Diafine home brew

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 8, 2014

I am mixing the Diafine home brew recipe that's been posted here several times:

Solution A
Sodium Sulfite, 35 grams - Hydroquinone, 6 grams
Phenidone, 0.2 grams - Sodium Bisulfite, 6 grams
Water to make, 1 liter

Solution B
Sodium Sulfite, 65 grams - Sodium Metaborate, 20 grams
Water to make, 1 liter

1) Do I need to add the ingredients in the order listed and stir to dissolve? Are there any tricks like with D-23 (e.g., add a pinch of sulfite before adding the metol)?

Or,

2) While measuring, can I go ahead and make several bags of the combined recipe, all ready to mix with water? The powder comes in one can so I'm hoping this is a viable option.

Thanks!

Gerald C Koch · Dec 8, 2014

Adding a pinch of sulfite first is only mentioned for developers that contain Metol. This developing agent is hard to dissolve in sulfite solutions. So the first bit of sulfite scavengers any dissolved oxygen from the water. So to avoid a lot of stirring we want some sulfite but not all the sulfite at this stage. If you don't have a small amount of sulfite present when the Metol is added your final developer may have a slight yellow color but is perfectly usable. This step is not necessary for something like Diafine that uses Phenidone rather than Metol.

It's always best to dissolve chemicals in the order that they appear in a formula. Thus sulfite and ascorbic acid will act as antioxidants to protect the developing agents and a chelating agent prevents precipitation of calcium salts when adding carbonate.

There was a cajun chef by the name of Justin Wilson who insisted when adding ingredients from a recipe to stir thoroughly after each addition. The same can be said when mixing photochemicals.

Gerald C Koch · Dec 8, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Re bagging combined dry mixtures at home, note some compounds can be combined while others should not. For example I wouldn't recommend bagging any developing agents with other compounds. You're probably best off storing dry chemicals separately at home. Packaging dry mixes can actually involve some nifty technology such as coatings to keep dry compounds separated and allow them to dissolve in the proper order.

Kodak was a master at doing this and held a number of patents allowing for single mixes.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 8, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
Packaging dry mixes can actually involve some nifty technology such as coatings to keep dry compounds separated and allow them to dissolve in the proper order.

Very cool, I had no idea. Thanks for the feedback, everyone.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 9, 2014

ParkerSmithPhoto said:
I am mixing the Diafine home brew recipe that's been posted here several times:

Solution A
Sodium Sulfite, 35 grams - Hydroquinone, 6 grams
Phenidone, 0.2 grams - Sodium Bisulfite, 6 grams
Water to make, 1 liter

Solution B
Sodium Sulfite, 65 grams - Sodium Metaborate, 20 grams
Water to make, 1 liter

1) Do I need to add the ingredients in the order listed and stir to dissolve? Are there any tricks like with D-23 (e.g., add a pinch of sulfite before adding the metol)?

Or,

2) While measuring, can I go ahead and make several bags of the combined recipe, all ready to mix with water? The powder comes in one can so I'm hoping this is a viable option.

Thanks!

Yes and not recommended.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 9, 2014

Mixed it up this morning. Used 60°C water and everything dissolved easily with minimal stirring. Can't wait to soup some rolls!

jim appleyard · Dec 9, 2014

I wish you luck with this recipe, I could never get it to work. My negs were thin so I made it with carbonate instead of metaborate. It works much better, but I'm still in the testing stage with it.

I believe Diafine recommends that a stop bath not be used. It might be a good idea to follow this to be sure.

Mark Crabtree · Dec 10, 2014

I'll be anxious to hear also. I mixed some when I couldn't get Diafine in time; I started a thread a while back. My test negs were very thin, but I was able to get what I needed by going through the process 2x before fixing - A/B, then a thorough rinse, then A/B again. I suspected my Phenidone, which is old and shows some discoloration, so the problem might not have been the formula. By the time I got a chance to compare with real Diafine, my home brew seemed to have gone off considerably more. Even Diafine doesn't seem to give much push to current TX, so I've moved on for now. It does give a nice low contrast negative with a lot of highlight compensation.

mrred · Dec 10, 2014

I have no phenidone left. I wonder how well it would work with metol.

