Anybody not like Diafine?

Lacking real darkroom access and not wanting to pay $5 a roll, I'm going to start developing my own B&W film again and thought I'd ask for recommendations.

I'm limited to a couple of old faucets not known for their fine adjustability (and questionable temperature consistency in general), so I'll have to rely on the room-temp method (which is usually 72-4 inside, give or take).

I figure the easiest way around problems is to use Diafine, but I imagine there are scenarios when it's inappropriate (or its tonality may not lend itself to a good print all the time). I'm shooting Tri-X until my stack runs out (10 more rolls), then proceeding from there using classic-style films, from Freestyle and J&C.

What other developers should I look for that give a good negative at less than optimum conditions? HC-110? I haven't been excited by the D76 negs I develop at the uni lab but that may just be a function of shared facilities and chemicals.

Thanks,
MP

I've never used diafine, so I cant say. However, I use D-76 for mostly everything, and I've never seen a problem with it. When I first started, I was running off of old, used chems. for a long time, and didn't even have a thermometer, so temperature was not anywhere close to constant, and I got excellent results. I have also used HC-110 with good results (and a bottle of the stuff lasts forever. The other choice for inconsistent conditions seems to be Rodinal, as it apparently is not very affected by temperature changes, You'll have to get one of the Rodinal "substitutes" now, though, unless you can find a supplier with a lot of stock, as AGFA is no more ...

Celluloid, I reasoned the same way as you do when I was getting back into developing my own film. There's a lot of hype around Diafine, so I gave it a shot, but I was disappointed.

The thing is this: Diafine will develop each film to a specific contrast, regardless of temperature and time. If that's not the right contrast, then there's nothing you can do about it. (I experimented with diluting sol A, but then it dies quickly). In general, Diafine gives too much contrast and grain. You might find a film that Diafine develops perfectly, but I don't know which that would be - it's not Tri-X.

Also, I found the claims made about speed gain to be baseless. The higher contrast may make it look like you get more speed, but if you look at zone 1, it does no better than most developers.

Bottom line: I'd go with HC-110 instead.

D-76 and Rodinal are probably the universal developers. Diafine is convenient but really accentuates grain.

You might look into divided D-76 formulas on the web. This would give the convenience of Diafine combined with the properties of D-76.

What is it about D-76 you didn't like?

I like Diafine, but I don't use it much because EI 1600 on Tri-X is very inconvenient if you lack a 1/1000 shutter. Shoot Plus-X at EI 400 and you'll find you might as well use Tri-X in a more common developer -- and while Diafine does in fact gain some real speed, it isn't the two stops they claim for Tri-X and Plus-X.

I probably do 95% or more of my film developing in HC-110. The syrup keeps forever, it works well in high dilutions (3 ml minimum syrup per roll, makes a bottle of syrup last a long time), gets good film speed with dilution and reduced agitation, and can be used for full stand development as well. Or, if you like, you can get things done very quickly with Dilution B -- many films are under five minutes in the "standard" dilution.

Temperature compensation with HC-110 is easy, just look at the nomograph and read off the new time where the diagonal from your original time crosses the actual temperature (nomograph obtainable from a number of sources, including Kodak's tech sheet). However, the "classic films" you talk about aren't the best candidates for elevated temperature development. You can probably get a water bath within a degree even with faucets that give maximum hot or maximum cold, and are all on or all off, with just a little patience; use that to temper your solutions and your tank, and you can still develop everything at 68 F. If you're shooting Classic Pan, Pro 100, or Efke, that'd be recommended, along with a water stop bath.

I've seen excellent prints from a lot of film/developer combinations. When I used Diafine I did a test roll of Delta 100 in 120. Results looked the same rated at 200 ISO. I don't think it does well with HP5+ tho, but it's been awhile since I've shot that and used Diafine to develop it. I don't know what format your shooting, but if it's 35mm I'd probably go with Xtol, maybe the HC110.

I'm limited to a couple of old faucets not known for their fine adjustability (and questionable temperature consistency in general), so I'll have to rely on the room-temp method (which is usually 72-4 inside, give or take).

Click to expand...

Only the developer requires close temperature regulation and for B&W that can happily be at room temperature regardless of the developer used. You do not have to choose a special developer to account for different ambient temperatures. Ilford data sheets for example have a chart showing how to adjust the development time for different temperatures in the range of 14C to 28C (55 - 77F). Other film & developer manufacturers have similar charts.

Pick any developer you like and just develop it at whatever your ambient temperature may be using the charts to adjust the time...

Failing that, standardize on 75F and use a water bath to maintain the temperature of the film tank & developer for the few minutes of processing necessary.

Good luck! Bob.

MP,

I have succesfully used Diafine quite a bit, both with Tri-x (e.i. 1250) and Macophot/Efke films. With tri-x, you may find that this film & developer combination is excellent for indoor and night shots, but mediocre for daytime use. With other films, I suggest shooting a roll and experimenting with a variety of speeds, and judging the film not by what grade it prints in, but how the print looks like. For instance, with the Macophot film, I like the prints at e.i. 200, even though they only print at max contrast. I can shoot at e.i. 100 and print at a grade 2, 2.5, but find the look unappealing.

Whichever route you take, I wish you the best of luck.

Take care,

André

Thanks to everyone for the information. I've always been under the impression that higher temps gave a substandard image in terms of grain and tonality (courtesy of my first photo teacher).

As to D76 1:1, I can't say exactly what my issues were it just never made me happy - some of the problems (less sharp than expected, grain) may have been a function of my printing and agitation procedures. I'll have to give the developer a try under my home conditions.

IMHO Diafine is good for mainly two situations: when you want a very "flat" negative with low contrast, or when you want to scan the negative and adjust contrast on a per shot basis. OK, a third situation: when you shot a roll at varying and/or unsure exposures and want to avoid blocked up highlights & shadows.

I mostly ignore the speed gain issue and shoot at box speed or thereabouts. So far, so good. But I don't do wet printing (yet?) so low contrast in the negative is an asset rather than a liability. Diafine's current popularity is probably based on it being easy to scan.

I thought I understood the temperature issue to be something about variations in temperature being a risk for grain clumping and reticulation (if those are separate things). I just fill up a sink at around 78 degrees for Diafine and float bottles of the various chemicals and rinses in the sink. I do the same for other developers, but I take a little time to get the temperature to 68 degrees. If it changes, it's gradual.

I use HC-110 to process all my Tri-X rolls to date. I live in a hot and humid country and can't be bothered to control temperature with ice and water baths - I just mix in a little cold water from the fridge with warm tap water. HC-110 at 1+100 with Tri-X gives me negs I'm pleased with; and the same combination seems to work with Ilford HP5+ as well.

Haven't tried Diafine yet; from the feedback in this thread, I probably don't intend to either.

I mainly use Rodinal and have just started to experiment with Diafine.

I think if you're going to be scanning, then Diafine will be OK, as you can do your tweaks when you PP your images. I found it does look nice with TriX (120).

If you want to be able to have more control over the final look of the negatives, then perhaps a developer like Rodinal (or clone) or HC110 or similar would be better. These have excellent keeping qualities; you mix them up when needed and discard (one-shot).

It is not hard to control the temperature - just fill the sink with water at the appropriate temperature and put all your chemicals in there. When mixing the developer syrup (Rodinal, HC110, etc.), fill a measuring jug with water at the right temp. and then mix the developer. It is the developer that is most temperature critical, although the other chemicals should be at a similar temperature to avoid unpredictable results (reticulation).

I love the effect of Diafine on Tri-X: for some applications. If you are looking for minimal grain and a broad, subtle tonal range, look elsewhere. From-the-hip street photography: excellent. Landscapes: not so much. Large negs and smallish prints: excellent. Small negs and large prints: not so much.

Here's a formula for divided D-76 I found:

Bath A
metol 2gm
sodium sulfite 100gm
hydroquinone 5 gm
potassium bromide 1 gm
water to make 1 liter

Bath B
Borax 60gm
water to make 1 liter

Give the films 3 minutes in bath A followed by 2-3 minutes in bath B for slow films or 3-4 minutes for fast films. Discard bath B after one use.

