Blotchy Dianfine Negative

[Doc W]

This was my first attempt at tray development of 4x5 with Diafine. The film is FP4, developed for 3+3 minutes at about 80F. Agitation was 4-5 seconds every minute. Is there something I should know about Diafine so I won't get this kind of blotchy result? It was a very high contrast subject.

 

[gone]

It looks as if the developer didn't get adequately distributed over the whole neg, but that's just a guess. I've seen examples like yours more than a few times on the web using that developer in trays. All I know about Diafine is that it doesn't like much agitation and it has to be gently done. Some people advise against agitating in the second solution. I tell you, something like D76 in one bath sure sounds a lot simpler for sheet film, and it can be done at 80F if you compensate w/ no problems.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've never developed sheet film in trays. When I use Diafine with 4x5 I use deep tanks and hangers, which seem to work just fine - no problems. Considering you re-use Diafine over and over there isn't really any advantage in solution volume from using trays. But of course if you already have trays and not deep tanks and hangers then there's that.

Good luck sorting it out. I like it for some of my 4x5.

 

[Doc W]

Thanks guys. This is very helpful. The pdf on Diafine says the temperature range is 70F to 85F and the only reason I picked a higher temperature is that my darkroom is quite cold and small amounts of chemistry cool off quickly. I used the tray, not to save chemistry but simply because I used to use trays for sheet film and don't have tanks. I now use a Jobo. But I bet that somewhere in the back of my mind was lurking a "save on developer" ethic! I am now thinking that with a developer which requires the bare minimum of agitation, the more chemistry there is, the better.

I don't have deep tanks but I do have a small tank for 4x5 that I think is a Yankee. The film fits into curved slots and I think it will work as well as the tank/hanger system for this particular situation. I will have to dig it up from the basement and blow the dust off first.

 

[StephenT]

I prerinse my film before the 1st solution. Some say that is a no-no, some say it is necessary. It works for me. Maybe give it a try.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

I prerinse my film before the 1st solution. Some say that is a no-no, some say it is necessary. It works for me. Maybe give it a try.

If I recall correctly from a number of discussions here and on LFPF, using a pre soak with Diafine is self defeating. With an emulsion that is already pre-swelled with water, it can't take in the amount of developer to do the job. I think this is a critical issue with Diafine since it is a divided developer and works at mostly uniform times of 3 or 4 minutes. I've had no trouble with Diafine but I've used on 120 only so far and in daylight tanks. And no pre-soak.

 

[RobC]

my guess is that they are caused by fingers which are either leaving oils from your skin on negative or more likely rubbing up the negative which increases development where you are touching them.

rubbing areas of prints to increase devlopment is a technique used by some people. But being prints that darkens those areas whereas with negatives it will result in lighter (blotchy) areas.

But of course if you didn't touch the neg image area when loading/unloading holders or in the dev or fix then it won't be that.

very important not to touch image area of negs when handling them.

 

[Doc W]

my guess is that they are caused by fingers which are either leaving oils from your skin on negative or more likely rubbing up the negative which increases development where you are touching them.

rubbing areas of prints to increase devlopment is a technique used by some people. But being prints that darkens those areas whereas with negatives it will result in lighter (blotchy) areas.

But of course if you didn't touch the neg image area when loading/unloading holders or in the dev or fix then it won't be that.

very important not to touch image area of negs when handling them.

Rob, I think this may also be part of the problem. I think I fondled that neg a little too much to make sure it wasn't sticking to the bottom of the tray. I am going to use that tank I described so I won't have to touch the neg at all.

 

[wblynch]

Or Taco

 

[Doc W]

Or Taco

???

 

[MattKing]

???

One example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/sets/72157627864733730/

And another: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And an entire Mexican smorgasbord of examples: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=taco%20development%20method

 

[RobC]

how does taco apply to tray processing which is what OP was doing ?

 

[MattKing]

Rob, I think this may also be part of the problem. I think I fondled that neg a little too much to make sure it wasn't sticking to the bottom of the tray. I am going to use that tank I described so I won't have to touch the neg at all.

how does taco apply to tray processing which is what OP was doing ?

See above.

 

[RobC]

See above.

the tank he has is already fitted with 4x5 film slots so using taco method shouldn't be required.

and don't try and load two sheets back to back in one slot as they stick together unless you have a separator of some kind between them.

 

[Doc W]

One example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/digi-film/sets/72157627864733730/

And another: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

And an entire Mexican smorgasbord of examples: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=taco%20development%20method

OK, I get it. I have never used this method because I have other options for sheet film but a friend of mine does and gets very good results. I will probably use that tank I mentioned for Dianfine.

 

[Doc W]

Well, the tank was a bust. The development was uneven on the edges. I went back to a small tray, keeping in mind that touching the neg must be kept to a minimum, but this didn't work either. I am guessing NOT ENOUGH agitation this time because there were several lines in the neg corresponding to the ribs in the tray.

I was about to give up before I thought that the 4x5 drum I use with my Jobo CPE-2 might work. It is one of those which holds six negs in a reel. The advantage is that I can do all this in daylight once the tank is loaded and I don't have to touch the film at all. Since Diafine calls for only slight agitation, the fact that the Jobo tank can't be inverted is not a big deal. The Jobo tank worked just fine. There was no mottling and it was way easier to do. At some point, I may try the taco method also, although the Jobo, admittedly used incorrectly, worked great.

I figure that for sheet film, Diafine is meant to be used in a tank with film in hangers.

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't know how it was meant to be used but I already had the hangers and deep tanks as that was what I used for 4x5 before I got my Jobo. I've never tried Diafine in the Jobo since it works so well with the hangers and tanks, but there you go - problem solved and with the long life of Diafine there is absolutely no disadvantage to the fact it needs a lot of solution used that way.

I have read others say that Diafine actually works fine with rotary processing too, package warnings or no, but is just very sensitive to uneven agitation, but since I have my own method that works I've never tried it.

 

[Doc W]

... but is just very sensitive to uneven agitation...

Roger, I think you hit the nail on the head. Whether deep tanks or a Jobo tank (used incorrectly) or probably taco - all work as long as we resist the temptation to mess with it while percolating.

The one problematic method I found was a tray with ribbed bottom.