Availability of Diafine

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

Ok, I got it. In case of BTB, the silver density you get after first bath is substantial. I think @grahamp posted graphs for BTB first bath which showed nearly half the density gets built up in the first bath. That doesn't seem to be the case with Diafine.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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).

You're right - MSDS of Diafine B from 1986 mentions Carbonate-Bicarbonate in Part B. The composition probably changed over time.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

I too have little idea. Perhaps @doctorpepe can throw more light.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Not entirely clear if he means Diafine B msds formulas or substitute formulas.

It probably has a lot to do with assumptions made off the back of other two bath formulae that use borates in bath B rather than what Diafine used - and the version I used (nearly 18 years ago now) definitely had the warning against acid stop printed on the box.

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.

 

[jbrubaker]

I have 6 sealed packages of Diafine that I purchase a few years ago. If anyone is interested, let me know. thanks ---john

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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...

Interesting! Diafine substitutes, including the ones by @doctorpepe, have used Sodium metabisulfite interchangeably with Citric acid in Part A. Why is it that users don't notice any significant difference in the results of the two variants? And OP, an experienced user of original Diafine, too is of the opinion that the results of his formulation is similar to those of the original Diafine. Makes me wonder if any of the formulas are significantly better or well-designed than others.

 

[relistan]

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.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

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.

 

[relistan]

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.

Yes, I know, but I'm told that older MSDS did have trisodium phosphate and there may be other errors in that 1980s sheet.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

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.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.

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.
I think this is due to streaking with simple pyrazolidone based 2 baths with this and possibly other films having S-shaped curves.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

I think both Diafine formulations would form a phosphate-citrate buffer, but as they don't disclose the pH - and phosphate-citrate buffering can be adjusted over a wide range that would cover everything from a mildly active developer (Perceptol/ Microdol-X range) to an inactive one - although with anecdotal reports of slight development in bath A, it would suggest somewhere in the upper part of the buffer's pH range. However, I'm not sure that the TSP/ citric acid combination has the same potential swell effects as hexametaphosphate/ citrate - and there is visual evidence of Diafine packaging at some point a few decades ago claiming a 'new, improved' formulation, it's quite plausible that the error in the mid-80's MSDS accidentally reveals this shift to a buffer that also may deliver some gelatin swell effects.

Why is it that users don't notice any significant difference in the results of the two variants?

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.

 

[Alan Johnson]

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.

 

[Lachlan Young]

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.

Not really. Not if you want convincing shadow detail - you might see a little deeper into the shadows with a really good scan, but there's a difference between what you can retrieve and what looks good on a print. And low end scanners (Epson and the like) have such low sharpness that the bad quality of what they get out of shadows is equally muddily blurred as anything else. A high end scan & basic good technique makes it pretty clear that a thin neg is a thin neg - and there is only so much post processing you can do (or that someone is prepared to pay for) to compensate. And there are darkroom techniques for dealing with awkward shadows, but they involve register masks. The best approach is that if it works in the darkroom, it'll make a great scan - fixing it in post is largely not worth the effort.

 

[pschauss]

Yesterday the packet of Diafine (to make one gallon) that I had on backorder from Adorama showed up on my doorstep via UPS. I am not convinced that Diafine is still in production, however, because Adorama's website still lists Diafine as backordered, B&H lists it as "special order", and Freestyle does not even list it.

 

[BobD]

Diafine in stock here, it says:
https://omegabrandess.com/shop/diafine-film-developer-gallon/

 

[craigclu]

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

 

[John Wiegerink]

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

 

[albada]

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

My notes say that this formula was published in Patrick Dignan's book, Classic B&W Formulas. The author was R.W. Anderson. My notes also mention to heat water to 125 degrees F before mixing, and that there were "many reports of high fog."

Mark Overton

 

[Alan Johnson]

It's the old recipe copied from that source, sometimes thin negatives have been reported probably because there is too much bisulfite in bath A which results in little development in A.
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/diafine-home-brew.120030/#post-1590440

 

[jbrubaker]

I have 6 sealed packages of Diafine that I purchase a few years ago. If anyone is interested, let me know. thanks ---john

I still have 4 sealed packages of Diafine available for $30 + shipping.

 

[Jon Buffington]

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

I had boxes of new old stock diafine, all for mixing a gallon that I sold off years ago because I thought I had to much. Paid maybe $3-6 a box. Sold it for less than 10 a box. Now I regret that.