Sent from my BS970 using Tapatalk

jim appleyard · Dec 10, 2014

mrred said:
I have no phenidone left. I wonder how well it would work with metol.

Probably not neasrly the same. I would think with just metol you would get a normal 2 bath dev. I would think it's the Phenidone that kicks up the EI to make Diafine the speed increasing dev that it is.

gone · Dec 10, 2014

I'm glad to see Gerald mention Justin Wilson. I grew up watching his programs. While I would not hold too much stock in his cooking, his show was a blast to watch, as he told wonderful stories throughout the show in that great Cajun accent of his. And after he finished his cooking, at the end he would uncork a nice bottle of wine and have a big drink before chowing down.

One thing he mentioned has stuck w/ me for decades. He said "You know, a lot of people say you have to have a red wine w/ this meal, a white wine w/ that meal. Me, I buy what's on sale". My kind of guy. If you stayed up late you might even catch the Morgus the Magnificent show "Morgus Presents" if you were in the New Orleans area.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK4umRMJlrs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-tPQhbz5l4

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 10, 2014

Okay, so here's how the first two rolls went.

1) FP4 120 - processed in Home Brew Diafine, diluted 1:1 with water (per Sandy King's View Camera article), processed in a Paterson tank with spindle agitation, continuous, 4 min A + 4 min B. Result was slightly pale, but okay negatives, nothing a dunk in selenium and a hard paper grade couldn't handle. To be honest, I knew I had underexposed the last half of this roll (ISO 400) and I may not have been solid with the exposures on the first half, which is what I am using for comparison. I haven't shot much FP4 lately, only T-Max.

2) TMY400 120 - processed in Home Brew Diafine, stock solution in a Paterson tank on a motor base with continuous agitation, 4 min A + 4 min B. Results looked like they would print beautifully on a Grade 2 paper, maybe even a Grade 1 (gulp), but there was definitely some fog there, especially along the outer edges. At first I thought there might be a leak in the tank but the fog is just too uniform to consider that a possibility. (note that this was a different tank than used for the FP4).

Questions in next post!

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 10, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
With divided developers all bets are off when it comes to the "normal" comparative working characteristics of different developing agents. With metol you might get slightly less film speed, and less fog, but experimentation is necessary. With metol you could likely simplify the formula, or even exclude HQ.

Note the formula posted above is rather generic and will likely require optimization. For example, it doesn't contain a restrainer, which would normally be expected in a PQ formulation such as this.

Also note Diafine uses a carbonate alkali in bath B as opposed to a borate.

If you were to modify this formula, what would you suggest as a restrainer?

What carbonate alkali is in the original formula? The Dignan 150 Formulas book mentions using 20 grams Borax in place of the metaborate, stating that "the results are like that of D-76 with the advantages of non-critical temperature, etc. of a two bath."

On another note, I didn't use a pre-soak on either of the two rolls I tested and was surprised to see the solution pour out totally clear. What's up with that?

NedL · Dec 10, 2014

My diafine box says to use FP4+ at 250, so 400 might have been "pushing" your luck

I too have noticed diafine coming out clear with some films, then the antihalation layer coming off later in the fix or wash. Right now I can't remember which film it was. I've seen it come out colored with some films too.

Roger Cole · Dec 11, 2014

Mark Crabtree said:
I'll be anxious to hear also. I mixed some when I couldn't get Diafine in time; I started a thread a while back. My test negs were very thin, but I was able to get what I needed by going through the process 2x before fixing - A/B, then a thorough rinse, then A/B again. I suspected my Phenidone, which is old and shows some discoloration, so the problem might not have been the formula. By the time I got a chance to compare with real Diafine, my home brew seemed to have gone off considerably more. Even Diafine doesn't seem to give much push to current TX, so I've moved on for now. It does give a nice low contrast negative with a lot of highlight compensation.

