• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Diafine capacity

Harry Lime

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
495
Format
35mm RF
I just developed my first batch of Tri-X @ 1600 in Diafine and so far everything looks good. I mixed up a gallon of the stuff, because I shoot about 40 rolls a month (Tri-X@1250-1600)

Does anyone know roughly what the capacity of a gallon of Diafine is?
100 rolls?

Are there any telltale signs that it is going south?
Oder? Color? Simply produces weak negs?

Is there a way to test it? A few drops of A and B on a tail of film?

Does Diafine die slowly or fail suddenly?


Also one question about agitation in bath B. I assume that since this is a divided developer, less is more. No agitation? Five sec every minute? That would be far too much with something like Barry Thornton's 2-Bath.

Thanks,

HL
 
From my experience it dies slowly & you judge by looking at the negs. I would recommend making a test strip when the dev is fresh & keeping that on hand as a control. e.g. have 6 frames with perhaps one frame a midtone, another a few stops over a midtone & the rest just average scenes.
Every 50 rolls or few months approx shoot some similar frames on a current roll & compare to the control. You'll know it's going off because the highlights will start to look thin.

I agitate bath B the same as A. That's what the instructions say & it works for me. Only difference to the box is that I agitate 5 secs every 30, whereas the box says 5 every 60.
 
I'm just new to this developer, and will post some prints when they are dry, but so far, I'm impressed with this stuff.
 
The stuff will last forever. Simply keep topping up the two solutions as it is used up.

It will run a little hot at first, then mellow out, and become quite lovely.

We used to shoot interns at the newspaper for throwing out the old Diafine.

Use Goldie's advice for good common sense.
 
Harry, there's globs of info re: Diafine on here, however, you've asked some good questions. A recent thread at photo.net was about the death of Diafine. I'll try to dig it up for you.

Most folks agitate the "B" bath, but a few don't. They say by agitating the "B", you are washing out the "A" before it can do its job. Perhaps a throrough search will turn up that thread.

40 rolls a month? YEAH!

Here's the link:http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00RFmz

But, this is why you should top-off the old with new!
 
Don, do you top it off with fresh developer?
- Thomas
 


For topping off would you suggest dumping half and replacing it with a fresh batch?
How about dumping 4/3 of the tank?

thanks
 
jim appleyard said:
Most folks agitate the "B" bath, but a few don't. They say by agitating the "B", you are washing out the "A" before it can do its job. Perhaps a throrough search will turn up that thread.
Click to expand...

I was curious about that, too. I use Barry Thornton's 2-Bath or DD76 for my 400 speed work and agitating in bath B is a big no, no. You end up with thin negatives and less shadow / highlight detail if you do so.

I'm going to have to run some tests on Diafine to see if it behaves in the same manner.

40 rolls a month? YEAH!
Click to expand...

YEAH, BABY!


Working on a longterm project over here and depending on how much free time I have I burn through 2-4 bricks of Tri-X a month.

Here's the
link:http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00RFmz

But, this is why you should top-off the old with new!
Click to expand...


thanks


HL
 
When I mix up a batch I separate it into 2 halves (each of A and B). Use one half as the developer and one half as replenisher. Just keep topping up the developer after use and discard the lot when the replenisher is gone. I have a batch that is over 2 years old and still works.
 
jim appleyard said:
May I suggest bulk loading? Much cheaper.
Click to expand...

That's not a bad idea. Maybe I'll get some of the brass cassettes for my M bodies, but their weight does add up quickly if you are walking around with 10 or 15 rolls.
 
mrtoml's replenishing idea is good, I'll try that next time.
I saw on another recent Diafine thread there were some posts from a guy who works for the company that makes Diafine. I hope he contributes some more. Also I'd like to ask him to bring back the retro style red & white box, I much prefer it to the yellow one.
 
Out of curiosity, what prevents you from replenishing the seasoned mix with a completely fresh batch? Or do you find it better to just start a new one? The reason I'm asking is that it seems it takes a few rolls through it before it starts coming into its own it seems.

- Thomas

 

You probably can do as you suggest. I just restart a new batch as a matter of my routine. I guess there is a psychological element to it in that when you have a batch of chemicals 2 years old you start to get (irrationally perhaps) concerned about what's in there. Also I have never heard about this 'maturing' process before. At least I have never noticed it.

Cheers.
 
I think that is what many people do. When you first mix the developer divide it into several fresh solutions, then top off the used developer with fresh solution.

You might also want to filter the used developer from time to time. If you top off the used stock solutions on a regular basis, and filter them from time to time, you could go for years with the original bottles. Though at some point you would have entirely replaced the original solutions with fresh solution.

In using Diafine I recommend an initial pre-soak of the film, and a minimum of about four agitation cycles in each solution. Agitation is especially important in Solution A to prevent uneven development. Some people suggest that the film should not be agitated in Solution B on the theory that agitation will reduce compensation and shadow detail by washing the developer out of the film. I don't agree with this notion.

Sandy King





 
Just add fresh developer to maintain a constant volume in each solution. It isn't exact, it isn't perfect, but it works.
The old fashioned notion of replenishment was to maintain a consistent RANGE of development. If the densities begin to drift out of your range, remove 20% of the working solutions and replace them with fresh.

If you approach your image making with the notion of ranges, or zones, it can be a very rewarding technique. The negatives look different than one shot negs, and some folks like the look very much.

If you,however, use a "Point System" because the idea of a Zone is too repellent, you probably shouldn't even think about souping film this way.

And when you DO mix a fresh A or B bath, use the old working solution to make 20% of the new.
This is just old fashioned seat-of-the-pants lab technique, which is pretty good.

And if you're starting a completely new batch, soak a few rolls or sheets of junk film in each bath (A, then B)
before doing any film.
 
Thanks Mark, Sandy, and Don for your clarifications. To me Diafine seems to be the ultimate in economy when it comes to developing film. Since the same solutions are used, very little water is wasted that way too, and that feels really good.
Replenish, small bottles, filter occasionally, new batches use some of the old solution to season the new. Makes sense. The lab I used to work at used Xtol in much the same manner, and those negs looked favorable to me.
I've been thinking about using 777 like this too, but I don't process enough film to sustain it, I think. I've only ever used single shot development with Rodinal, HC-110, DD-X, Xtol 1+2, Pyrocat, and FA-1027.

Thanks,

- Thomas
 
I've never topped it off. I just use it. I don't do 40 rolls/month in it though.

I will say, a couple agitations in bath B seems to help. I've gotten bromide drag marks once or twice when I've been *really* lazy and left it sitting in B for 5-10 mins with little or no agitation.

I've read and usually do 5 agitations when I pour in B, and then 5 more at about the 1.5-2 min mark, and then 5 more around 3 mins, and then dump it at 4.5 or 5 mins.
 
Well, I'm just waiting for the rain to stop, and dug out an old Photo Lab Index (from my box of old Photo Lab Indexes).

1967: Bauman Diafine
1. Do not presoak
2. Develop for at least two minutes in A & B.
3. Replenishment is uneccesary, but maintain the level of the solutions in their bottles by adding equal amounts as needed.
Since Solution A is carried off, top off the bottle of A, then add the same amount of Solution B (which requires you pouring of some of the B bath as necessary.)
4. Acid Stop is not recommended.
5. Use between 65˚ and 85˚. Agitate at 30 second intervals. Increased development time beyond 2 minutes has no significant effect. Do not develop longer than 5 minutes.

I'm sure I saw these same instructions from a much earlier printing,
but I can't remember when. And I have no idea when Bauman either changed its name, or sold the property.
And I don't know if the formula was changed. I know in 1968 it was commonly used at 3 minutes. The whole point was to use up whatever developer was absorbed in the emulsion, it being self limiting.

Trust Sandy before you trust a 40 year old Photo Lab Index.
Except for pre-soaking. Well, I have to read Sandy's rationale for that, but anyway, it is a viable and GOOD developer.

It works very well with outdated film. If one had, for instance, a fridge full of 8x10 Royal Pan, all you have to do is test to find the Exposure Index. Hint: EI 50.
 
Yeah I'd also recommend against the presoak. Not that I've ever tried it, but presoaking would/should mean less A is absorbed for B to develop.
 
I recommend the pre-soak because it will result in even absorption of the reducer by the emulsion of the film, and this is very important with short development times.

Presoaking does not mean that less A solution is absorbed. That depends on the temperature of the presoak and of Solution A. Basically in the presoak the gelatin of the emulsion swells, and the more it swells the more reducer it can absorb. Swelling is a product of temperature and time. If you presoak with a water solution that is warmer than Solution A the film will absorb more reducer than if no presoak is used, if the presoak is colder than A the film will absorb less.

However, the major benefit of the presoak is even development, especially with many of the modern films that have very hard emulsions, such as Fuji Acros and Tmax-100.

Sandy



Tim Gray said:
Yeah I'd also recommend against the presoak. Not that I've ever tried it, but presoaking would/should mean less A is absorbed for B to develop.
Click to expand...
 
Thanks, Sandy
 
Sandy - makes sense I guess

That being said, I've never gotten uneven development, and the box says no presoak, so for now, I'll stick to what I've done
 
In my 500 ml developing tank about 20 ml of A is carried over into B with each film on the tank,reel and film. Hence 1 US gallon=3800 ml would by this calculation process somewhat under 190 films if topped up with fresh A.
As per the instructions posted, dispose of the correct amount of B and replenish to prevent build up of bromide etc.
 
My Diafine was about 2 years old when it went off. developing about once a week, a couple rolls, one week good, next a bit thin, and third week almost clear film. The thin film was three rolls each from a different camera, and I had a roll of E-6 done at the same time that was perfect so I knew it was not the exposure, but rather some chemistry. Thin frame numbers on the film showed it was the developer.

Time for a new batch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register