Joe

just developed a roll of Pan F+ in diafine yesterday and printed some 5x7's last nite. negs were 6x7 from bronica GS-1. ei 80. found contrast to be a bit high, but i like contrasty prints. did have some good mid-tones though. i did try a roll of ilford 3200 exposed under "good luck, dude" conditions. it tanked, but i wasn't surprised. diafine does well with traditional films, but not so well with the newer stuff. as far as the pan f, had a reallly hard time focusing with magnifier. very,very fine grained, but the prints were not a bit mushy. i read that diafine is indeed temperature sensitive, and best kept 70 to 72. try it, but keep your 00 to 01 grade printing filters handy. i think you will like it. speed wise, it is very flexible, but work your way up. a simple film test should answer your questions.
jim

celluloidpropaganda said:

...so I'll have to rely on the room-temp method (which is usually 72-4 inside, give or take)...

Thanks,
MP

Click to expand...

Working in fluctuating ambient temps isn't a problem if:

Your developer works slowly enough that 75? isn't going to give short times,
and if you have good data for different times.

Why NOT D-76 1:1 ?

It will do everything well, Kodak's data is excellent, and it manages warm temps as well as cool.

Here is Kodak's .pdf file for TX:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4017/f4017.pdf

I wouldn't be overly concerned about the increase in grain at 72-74 degrees...in my experience (and this is only in my experience), there is an increase in grain at those temperatures but it's not awful. I used to do a lot of my film in D-76 at 74 degrees during the summer months, and I didn't find the grain to be too problematic.

Regarding Diafine: I did some experiments with it earlier this year, and although the concept is interesting I find that I'm happier with the negatives I get from the other developers that I use. The one thing that I keep the Diafine around for is rolls of film on which I ended up switching speeds due to dramatic changes in light (coming indoors in the evening, for example). I don't think the Diafine negatives are great, but they are printable and sometimes I want the image enough to give up some control to get it.

Be well.
Dave

I have rarely, if ever, encountered a diafine-developed negative that I liked much. My preferences are for HC-110 and Rodinal.

While temperature control may seem inconvenient, a little work is all it takes, and it's always worth it. It's always worth the effort to get negs right. "Tweaking in PP [i.e., Photoshop et al]" rather than making the effort is really a bad idea.

Earl

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00BL6U

Lex has some good info here.

I have never met a diafine neg I liked either.

lee\c

Diafine is good when you have a low light, high contrast situation to contend with. Of all the films I've used with this developer, Tri-X seems to work the best at EI 1250 to 1600. So I look at it as a specialty developer, not as a panacea. Buy a gallon sized package and you'll have enough to last a very long time since it doesn't go bad and can be reused many times over. I use it more often during the winter months when the days are short and l do more shooting under streetlights.

lots of negative feedback against diafine. i think it needs to be worked with to get the best from it. if you intend to shoot different lighting conditions, adjust your ei up or down. simple enough. in my previous post, i indicated that i had shot pan f at ei 80, not much of a bump. will try at 100 and see what happens. another alternative is acufine. i have adopted this as my replacement for d-76. finer grained, full speed. i use it diluted 1:1 or 1:3.
jim

Back in the mid-'70s when I had the time, youth, and enthusiasm for this kind of messing around, I did a lot with Divided D-76 and had very good luck with it, especially when I needed very long-scale negs. But the chemicals have to be mixed in a specific order; find a good article on the subject before just dumping them into a jug.

An advantage of DD-76 is that you can use a big tank and develop everything -- PX, TX, FX, FP4, HP5, ... -- together, since the emulsion thickness and thus the amount of developer absorbed varies with the speed. If you have a carload of different films to develop at once, this is handy, as long as they have all been exposed at around their nominal ASA.

Another trick is to use normal D-76 1:1 for the first bath without agitation (other than the bubble knock) for about half the normal time, then put the film in the B bath shown with the recommended agitation. Lose about half a stop but lots of compensation effect.

I used Diafine at one point, was not impressed. However, with TX or HP5 it produced between a half and a full stop speed increase (probably from the phenidone) without excessive grain if you use the Diafine A and the DD-76 B. Save the Diafine B for cleaning your oven.

When using any divided developer, a water rinse (fill tank--agitate--dump & fill again) before the stop is a good idea; the B baths are much more alkaline than normal developers and a rinse reduces the chemical shock to the emulsion.

Damn, this makes me wish I still had the time ...

The only time that I use a divided developer like Diafine in when I have a roll of film taken with a simple camera that has no exposure adjestement. This type of developer helps to even out the exposure errors. I find the expsure indices given by Diafine to be rather inflated.