Humm, not my experience, unless Tri-X has changed again in the past couple of years. I get a good EI 1000-1200. I can use 1600 in daylight (say, heavy overcast) but more like 1000 in tungsten so I typically shoot it at 1250 or 1000.

I'm curious how the home mix works too. Diafine is getting expensive, though it develops so much film it's still one of the cheapest developers per film. But it's long life and the fact it isn't as popular as more "normal" developers make me worry about it. I like my Diafine. I don't use it that much but when I want it, I want it (mainly for Tri-X at 1000 and for Pan F+.)

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 11, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Humm, not my experience, unless Tri-X has changed again in the past couple of years. I get a good EI 1000-1200. I can use 1600 in daylight (say, heavy overcast) but more like 1000 in tungsten so I typically shoot it at 1250 or 1000.

Roger,

How is the shadow detail on Tri-X at those ISO ratings?

Mark Crabtree · Dec 11, 2014

Roger Cole said:
Humm, not my experience, unless Tri-X has changed again in the past couple of years. I get a good EI 1000-1200. I can use 1600 in daylight (say, heavy overcast) but more like 1000 in tungsten so I typically shoot it at 1250 or 1000.

I'm curious how the home mix works too. Diafine is getting expensive, though it develops so much film it's still one of the cheapest developers per film. But it's long life and the fact it isn't as popular as more "normal" developers make me worry about it. I like my Diafine. I don't use it that much but when I want it, I want it (mainly for Tri-X at 1000 and for Pan F+.)

Other people report similar results to yours. All I know is that I'm not getting the density I need at what I would call 1200 to 1600 EI. I do better with Acufine, but have moved to reduced time in Acufine followed by the Diafine B bath. That gets pretty much everything that is to be had in the shadows, but with good highlight compensation. This is mostly for one very dim venue and even that just barely gets me usable exposures. I've got a couple rolls from last weekend processed that way, but haven't had a chance to make any prints yet.

I don't think TX has changed. It is entirely possible that we are giving very different exposures.

Roger Cole · Dec 11, 2014

ParkerSmithPhoto said:
Roger,

How is the shadow detail on Tri-X at those ISO ratings?

Good usually. The tungsten light is a bit of a quandary. I found the same thing when I started using TMY then TMY-2 - the same EI I used in daylight gave me underexposures under tungsten light, when it didn't used to do so with older films (Tri-X circa 70s and 80s for example.) The published spectral sensitivity specs do NOT support this, if anything the opposite, but that's still been my experience. I would blame my meters, maybe some IR sensitivity, except that it happens across two brands and four models of 35mm cameras and two hand held meters (Luna Pro SBC and Soligor Spot Sensor.)

I'll see if I can dig up some negatives so exposed and processed to scan but:

Mark Crabtree said:
Other people report similar results to yours. All I know is that I'm not getting the density I need at what I would call 1200 to 1600 EI. I do better with Acufine, but have moved to reduced time in Acufine followed by the Diafine B bath. That gets pretty much everything that is to be had in the shadows, but with good highlight compensation. This is mostly for one very dim venue and even that just barely gets me usable exposures. I've got a couple rolls from last weekend processed that way, but haven't had a chance to make any prints yet.

I don't think TX has changed. It is entirely possible that we are giving very different exposures.

I find I don't use this combo nearly so much since moving to first TMZ and then Delta 3200. If I need speed I can get better results (in terms of shadow detail, if not granularity but still good grain) with those in T-Max developer than I can with Tri-X or anything else in Diafine, so my use of Diafine has been cut back to mainly taming high contrast scenes or films that tend to build highlight density rapidly (meaning Pan F+ - you can of course develop it less in conventional developers but you lose effective speed thus all the folks shooting it at 32 or 25. Nice in Diafine at 50-64.)

