Curious about Diafine.
-
A
- Thread starter marciofs
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale 9 Rolls FUJI Fujifilm SUPERIA PREMIUM 400 27 exp 3 pro packs
- Started by orbitaldebris
-
For Sale Nikon Nikkor-H 85mm f1.8 AI'd
- Started by Oldwino
-
For Sale DAHLE 552 (20-inch) Trimmer
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Leica M2 Camera ("Body Button", No Self-Timer Type) CLA'D
- Started by Renato Tonelli
-
For Sale Agfa Super Isolette CLA'd Medium Format 6x6
- Started by Oldwino
Forum statistics
I thinked and thinked and bought Diafine with lots of difficulties and now scare to use it , waiting holly shot. I dislike HP5 and Kodak and mostly AGFA is my preferred film. I saw some Leica shots with diafine and it was matchless. Flickr is your friend.
With Diafine you sacrifice any contrast control over you negatives.
Here is a good review, if you haven't seen this yet. http://www.blackandwhitefineart.net/2011/01/diafine/
Diafine is a terrific developer. Some of my favorite negs over the last five years or so were made with 120 TMAX 400 and processed in Diafine. They are incredibly smooth, yet have tons of detail.
If you look at all of the Rodeo pics on my site, they were made that way. They are obviously all scans but the silver prints are just as succulent.
For 35mm (which I never shoot) I would probably never use anything but Diafine, although I have had some terrific preliminary results with Ilford traditional emulsion films and Two-bath Pyrocat HD. It has a lot of the same advantages of a Diafine workflow.
If you look at all of the Rodeo pics on my site, they were made that way. They are obviously all scans but the silver prints are just as succulent.
For 35mm (which I never shoot) I would probably never use anything but Diafine, although I have had some terrific preliminary results with Ilford traditional emulsion films and Two-bath Pyrocat HD. It has a lot of the same advantages of a Diafine workflow.
The two Diafine solutions can be used over and over and they do last well. However initial cost is a bit steep approximately $60 plus shipping for the gallon size. This could be a problem if you do not like the results it produces. At one time they also offered a quart size. Don't know if it is still available. The company that makes it does not manufacture its products routinely but only when stocks go down.
Last edited by a moderator:
But we can work on it during printing or scanning, right?
If I am not wrong Ilford have their version of Difine. Or am I wrong? I thought I saw it by Ilford in a shop in town.
Thank you for the feedback.
I have read it before open the topic.
I am just trying to know more about different experiences and opinion people have.
The destination is not necessary for scanning although I scan them too before decide which ones to print. But traditional prints is actually I look forwards.
I just love the idea to be able to develop different films brands and speed all together and save time.
MattKing
Moderator
In my (now quite dated) experience, Diafine developed negatives are quite different than negatives developed in what I would call "standard" developers.
In contrasty light, for some films there is an increase in shadow detail, so it can be useful for low light environments.
But if you like highlights that sparkle, don't try Diafine in low contrast light.
In contrasty light, for some films there is an increase in shadow detail, so it can be useful for low light environments.
But if you like highlights that sparkle, don't try Diafine in low contrast light.
Yes and no. You can control overall contrast by using a different grade paper. However divided developers like Diafine distort the characteristic curve for a film and this complicates things. There are some who like the convenience and do not care that much for print quality. Having experimented with it I would not personally recommend it.
Ilford never made anything like Diafine. Diafine was originally made by the Bauman company. After several different owners the company now calls itself Acufine after one of its other products.
Last edited by a moderator:
My experience is quite to the contrary. As I mentioned before I have made perfect silver prints from Diafine negs, and I'm a damn good printer.
There is no "distortion" to be seen in any of my Diafine work, just a long, gorgeous grayscale. If you ever get a neg that's a touch flat, just intensify it in 1:1 selenium.
That being said, you can make great prints with any film and developer if you know how to use it.
Marcio, you may want to read Sandy King's paper on Diafine. He posts BTZS curves and says that Diafine and other two-bath developers tend to "linearize" the curve, which may be what Gerald is referring to. In my opinion, that's a distinct advantage. The paper has enough of a curve, and if you've read up on BTZS, you'll know that often times papers and films are poor matches due to the shapes of their curves.
Most of my Diafine work with TMAX 400 has been printed on Ilford MG Warm Tone, so I cannot speak to how it reacts with other papers; but I know it's a beauty on MGWT.
Last edited by a moderator:
Two bath developers work on the principle of the developing agents exhausting themselves during development. When exhaustion occurs development in a particular region stops. Therefore development in low density portions of the negatives is increased because there is still developer present. However in higher density regions the developer is exhausted more and less development takes place. With a conventional developer all regions of a negative receive uniform development. I suppose one could use the term "linearize" to describe this. In such a print shadow regions are somewhat lighter and highlights somewhat darker. For a scene with specular highlights these would tend to be lost. So in the final analysis it depends on the choice of subject matter.
