Diafine Question

[nwilkins]

Hi there,

I have some Diafine on order and plan to use it with Tri-X to shoot faster than box speed. Having low contrast negatives won't be a problem, thus I won't have to shoot it at 1250 or 1600 necessarily, but can rate the film slower than that if needed, in order to retain decent shadow detail.

My question is whether anyone can tell me what would be the optimal speed rating for Tri-X with diafine in order to preserve relatively normal amounts of shadow detail? Would I have to go as slow as 800? How much extra speed does Diafine actually give you?

Thanks!

 

[JW PHOTO]

I haven't used the combination in a while, but I always liked to rate my Tri-X at between asa 1000 and 1250. I think asa/ISO 800 would be just fine and insure you excellent shadow detail. One thing about Diafine is that you can mix exposures on the same roll and still come out with very printable negatives. So, if you have some rather low-light static shots you could shot at ISO 800 and if you had a night scene with people moving about that required upping things a bit you could go all the way to ISO 1600 if need be. You can rate your film even higher, but for me anyway, Tri-X @ ISO 1600 was about as far as I liked to go. Other people feel differently of course. JohnW

 

[nwilkins]

Okay thanks John. I'll try 1000 and see how it goes. Maybe bracket an average scene at 800, 1000, 1250, 1600 and compare the results too.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I agree on 1000. The latitude is enough that unless you're shooting a very contrasty scene I do not think shooting at 800 or 1250 would gain you much but eat up film.

 

[alienmeatsack]

I've been using Diafine for a year or so now as my primary developer and have tried all sorts of films and speeds with it to see what I get.

Maybe it's just me (I tend to be the exception to things) but when I shot TriX (and Arista Premium) I had issues with shadow detail at speeds over 800. Unless the scene was well lit, I'd end up with muddy shadows. I usually shoot it at 320-800 depending on my needs and get decent results. If I am going 800+, I'll use another developer that allows me more push.

As far as the extra speed, from my experience, it gives anywhere between 1-2 stops of gain. But, every photo is different and it's sometimes hard to tell how much it is truly giving you. I've had some rolls that it seemed to be well beyond the 2 stops of gain, and some where it looked like I had shot it at 1600 or higher because the darks were just flat and muddy.

Somewhere, I read that you can run film through Diafine A->B more then once to continue developing/adding stops. I have never tried this as I didn't want to take a chance of ruining my Diafine. You'd certainly have to rinse very well between the B and the A for sure to avoid contamination.

For your situation, I'd do some bracketing to figure out what speed gives you the results you desire. That's really the only way to do it for each person's particular needs.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I've been using Diafine for a year or so now as my primary developer and have tried all sorts of films and speeds with it to see what I get.

Maybe it's just me (I tend to be the exception to things) but when I shot TriX (and Arista Premium) I had issues with shadow detail at speeds over 800. Unless the scene was well lit, I'd end up with muddy shadows. I usually shoot it at 320-800 depending on my needs and get decent results. If I am going 800+, I'll use another developer that allows me more push.

As far as the extra speed, from my experience, it gives anywhere between 1-2 stops of gain. But, every photo is different and it's sometimes hard to tell how much it is truly giving you. I've had some rolls that it seemed to be well beyond the 2 stops of gain, and some where it looked like I had shot it at 1600 or higher because the darks were just flat and muddy.

Somewhere, I read that you can run film through Diafine A->B more then once to continue developing/adding stops. I have never tried this as I didn't want to take a chance of ruining my Diafine. You'd certainly have to rinse very well between the B and the A for sure to avoid contamination.

For your situation, I'd do some bracketing to figure out what speed gives you the results you desire. That's really the only way to do it for each person's particular needs.

Well, every good thing usually has a tradeoff and with wanting faster speed film without buying faster speed film is a tradeoff. You cannot have shadow detail where the camera/film didn't record or capture that detail. Diafine is great stuff, but it can't put a image where none was recorded. Usually when we have a need for the Tri-X and Diafine combo we have already been willing to sacrifice a little shadow detail and let it go blank. Some folks use Diafine as an everyday developer, but I don't. It has its place, but I like other developers for normal use. As for re-dipping in Diafine??? I would not do it. Diafine will last nearly a lifetime, but you get a drop or two of "B" back into "A" and your done. I've heard of folks extending times in one or the other "A or B" or both to try to control contrast, but I've never really seen the need for the things I do.

 

[nwilkins]

okay thanks everyone. FWIW I would normally soup Tri-X in HC-110 if shooting at box speed.

 

[MattKing]

Hi there,

I have some Diafine on order and plan to use it with Tri-X to shoot faster than box speed. Having low contrast negatives won't be a problem, thus I won't have to shoot it at 1250 or 1600 necessarily, but can rate the film slower than that if needed, in order to retain decent shadow detail.

My question is whether anyone can tell me what would be the optimal speed rating for Tri-X with diafine in order to preserve relatively normal amounts of shadow detail? Would I have to go as slow as 800? How much extra speed does Diafine actually give you?

Thanks!

The answer to your question depends on what you are doing with your negatives.

Diafine achieves its results with lower light levels by essentially flattening the film's characteristic curve - the shadows get a bit more density, while the highlights end up with less.

I'm guessing that you may be planning to scan the results. If so, then the controls available to you on the digital side may make the results acceptable, or maybe they won't. You will have to experiment to find out.

I can say though that advice from someone here on APUG who does darkroom prints on photographic paper will be of limited use to you if you aren't doing something similar. The question of what constitutes appropriate exposure of film is closely tied to the printing/display process used.

Two cautions about Diafine:

1) as mentioned, even the smallest amount of solution B in solution A will make solution A useless; and
2) while Diafine is relatively temperature independent, it is still necessary to meet (or better exceed!) the minimum temperature recommendations - cold Diafine doesn't work well.

Good luck, and have fun!

 

[nwilkins]

thanks Matt. Yes the client will require only digital files, no prints, so I figured doing this and then sc***ing was the best solution to gain the speed I need.

 

[ntenny]

I'm not sure Diafine is really the best option for a modest push of TX like this; it really excels at producing the "TX in Diafine" look at around EI 1250, but if that look isn't what you want, you might get less grain and less flat-seeming negatives by pushing with the HC-110 you're already using.

Sorry to do that annoying thing where you ask a specific question and someone says "don't do that, do this", but in this case I think you shouldn't do that, you should do this. Seriously, if you strongly want to do this with Diafine, ignore me.

-NT

 

[JW PHOTO]

Okay thanks John. I'll try 1000 and see how it goes. Maybe bracket an average scene at 800, 1000, 1250, 1600 and compare the results too.

Diafine negatives usually scan very well since they are just a little flatter, but I'd do a little test run before I put all my eggs in one basket.