Another Diafine question: Adding Restrainers?

[trythis]

I'm working on some fogged as all get out ancient film because I have hundreds of feet of it and nothing better to do with my time.

I have had some success with HC-110 and Benzotriazole at very cold temps with high concentrations of HC110, Dil A and B.

I tried Diafine and blech, Fog city!

I would like to experiment with restrainers to reduce the fog in the diafine but dont want to ruin $50 worth of chems. I would decant three 320ml containers of A and B to try different restrainers for better results. The rest of my gallon I would save for normal film and not contaminate.

Does anyone know where I should add the restrainer? Dilution A, B or both?

Also its way grainier than the HC110 results.

With HC110 I add 1% to 2% by volume Benzo. (from a 5% solution). So .05% Benzo., any more and the negs are super thin so thats where I would start with diafine; .05%.

Thanks chemists! (I am not a chemist)

 

[Gerald C Koch]

As you have found out Diafine is probably not the best choice for fogged film. So you are starting at a disadvantage. Save your Diafine for good film.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

No offense, but why waste time and money fooling with ancient film? Unless it already contains high value archival images, why bother? Your time is worth way more than any potential savings.

Just get some fresh film and get to work!

 

[Truzi]

From everything I've read, Diafine is not good with old fogged film, and HC-110 or possibly TMax Developer would work well with the proper dilutions and possibly some restrainer. There are people here who get decent results with older film, but with longer exposure times and more work in development and printing. Searching APUG you can find some good information from people who have already done this; take advantage of their work and expand the knowledge-base.

I have to believe that adding restrainer to Diafine would not help, though it sounds interesting, and if you test this idea, please post some results. (It would help to take the exact same photo repeatedly, and document EI, development, etc., so good comparisons can be made.)

There is nothing wrong with playing around and experimenting, just don't commit any "important" photos to the experiments until you are confident you can repeat the results.

 

[trythis]

No offense, but why waste time and money fooling with ancient film? Unless it already contains high value archival images, why bother? Your time is worth way more than any potential savings.

Just get some fresh film and get to work!

I am not sure I understand....(sarcasm)
I like the experimentation. I have two small kids and cannot do my normal sculpting in bronze, wood, metal and machinery. I took this up as a hobby. I can do this in my kitchen after they go to bed.
I have gallons on hc110 concentrate and hundreds of feet of old film. At this point I am just doing research for fun not as a means to an end.

I have processed 20+ rolls of this stuff at no cost to me and just want to try another developer. And I have a nice thread with my research posted.

Also, no one else has this film to experiment with. Its 1960s Eastman 320 mil spec Tri-X.

Anyway. Diafine...part A or B?


Typos made on a tiny phone...

 

[pgomena]

Diafine is intended to scrape up every bit of shadow detail. If the film is fogged, the fog is exacerbated.

Divided developers often separate the developing parts of the formula (A) from the alkaline part of the formula (B) needed to kick the developing parts into gear. If I was to try this, I would put the restrainer in the A part.

Having tried putting a benzotriazole into a film developer once-upon-a-time, I'll say that a very little goes a long way. If 1-2 oz/gallon of benzotriazole in working-strength paper developer is enough to give restraining action on paper, a few milliliters is going to have some effect. My experiment was a dismal failure, by the way. The benzotriazole really cut my film speed and the film went straight into the trash.

A low-fog developer like D-19 might be a better choice.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Two bath developers like Diafine are so different in their action from conventional development that I would not even hazard a guess.

 

[trythis]

I am able to get more shadow detail, but the midrange is gone. I get shadow and highlights only. Oh, and grain!


Typos made on a tiny phone...

 

[MattKing]

Diafine is too expensive to risk making it unusable for any purpose other than developing old, fogged film.

Its main purpose is to restrain the build-up of contrast when it is used to increase development time and therefore maximize fillm sensitivity. With old and fogged film, you are usually trying to increase contrast, not restrain its build-up.

 

[trythis]

Yeah but I'm only planning on contaminating enough for one or two rolls. The rest will stay pure.


Typos made on a tiny phone...