Diafine is in stock at Freestyle

[drmoss_ca]

"Quantities limited" they say.

https://www.freestylephoto.biz/16128

 

[Donald Qualls]

It'd sure be nice if they sold it in quart or liter size as well as that gallon. I'd rather pay $20 for a liter than $65 for a gallon...

 

[Paul Howell]

Ive been looking for an old stock quart kit in cans on ebay for a while, no luck, but at $64 a gallon I'll pass or go back to MCM 100 at $48 a gallon.

 

[John Wiegerink]

This is the best developer in the world! It’s the “Silver Bullet” of developers that we all search for. You get what you pay for. Right? Just funning sarcasms intended. I think I’ll pass on this one also. I have used Diafine and It is very good at giving more than full speed for certain films, but that’s just not my game anymore. I can get by very nicely with Xtol-R or Pyrocat. JohnW

 

[Renato Tonelli]

It'd sure be nice if they sold it in quart or liter size as well as that gallon. I'd rather pay $20 for a liter than $65 for a gallon...

It looks to me like they are trying to price it out of existence. Too bad.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I was a working PJ I covered Africa. At the time I would usually send exposed film to London for processing. I always carried a quart kit of Diafine, a quart kit of fixer, and photoflow. In the 70s and 80s working with poor quality water, no manageable way to maintain temperature control, what was better, 4 empty 1 liter beer bottles, a hot plate to mix the Diafine, 3 minutes in A, followed by B, water rinse, fix, wash and photoflow then off to the wire. Film emulsions were thicker in the 70s, Trix at 1600 was the norm, really hard to blow out the highlights with Diafine. Too bad the price will likely kill it off.

 

[markjwyatt]

This is good news. They had it delisted, which seems to be the worse situation (e.g., "this is no longer available"). They then brought it back a week or so ago, but had a "Dec 31st" expected date (interpret- "we do not know if this will be available, nor when, but it looks like it is possible", consider Bergger Pancro 400). Then suddenly it is here (in limited supplies). They found some? Is it here to stay? Regardless it is available. And at the same price as it was before they delisted it. Don't think I will buy any, but it is tempting (one time for all films/temps, right?).

 

[John Wiegerink]

I really was just being sarcastic in my reply above. Diafine does have some unique qualities all of its own and even if I will hold off buying any it is nice to have it back. If there was a way I could make Diafine myself I would do it, but commercial Diafine seems like the only answer for now. Nice to have the option anyway. JohnW

 

[Sirius Glass]

I really was just being sarcastic in my reply above. Diafine does have some unique qualities all of its own and even if I will hold off buying any it is nice to have it back. If there was a way I could make Diafine myself I would do it, but commercial Diafine seems like the only answer for now. Nice to have the option anyway. JohnW

Of course because we all know that replenished XTOL "is the best developer in the world! It’s the “Silver Bullet” of developers that we all search for."

 

[markjwyatt]

Of course because we all know that replenished XTOL "is the best developer in the world! It’s the “Silver Bullet” of developers that we all search for."

View attachment 299258

It does look good. I would be more likely to try XTOL before Diafine (Maybe ADOX XT3). The advantage of Diafine is still that you can throw in 2 or 3 different films and develop at the same time. Where does Diafine fit on that chart you showed I wonder? Probably towards finest grain, but not sure about acutance or shadow detail.

 

[Paul Howell]

Not for T grain films, the best of the best, Tmax or DDX.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It does look good. I would be more likely to try XTOL before Diafine (Maybe ADOX XT3). The advantage of Diafine is still that you can throw in 2 or 3 different films and develop at the same time. Where does Diafine fit on that chart you showed I wonder? Probably towards finest grain, but not sure about acutance or shadow detail.

When I used Diafine as a teenager I thought it gave mushy edges. No decent edge sharpness, but that was a while ago.

 

[jim appleyard]

Too rich for me. I'll keep playing with the homebrew version until I get it right.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Of course because we all know that replenished XTOL "is the best developer in the world! It’s the “Silver Bullet” of developers that we all search for."

View attachment 299258

Yes, Xtol-R is my favorite and go-to developer. I did buy some Adox XT3 to try just because of to unstable on again off again of good batches of Xtol. Truth is there are many good developers out there, including homemade. The one thing Diafine has going for it is loooooongevity. Of course just a little cross contamination and it’s $64.00 Bucks down the drain. That is the part that scares me the most. You can’t be careless with Diafine and careless is my middle name. JohnW

 

[gone]

"This is the best developer in the world!"

That's caused quite a commotion over at the Church of Rodinal. We'll light a candle for you, just in case.

I thought I'd bought some many years ago, but it turned to be Acufine. Interesting developer, but I only developed one roll of Tri-X in it (I think it was Tri-X). The negs had tight grain, but the acutance was just crazy, far too much for my liking.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I used Diafine as a teenager I thought it gave mushy edges. No decent edge sharpness, but that was a while ago.

It does, highly solvent which is why it gives such fine grain with additional speed. I used in the field as circumstances presented, at the wire, the darkroom had to print grade 5 or 6 for the contrast need for the old photo wire systems.

 

[Paul Howell]

Acufine is an interesting developer, have not used in years., I know that some newspapers, scientific photography used Acfine because of high acutance and by increasing time high contrast, made for good reproductions when sent by wire. I have a few old cans of the replenished might get a quart, use with Fineness 100 and 400.

 

[drmoss_ca]

Evidently Diafine is not for everyone, nor for all purposes. Even at this price, it is a bargain. My current US gallon (3.78 liters) is about three years old and working just fine. I don't know how many films it has had through it, but it will be a large number! I will admit that when I first used it some 30+ years ago I was not wildly impressed (much more grain than I wanted), but somewhere along the way I have managed to make it work, probably a combination of being skeptical about how much speed increase to ask for, and the use of gentle continuous rotation. I'm not really sure, as some processes, repeated hundreds or thousands of times, gradually teach us to make subtle changes of which we are unconscious in order to get the best results.

 

[OrientPoint]

Adorama haș Diafine in stock now for $57.50/gallon. That's closer to the pre-pandemic price of ~$50/gallon, and it does last forever-ish so maybe a decent deal?

 

[olorin67]

I’ve been using a gallon batch of Diafine I mixed in 2018. I use it for almost everything. It gives the best possible shadow detail, and no blown highlights. It’s good with all traditional grain films. HP5 at 800 is my favorite , but I’ll use Tri x when I need even more speed. It’s not good for old found rolls of film, it will maximize any fogging of old film. I often shoot without a meter, so I like the additional lattitude it gives. A few times I forgot to set the shutter speed or adjust f stop, and it’s usually hard to tell which shots on the roll I screwed up. It’s also nice to develop different films together, and not have to worry about time and temp. I bought some old stock on eBay a while ago. But I might pick up some new to have on hand just in case. I wish someone else would make a version of it, maybe it wouldn’t be so pricy if there was some competition.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Acufine is an interesting developer, have not used in years., I know that some newspapers, scientific photography used Acfine because of high acutance and by increasing time high contrast, made for good reproductions when sent by wire. I have a few old cans of the replenished might get a quart, use with Fineness 100 and 400.

Diafine is not Acufine. Although from the same company. The former is two bath, the latter is the usual single bath.

 

[Paul Howell]

Where did I say that Acufine was Diafine? Diafine is replenished by adding more part A and B to there respective baths. I would not call Diafine an acutance type developer, and still sold, when you can get, in quart sizes.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Where did I say that Acufine was Diafine? Diafine is replenished by adding more part A and B to there respective baths. I would not call Diafine an acutance type developer, and still sold, when you can get, in quart sizes.

Lordy. I don't know where that came from. Sorry.

Back to regular programming.