Acros/APX100 + Diafine/PC-Glycol/510-Pyro Combination for Rainy Days or Indoors

[tranquibra]

I have Diafine, PC-Glycol and 510-Pyro in stock. I also have limited supply of Acros and AGFA APX100. The enlargement will be no more than 11x14. I'm now mulling what combination could be the best comprise for low contrast scenes, such as cloudy/rainy days during travel or in museums.

I tried Diafine with Acros and APX100 for low contrast scenes (EI200) and the negatives look flat. But I do like its flexibility for varying EIs in one development tank. I'm thinking if 510-pyro could be used for up to 1 stop push via semi-stand development if needed. If you have any experience, could you please share some tips?

Thanks a lot.

 

[albada]

I have Diafine, PC-Glycol and 510-Pyro in stock. I also have limited supply of Acros and AGFA APX100. The enlargement will be no more than 11x14. I'm now mulling what combination could be the best comprise for low contrast scenes, such as cloudy/rainy days during travel or in museums.
I tried Diafine with Acros and APX100 for low contrast scenes (EI200) and the negatives look flat. But I do like its flexibility for varying EIs in one development tank. I'm thinking if 510-pyro could be used for up to 1 stop push via semi-stand development if needed. If you have any experience, could you please share some tips?
Thanks a lot.

Not Diafine, as you discovered the hard way. Diafine reduces contrast, and if the scene is already low contrast, your negs will be doubly flat. If you don't want to print on a higher grade, then as a general rule, overdeveloping normally-exposed neg's will boost their contrast. That'll work with PC-Glycol, but I have no experience with Pyro-type soups.

Mark Overton

 

[john_s]

I couldn't get much speed out of 510-Pyro, not as much as Pyrocat-HD or PMK. I gave up on it. Most developers will give higher contrast if enough development time is given.

 

[tranquibra]

Thank you all for your feedback. I think I will give 510-Pyro a shot because I have not only a larger stockpile of it than Diafine and PC-Glycol, but good results with Neopan 400 in the past.

 

[john_s]

Thank you all for your feedback. I think I will give 510-Pyro a shot because I have not only a larger stockpile of it than Diafine and PC-Glycol, but good results with Neopan 400 in the past.

Please let us know how it goes.

 

[tranquibra]

Finally got chance to develop 2 rolls: APX100 in Diafine (5+5@20C) and Acros in 510-pyro semi-stand (1:300@21C, 30 mins, continuous inversion for the 1st min and 30 secs gentle inversion at 10, 20 mins). There is no post scan processing for all attached photos except for scaling.

It's not a strictly apple-to-apple comparison because of 2 different films souped in 2 different developers. Also both rolls were taken at different time, about 3 weeks apart from each other (apx 1st, acros 2nd), so the tree leaves changed color on one large maple tree. Nevertheless, it's still interesting to observe some differences.

For Acros@EI200, it seems that in 1 stop push (via 510-Pyro) the highlight is a little blown out comparing with 2-bath (Diafine) for the low contrast (LC) scene. But the overall tone in 510-Pyro is not compressed as much as in Diafine, so the LC scene appears to be a little less "muddy" in 510-pyro push. The shade separation also seems to be a little better in 510-Pyro than in Diafine(or maybe this is just some personal wishful thinking). However, for the high contrast (HC) scene, at EI200, I personally like the crispy highlight rendered in Diafine than 1 stop push in 510-Pyro. Also the loss in shadow details is (significantly?) less in Diafine.

Diafine_APX100_HC_EI100: Diafine_APX100_LC_EI100:

Diafine_APX100_HC_EI200: Diafine_APX100_LC_EI200:

510Pyro_ACROS_HC_EI100: 510Pyro_ACROS_LC_EI100:

510Pyro_ACROS_HC_EI200: 510Pyro_ACROS_LC_EI200:

For some still subjects with only natural ambient light available, indoor or outdoor, I only tried 1-stop push in 510-Pyro. I think I like the a little higher contrast I got from EI200 with Acros.

510Pyro_BARK_EI100: 510Pyro_BARK_EI200:

510PyrRCHID_EI100: 510PyrRCHID_EI200:

I haven't printed test negatives on VC paper yet, but I believe that can be done easily well just by visually inspecting them. The APX100 density is very uniform from Diafine, while Acros carries very light (if not faint) stain from 510-Pyro at 1:300 dilution. The 30 mins figure I used for 510-Pyro comes from 6 (Acros@EI100) x 1.4 (1-stop push in compensating dev) x 3 (1:300 dilution) x 1.2 (20-25% compensation).

In summary, IMO there is no clear winner. But for my travel in an overcast or rainy weather, I think I will bank on the 1-stop push via 510-Pyro more than on Diafine. What do you think?

 

[Jim Noel]

If what you call PC Glycol is Pyrocat HD in Glycol, you are overlooking your best bet. I use this all the time to make negatives for salt prints which require a very long scaled negative. With 2+2+100 dilution an increase of more than 2 zones is possible. Other dilutions produce even more contrast. It will out perform 510 Pyro and Diafine with ease. Of course, increasing time along with altering dilution will increase contrast. If your standard development time with Pyrocat HD is 10 minutes, 14 minutes will increase highlight density by one approximately stop. Increasing temperature will also help.

 

[tranquibra]

Jim, thanks for your tip on the Pyrocat-HD in Glycol. I only have the plain vanilla PC-Glycol.