I need to try it with Foma 400. What I've found online doesn't indicate much if any speed boost, but it is a film that builds highlight density rapidly.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 11, 2014

Digging through my notes I found some info from DF Cardwell on Diafine in which he states that as the mix is re-used "development by-products (various forms of bromides) become restrainers that both reduce fog, minimize grain, and generally create a creamy 'prescence.'"

It occurred to me that using the mix straight (and very fresh) with the constant, vigorous agitation from the rotary base might have exacerbated any tendency to fog. It's hard to explain why the first roll was fog free.

So I made a new batch tonight with 1g of Potassium Bromide added to the mix. Will test some film and report back.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 12, 2014

Michael R 1974 said:
I don't know who DF Cardwell is, but there are some problems with that reasoning.

First, bromides are one of the by-products of development. Since no meaningful degree of development occurs in bath A, and solvent effects are likely minimal, there shouldn't be bromide buildup. This is one reason why bath A can be re-used and doesn't require replenishment.

Second, Phenidones are not very sensitive to bromide restraint at the pH level of solution B.

DF is an APUGer who I don't believe checks in too often, but I could be wrong.

So, does adding 1g KBr to the A bath sound like moving in the right direction?

Does this recipe seem to make any sense to you? I don't want to waste time on something that's complete guess work. There are too many "known" published formulas that have proven themselves over time.

I love Diafine but at $0.50 a roll it's getting wildly expensive. May just have to suck it up and move on.

Roger Cole · Dec 12, 2014

Fifty cents a roll?

The last time I exhausted it was back when you could find and I bought quarts. I got 50-60 rolls from a quart. Taking the lower figure and multiplying by four for the gallon size is 200 rolls. The gallon is $43.49 at Freestyle right now. That's twenty one cents per roll. It's way cheaper than the T-Max RS I use for TMY and pushing D3200, and probably not a lot more than D76, if any.

Let's see, D76 - IIRC (it's been a while, and don't feel like going down to the darkroom to check my Jobo tanks) the smallest amount I can use for a roll of 35mm is about 250ml. Mixed 1+1 with water and used single shot (which is what I do) that's 125ml of D76 per roll or 4.22 ounces. That's 30 rolls and change per gallon. Using Freestyle prices again (both may be available cheaper elsewhere) D76 is $6.29/gallon. That comes out to twenty cents a roll. Virtually a wash. Replenished can be cheaper, of course, but if twenty cents a roll is expensive you are shooting a TON of film.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 12, 2014

My math there was based on the Adorama price of $50(!) per gallon and using it as one shot, diluted in rotary tanks. I've been shooting a ton of 120 and wanted to go back to running five rolls at a time without having to fuss over it.

I guess you always pay with either time or money. Barry Thornton's Two Bath is looking better every day!

Roger Cole · Dec 12, 2014

Humm. It would have never entered my mind to use Diafine one shot, since I know how long it lasts just re-used and re-used and re-used. And the only reason I use rotary is for the temperature control of my Jobo, which isn't needed with Diafine. So just inversion in regular tanks and pour it back in the bottle.

I've not used it with 4x5 in some time but may go back to that some since I started getting streaking with the 2509n reels (can't really tell WHY since it didn't used to happen.) My 1/2 gallon tanks and hangers work fine for Diafine.

Roger Cole · Dec 13, 2014

It is pretty economical, see my analysis above. But Parker is using it one shot. I'm still not sure why; you can reuse both baths over and over and over...

Sent from my iPhone via Tapatalk using 100% recycled electrons. Because I care.

ParkerSmithPhoto · Dec 13, 2014

I've used it both ways over the years. A few years back when I was shooting a ton of 120, I took Sandy King's method (see his View Camera Magazine article) of diluting it 1:1 and using it one shot so I could do five rolls at a time in Paterson tanks on a motor base. At 4oz total (diluted) solution per roll it was very economical at the old price per gallon.

My goal was to start processing that way again but obviously at a lower cost per roll. Hence the home brew.

I ran several more tests last night and this morning, with positive results. Will report back later.

Diafine home brew

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency