ago I saw no advantages and reverted to proprietary developers.
Likewise, I don't much care for Rodinal: lovely tonality with some (but not all) films, but big grain and poor film speed. Because there's a wild excess of dev agent in it, the stuff lasts forever, and I suspect (perhaps unkindly) that this is why so many people like it so much: it's cheap and long-lived. Again, if it works for you, don't knock it.
Cheers,
Roger
T_om
Well-known
siverta said:
I have used Diafine for literally decades. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask.
As for a formal "home page" for Diafine, I do not believe there is one. However, do a search on this site and you will find LOTS of Diafine info. Also, a Google search will turn up tons of stuff.
Tom
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
I scratch mix my developers, as well. Right now I'm primarily using a 2 bath/split D23, but recently I've mixed a D76 variant (both as a whole and split), and FX15.
Last edited:
Poptart
Screw Loose & Fancy-Free
Eric Mac: I have that same Argoflex75 camera; how's it do? (I've yet to try mine out.) Cheers!
mattmills
madman (w/ camera)
I'm using d-76 straight for tmax 400, 5 minutes at 76 degrees. and my push formula is a two bath variant (lots of extra accelerator in the first bath, with a longer time) that only sort of makes sense; it's explained in another thread, anyway.
Matt
Matt
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Matt,
Accelerator in the first bath? I am intrigued. What's the other thread?
Cheers,
Roger
Accelerator in the first bath? I am intrigued. What's the other thread?
Cheers,
Roger
N
Nick R.
Guest
Outside of the recommended minimum, time in either bath has no effect with diafine. In bath A, the emulsion soaks up as much developer as it can hold and no more, no matter how long it stays there. In bath B, once the developer absorbed in bath A is exhausted, no further development takes place no matter how long it soaks. This is unlike most other two stage developers.
projectbluebird
Film Abuser
For a long time I used HC-110 (dil B) because that's what we had at the darkroom here. I works quite well with HP5+@200. But after a temporary switch to ID-11 while the HC-110 was on backorder, I have to say, I like that too!
and of course, when grain is paramount, nothing beats Rodinol@1:25 or more.
and of course, when grain is paramount, nothing beats Rodinol@1:25 or more.