I usually have a problem with articles like the Sandy King one. They are usually incomplete and present only those things that support the authors premises. I always assume that this is by accidental omission. But whatever the intent they present a distorted picture.
Last edited by a moderator:
When I was a working PJ in the 70s and 80s I always carried a quart kit of Dinafine for emergency development in the field. It was also great when shooting in doors with flash. When I moved to Arizona I used Dinafine in the summer as it will work at almost any temp that will not melt the emulsion. Although the light is very bright in the desert it is very flat, not a strong point of Dinafine. On the other hand for very hight contrast scenes Dinafine can tame the contrast. As fine grain developer it can also be also somewhat mushy.
I built a chiller so I no longer need to deal with the high water temps in the summer. Also as mentioned it is now only available in the gallon size and runs around $50.00 not including shipping.
I have thought about getting divided D76. Anyone with experience with it?
I built a chiller so I no longer need to deal with the high water temps in the summer. Also as mentioned it is now only available in the gallon size and runs around $50.00 not including shipping.
I have thought about getting divided D76. Anyone with experience with it?
One of the things I love about Diafine is that you will always have printable highlights. Even if I have to flash a little and burn them in a touch, the detail is there.
It is not possible get the similar with stand or semi stand development?
I'm sure it is but I have very limited experience with stand development, so perhaps someone else can comment.
Thanks. I will experiment more myself and see if it works for me.
That's the best thing - try it and see if you like it. Unfortunately, as Gerald says, it's rather expensive to try if you don't like it. But it lasts so long it's very inexpensive per film if you do like it.
Years ago in college it was my only developer, as much for the price as anything but I also used it wit Tri-X to get an apparent honest 1600. I don't get that with the newest formulation of Tri-X or, to be more accurate, I don't always get it. Current Tri-X is more like TMY in that it seems slower in tungsten light. The published spectral response curve doesn't show that but it's been my experience over and over again with TMY, TMY-2, and now to a lesser degree the current Tri-X. With current Tri-x in Diafine 1600 is pretty good in daylight, say heavy overcast, but under tungsten light it's more like 1000. Still a useful little bump when you don't want to go to D3200. And as you say you can develop all your films together. It's dirt simple and easy to use, and lasts and lasts. It DOES produce rather flat negatives which I usually print on grade 3, sometimes harder. In flat light you may find yourself reaching for a 4 or harder filter or, as Parker recommends, selenium intensifying your negatives for a bit of contrast, but only in very flat light.
It works with any film but gets more effective speed increase with older style films. It was positively magic with old Tri-X and Plus-X, still really excellent with current Tri-X (and my remaining Plus-X in my refrigerator.) The box shows EI 400 for Plus-X and that's a really good speed for that combo. You really need to experiment some to mail the best speed for a given film though. The Diafine box gives good places to start for most films.
It's a bit grainier than D76 in my experience, but the slight speed bump sometimes allows the use of a finer grained film.
Another thing I use it for besides Tri-X is Pan F+. I get a solid EI 64 out of it, though some may prefer 50. Still most people find in regular developers Pan F+ is slower than box speed so it's still a useful addition, and it tames the highlights wonderfully.
Years ago in college it was my only developer, as much for the price as anything but I also used it wit Tri-X to get an apparent honest 1600. I don't get that with the newest formulation of Tri-X or, to be more accurate, I don't always get it. Current Tri-X is more like TMY in that it seems slower in tungsten light. The published spectral response curve doesn't show that but it's been my experience over and over again with TMY, TMY-2, and now to a lesser degree the current Tri-X. With current Tri-x in Diafine 1600 is pretty good in daylight, say heavy overcast, but under tungsten light it's more like 1000. Still a useful little bump when you don't want to go to D3200. And as you say you can develop all your films together. It's dirt simple and easy to use, and lasts and lasts. It DOES produce rather flat negatives which I usually print on grade 3, sometimes harder. In flat light you may find yourself reaching for a 4 or harder filter or, as Parker recommends, selenium intensifying your negatives for a bit of contrast, but only in very flat light.
It works with any film but gets more effective speed increase with older style films. It was positively magic with old Tri-X and Plus-X, still really excellent with current Tri-X (and my remaining Plus-X in my refrigerator.) The box shows EI 400 for Plus-X and that's a really good speed for that combo. You really need to experiment some to mail the best speed for a given film though. The Diafine box gives good places to start for most films.
It's a bit grainier than D76 in my experience, but the slight speed bump sometimes allows the use of a finer grained film.
Another thing I use it for besides Tri-X is Pan F+. I get a solid EI 64 out of it, though some may prefer 50. Still most people find in regular developers Pan F+ is slower than box speed so it's still a useful addition, and it tames the highlights wonderfully.
-
- Gerald C Koch
- Deleted
Accidentally post in wrong thread?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.
Marcio, You will get very sharp and slightly grainy negatives with R09 but that grain adds lots of texture to the print which I personally like.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |