Diafine vs. ???

PhotoPete · Oct 16, 2005

I am wondering if there are any diafine users out there who have a lot of experience with other developers and could offer a comparison between the two.

I am loving diafine but am considering branching out...

PhotoPete · Oct 16, 2005

Also, how long does it *really* last?

reellis67 · Oct 16, 2005

PhotoPete said:
Also, how long does it *really* last?

Mine is 1 year old and I don't know how many films and still going strong. I spoke with someone on another site who told me that his was 3 years old and ugly as you can imagine but still worked just fine. When my part A gets too low I will toss the lot and mix fresh, but so far I've seen no change in it all this time.

- Randy

PhotoPete · Oct 16, 2005

Are you able to purchase part A on its own or do you have a recipie to make it from raw chemicals?

reellis67 · Oct 16, 2005

PhotoPete said:
Are you able to purchase part A on its own or do you have a recipie to make it from raw chemicals?

There is a recipe out there, but it is so cheap I'll just buy the kit and replace both A and B at the same time.

- Randy

Tom Hoskinson · Oct 16, 2005

Diafine Substitute

PhotoPete said:
Are you able to purchase part A on its own or do you have a recipe to make it from raw chemicals?

Check out this Apug Thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

df cardwell · Oct 16, 2005

Diafine is one of the developers that traditionally has been used by 'seasoning'. As the complex byproducts of development accumulate in the A bath, a remarkable and otherwise unattainable image quality is the result. The grain becomes finer, the look becomes more 'classic'.

When the developer is freshly mixed, soak a few rolls of exposed film in the first bath, then the second, to 'take the edge off'. As the developer is used, just keep topping up the solutions to maintain a constant amount of solution.

The developer will improve with use, and last forever. Certainly some films work better than others: Tri X, Plus X, TXP... experiment. TMX is very interesting in Diafine although it's not for everybody. Depending on how you shoot and how you like your negatives, you will agree or disagree with the overblown marketing hype of the 'speed boost' Diafine promises ... but it's an easy way make great negatives consistently that suit a lot of shooters most of the time.

Like so many things in photography, fashionable and conventional thought says this can't be true. But somehow we got along fine in the darkroom before computers and densitometers and stuff, and made great pictures every day for rabid newspaper editors, using Leicas and Nikons without meters. If you're interested in prehistoric photo-technology, try Diafine.

.

Foto Ludens · Oct 16, 2005

My diafine has developed 100+ rolls, and is more than a year old. You can see how ugly it looks in the attached photo. The menthol colored one is the A bath, the urine-yellow one is the B bath. Both work 100%.

pgomena · Oct 16, 2005

I used Diafine years ago when working on a small newspaper. I used it to push Tri-X to 1600 ASA in dim gymnasium lighting, for wrestling matches, basketball games, etc. I remember the A solution turning hideous colors, but performing forever. Dozens and dozens of rolls.

Peter Gomena

PhotoPete · Oct 17, 2005

Are folks using standard developer agitation or just letting it sit there? I have heard of both...

df cardwell · Oct 17, 2005

PhotoPete said:
Are folks using standard developer agitation or just letting it sit there? I have heard of both...

Agitate every minute in each bath. It has no effect on the image, other than to be certain that in A, enough solution is absorbed, and in B, all the image is developed.

Since the film pretty much absorbs all it can in much less than 3 minutes, and since the development is practically instant, it shouldn't make much difference how much agitation is given.

But we must hold to SOME standards, so 3 minutes with regular agitation is a good one

Peter De Smidt · Oct 17, 2005

Can Diafine be used to good results in a Jobo with an Expert drum? Here's why I ask: Lately I've been using my 8x10 with HP5+, and I've tried a few developers, xtol and PC-TEA mainly. While the results have been good, I'm losing more film speed than I'd like. (Zone I at least .1 above film base plus fog.)I get EI 200 with Xtol 1+2, but only about 125 with PC-TEA 1 + 50. So...I've been thinking about Diafine. if I could get a true ei of greater than 400, that'd be a big plus.

Paul Howell · Oct 17, 2005

Diafine is one of my all time favorites. I have not used it much in the past couple of years as the photo shops in my area no longer carry it. When I was a working photo journalist I always kept a 1 quart kit with me for emergancies. The negatives are a little flat for my taste so I usually print them on grade 4 paper. Living in the Desert Southwest being able to process at 90 degrees comes in real handy during the summer. I have developed 4X5 TriX in an Bessler drum, although as I recall the Dianfine directions recommend gentle agitation.

fschifano · Oct 17, 2005

Agitation in Part A is relatively inconsequential, since all you are doing is letting teh film soak up the developing agent. Very little or no development takes place in this step though, so agitating once a minute is good practice. You can, however, over agitate in part B. If you do it vigorously enough, you can wash enough part A out of the emulsion to cause a problem, so gentle agitation is key here. A motorized Jobo drum, with it's constant agitation is not a good idea.

If you are having trouble getting full film speed with XTOL, chances are you don't have enough stock solution in your mix. You need at least 100 ml. of stock for each 8x10 sheet for a proper job. Having never used it, I can't comment at all about PC-TEA

Mongo · Oct 17, 2005

I used Diafine in a Unicolor drum for two 4x5's without trouble. I left both solutions in for five minutes (for no other reason than it seemed like a good idea at the time), and the negatives were very nice. I'd heard of the possibility of washing out part A with part B so I did this with unimportant negatives, but it worked fine.

If you really want to try this, try it once with an unimportant negative. If you have an old "2nd shot" that you didn't need (or perhaps take a 2nd shot the next time you're out) then you risk very little by trying this. If it works, then you have another weapon in your arsenal, and if it doesn't work then you're only out one sheet of film. (I'm always up for experimenting, even when the experiment is likely to fail.)

Best of luck.
Dave

dancqu · Oct 17, 2005

Tom Hoskinson said:
Check out this Apug Thread:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I'd forgotten that one. High fog levels were mentioned
of both the Home-Brew and the packaged. Not one
mention this thread. Dan

Tom Hoskinson · Oct 17, 2005

Since this is a PQ developer, I would think that a smidgen of Benzotriazole would knock down the fog (if any). Too much Benzo might seriously degrade the effective film speed, though.

Peter De Smidt · Oct 17, 2005

fschifano said:
[snip] If you are having trouble getting full film speed with XTOL, chances are you don't have enough stock solution in your mix. You need at least 100 ml. of stock for each 8x10 sheet for a proper job. [snip]

Hi,

Thanks for the advice. What you say is quite right, but it's not my problem here, as I do use at least 100 ml of stock per sheet. With 4x5 I use Xtol 1+2, but with 8x10 I've been using 1+1.

Peter De Smidt · Oct 17, 2005

Mongo said:
If you really want to try this, try it once with an unimportant negative. If you have an old "2nd shot" that you didn't need (or perhaps take a 2nd shot the next time you're out) then you risk very little by trying this. If it works, then you have another weapon in your arsenal, and if it doesn't work then you're only out one sheet of film. (I'm always up for experimenting, even when the experiment is likely to fail.)

Best of luck.
Dave

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the input. Yeah, I'll give it a try. I might also try developing one negative at a time in trays.

How does HP5+ work in Diafine? Supposedly Tri-X gives the greatest film speed boost, but people probably mean Tri-X 400, as opposed to the Tri-X 320 Pro that's available in sheet film.

Peter De Smidt

Mongo · Oct 17, 2005

I've only done a few rolls of HP5+ in Diafine and have not done any formal testing. I believe that the fastest I tried was 800, and it worked fine. (I'd have to check my notes to be sure that 800 was the fastest that I shot...but I'm fairly sure that's right.) I have no idea if 800 was the maximum or if I could have gotten more speed with that combination.

One of my favorite things about Diafine is that I can shoot many speeds on one roll of film and get printable negatives from all of them. That's what initially drew me to it: I could shoot a roll of 400 speed film with different frames rated from 400 to 1000, and Diafine would get me printable negatives from all of them. (This is, of course, only if you're using traditional films. New-technology films like TMax and Delta are best used with other developers.)

I really don't like Tri-X 320, and therefore don't have much experience with it. (I tried a five pack of 120, and ended up giving away the last three rolls. I'm sure it's the perfect film for some people, but it wasn't for me. I never tried it in Diafine.)

Be well.
Dave

Gerald Koch · Oct 18, 2005

Mongo said:
I used Diafine in a Unicolor drum for two 4x5's without trouble.

The constant agitation certainly doesn't help the longevity of Bath A. It can also cause aerial fog with some films.

Mongo · Oct 18, 2005

Gerald Koch said:
The constant agitation certainly doesn't help the longevity of Bath A. It can also cause aerial fog with some films.

So far, no ill effects. It's hard to say how much of an effect this will have on bath A, since I have a gallon of it and I'm only using 350ml in the Unicolor drum. Overall I think I'll be safe for quite a while. I didn't have any problems with fog, thankfully, though I know that's a risk.

dancqu · Oct 18, 2005

jdef said:
I've been playing with some ascorbate 2-bath
developers lately, ...

I saw at www.digitaltruth.com your 5 gram metol, 20 gram
ascorbate A bath and choice of alkali B bath divided
developer formula. Have you mentioned that?

For long life and consistent results the A bath will need
be inactive or very nearly so. That is only reasonable.

I think another rewarding approach to divided
development might be multiple pass one-shot A & B.
I'll make it a bit more radical. First the film soaks up B
then into A. B to A or A to B, repeat as often as
needed.

I've worked with the Ansco 120/Beer's A - Beutler/FX-1
type developers; metol, sulfite, carbonate. An A & B
bath Beutler's one-shot might work well.

An interesting variation would be your substitution
of ascorbate for sulfite. Dan

df cardwell · Oct 18, 2005

All these interesting variations are experimental, and we ought to stress that fact.

Diafine has been a tried and true workhorse since.. 1948 - 1950.

There is a world of difference between shooting day-in-day-out with Diafine, with the developer as a constant, and knowing what to expect, and the persnickety approach required with split formulae requiring adjustment to A and B baths depending on temperature, negative scale, and so on.

If there is nothing wrong with chemical experimentation and formula tinkering, may it be likewise acceptable to stick with a single developer, to master it, and concentrate on the image ? I've formulated a few developers myself, but try to never forget that what goes on the wall isn't a jar of developer, but a photograph.

.

Mongo · Oct 18, 2005

jdef said:
Diafine meets all of your developer needs, count yourself lucky. For me, it is far too limited in its range of applications.

I'm with Jay on this one. Although I like Diafine and have worked with it to find the limits of its use in my work, it doesn't meet all of my needs. I'll be mixing up one of Jay's developers soon to try it out...I love to experiment and his formulas seem to bring characteristics to the table that I find very appealing. (I'm thankful that there are people in the world who enjoy creating new developers, as it's just not my "thing".)

I like Diafine because I can develop almost anything in it and get a printable negative. But I've done work with Pyrocat-HD that blew me away and that I couldn't have done with Diafine. I've reached the point where I'm ready to add another developer to my arsenal (I try to add one or two each year), and some of Jay's work is especially intriguing to me. I'd planned to try out some of Jay's stuff last winter, but health problems precluded that at the time.

We each find our own path in photography. I know people who've used nothing but D-76 for years and who are very happy...and I'm happy for them. Heck, I know people who send all of their black and white work off to labs and are happy with their results...bully for them! I tend to enjoy experimenting with different things to find out what they can add to my personal enjoyment of photography; I build and modify cameras, but I use other people's developer recipes. I think that Diafine working so well for someone is a great thing, but for me it's a matter of "Horses for courses."

Be well.
Dave

Diafine vs. ???

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency