All I mean is that the image developed onto the sheets in bath A alone was very faint (but still visible) and may have disappeared completely if fixed. It also stands to reason that, in the process of going from dry film to fully developed, there is a point where some development has occurred that would not be visible. There is development before visible development, or you'd never get to visible development. That's all I mean.
Diafine carried a warning about not using an acid stop, which is usually a giveaway for it containing carbonate (not a problem with anything other than poorly hardened films - and it tells you how old the formula is).
https://www.flickr.com/groups/diafine/discuss/72157699627118502/
"Carbonate....not in ..recently published borate formulas..."
Not entirely clear if he means Diafine B msds formulas or substitute formulas.
Not entirely clear if he means Diafine B msds formulas or substitute formulas.
MSDS of Diafine B from 1986 mentions Carbonate-Bicarbonate in Part B
And the MSDS of part A seems to show there's enough sulphite in it to start development.
It has citric acid too. While there might be some development taking place in the first bath, most of the development takes place in the second bath unlike BTB. This is confirmed by the experiences of users who have checked film after the first bath.
The Citric Acid isn't necessarily there as a development suppressant - together with the Hexametaphosphate it will act to swell proteins (gelatin in this case), enhancing uptake of bath A - but likely not as well as a polyglycol (for example) might do when dealing with a modern vinyl ether hardened emulsion - by way of comparison, Diafine is operating at the technological level of processed cheese...
There is debate about the 1980s MSDS and whether or not there is sodium triphosphate as one of the ingredients. Sodium biphosphate and citric acid form a pretty good buffer used in biochem. Triphosphate in testing seems to also exhibit this with citric acid. This may be its primary role. In which case, a different buffer may behave just fine.
Yes, I know, but I'm told that older MSDS did have trisodium phosphate and there may be other errors in that 1980s sheet.I think @doctorpepe clarified in his flickr post that Diafine doesn't contain Sodium triphosphate by checking the CAS mentioned in MSDS of Diafine. CAS:10124-56-8 mentioned in the MSDS is Sodium hexametaphosphate.
They might have to put out a disclaimer, not to be used with Adox HR 50, as does one seller of the Bellini 2 bath.As long as the substitute developer gives higher than box speed, produces negatives that are usable and renders itself for push processing without blowing up the highlights, I guess users don't have a problem with it. Other important criteria don't probably concern them as much they do for normal developers like D-76 or XTol. Nevertheless, if there's a market for Diafine like developers, how long will it take for Adox to hit the market with its own substitute like it did for XTol? So OP and other users of Diafine should consider writing to @ADOX Fotoimpex.
There is debate about the 1980s MSDS and whether or not there is sodium triphosphate as one of the ingredients. Sodium biphosphate and citric acid form a pretty good buffer used in biochem. Triphosphate in testing seems to also exhibit this with citric acid. This may be its primary role. In which case, a different buffer may behave just fine.
Why is it that users don't notice any significant difference in the results of the two variants?
Sensitometry with a densitometer does not take into account subsequent increases in CI of shadow areas that can be obtained by scanning, at least with silverfast [vuescan IDK] and certain image processing programs, resulting in an apparent increase in shadow speed not detectable by densitometry. So your comment appears to only apply to silver gelatin printing.You would be amazed at how gross some sensitometric differences have to be for people to notice them - especially if the user already has significant uncontrolled systematic error(s) in their practices. This is particularly prevalent in cultures that group around developers that purport to silver-bullet status - and techniques like two bath and strange agitation regimes.
Sensitometry with a densitometer does not take into account subsequent increases in CI of shadow areas that can be obtained by scanning, at least with silverfast [vuescan IDK] and certain image processing programs, resulting in an apparent increase in shadow speed not detectable by densitometry. So your comment appears to only apply to silver gelatin printing.
I had this in my accumulated recipes if it's of any interest to anyone.... Comments at end are someone else's as I have no memory of the source or my results that many years back. Pasted from an old spreadsheet.
Diafine Equivalent
Solution A
Dist Water 750 ml
Sodium Sulfite 35 g
Hydroquinone 6 g
Phenidone 0.2 g
Sodium Bisulfite 6 g
Water to make 1000 ml
Solution B
Water 750 ml
Sodium Sulfite 65 g
Sodium Metaborate 20 g
Substitute 20g Borax for D-76 look.
Water to make 1000 ml
In my tests, I liked it more with only 35g sulphite in solution B (same as solution A), but this may not be to your liking.
Phenidone is very difficult to dissolve in water. So dissolve 1g phenidone in 100 cc alcohol (pure, no additives) and then add 20cc of this to solution A.
3-4 Minutes in each bath >70°F, no rinse between
Stop, fix wash as normal
I still have 4 sealed packages of Diafine available for $30 + shipping.I have 6 sealed packages of Diafine that I purchase a few years ago. If anyone is interested, let me know. thanks ---john
Wow! $64.08 for a gallon of Diafine ain’t just pocket change. Still, it would be a nice developer to have on hand. JohnW
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?