Diafine, worth it?

[Mani_Reshad]

I was thinking about cooking up some diafine because I’ve heard so much about it’s fineness of grain, the great resolution and its longevity(accordingly an undying developer). Are these claims actually true?

 

[Paul Howell]

I used Dianfine in the 70s as my last resort developer when working as a PJ in Africa for the wires. Some people love Diafine, ease of use, 3 mints, no wash, 3 mints no stop, a wash, then fix and dry. It is considered panthermic meaning it will from around 70 degrees to the 90s without changing the times in each bath. It also provides a boost in film speed. It is very fine grained, grain is very fine, so fine that it looks mushy to me, not very sharp. Resolution is not a characteristic of a developer, it is baked into the film and captured by a given lens. What a developer does affect is apparent sharpness, the small gain of Diafine looks soft to me. It also low contrast, which cannot be adjusted by development time. UPI and later Reuters had to print a grade or two higher than normal. Either you like or not. For me, not so much, but other have really nice prints or scans made from negatives developed in Diafine. My ony suggestion is to use a fast film with larger grain, results may look sharper.

 

[JWMster]

I've heard that some push the Diafine idea as allowing the user to develop a bunch of different films together and not worry about matching specific developers to specific films and using specific times. Kind of an uncontrolled free-for-all and "good for beginners 'cause everything turns out". But that's true only to a degree. I've seen some wonderful shots from days of yore by journalists using TRI-X and getting some awesome dynamic range. I have some of this stuff. I haven't used it.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

I was thinking about cooking up some diafine because I’ve heard so much about it’s fineness of grain, the great resolution and its longevity(accordingly an undying developer). Are these claims actually true?

The short answer: If the claims were true then this developer would be used by everyone in lieu of D-76 & Co.. Instead, Diafine is an expensive developer that only exists on the fringe. There is enough of that fringe to keep it in manufacture.

I used Diafine in the 1960s when I was trying every developer under the sun. I was sure that if I found the right one it would improve my skills in composition, exposing, printing and dry-mounting. None of them did. Slowly, I eventually saw the light and went back to using the old staple developers like D-76.

But there are folks who love anything - even Trabant automobiles. Maybe you too will love Diafine, and only you can find your particular truth by trying the developer - it may just suit you. Advice and recommendations without the backing of hard objective data are so much hot air:

"XYZ is the greatest developer ever made; I recommend it and use it all the time. I'm no dummy and wouldn't use anything unless it was the greatest ever. Now, would I?"​

​

 

[Paul Howell]

OP is listed as living in Iran, I doubt that OP can buy Clayton or Diafine so he/she will have to mixed from scratch. Although it is expensive those who use say that they have batches that they have used for years. I think Diafine is replenished by adding fresh parts A and B. Also don't ever cross B into A. B is the strong alkaline activator and will "kill" part a with even a few ozs. I recall posts in which some shot TriX at 3200, did a first run at standards times, then after a 5 mint wash back into A and B for a second development.

 

[Dali]

I was thinking about cooking up some diafine because I’ve heard so much about it’s fineness of grain, the great resolution and its longevity(accordingly an undying developer). Are these claims actually true?

OK for the longevity feature, way longer than most of the other developers. Apart from that, it gives an ISO boost to a lot of films (at least +1 stop) but negatives are low contrast. I stopped using it long ago and switched back to homemade D-76 giving me overall better results and is way more flexible.

 

[TomR55]

OP is listed as living in Iran, I doubt that OP can buy Clayton or Diafine so he/she will have to mixed from scratch. Although it is expensive those who use say that they have batches that they have used for years. I think Diafine is replenished by adding fresh parts A and B. Also don't ever cross B into A. B is the strong alkaline activator and will "kill" part a with even a few ozs. I recall posts in which some shot TriX at 3200, did a first run at standards times, then after a 5 mint wash back into A and B for a second development.

Oops! … next time I’ll backtrack to the OP.

 

[bernard_L]

Tried Diafine a looong time ago. Just like @Nicholas Lindan "I was trying every developer under the sun. I was sure that if I found the right one it would improve my skills in composition, exposing, printing and dry-mounting."
My recollection: dull, gray-ish tonality. Consistent with statement by @Dali "but negatives are low contrast."

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I only used Diafine as a last resort, it can be used in very high contrast situations without blowing out the highlights. As it is low contrast, high dynamic rage, wonder how it work with Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System. Maybe paired with Foma 400 4X5 to increase apparent sharpness.

 

[IMoL]

I've not used original Diafine, but I have been experimenting with Bellini Duostep which is claimed to be "very similar" to Diafine with similar properties.

I've actually found it to be quite useful for multiple reasons:

1. It gives a speed boost for many films (e.g. it's the only developer I have found that gives me EI 200 for Fomapan 200)
2. It is extremely compensating in high contrast situations and helps with films that develop highlight density quickly (Fomapan)
3. Contrast is indeed on the lower end - but for my hybrid process with scanning being the end product this works well

It's not a developer for all situations, but I like having it in the "toolbox".

Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[Randy Stewart]

Short Answer: No, Diafine is not worth the price. Reasons:
1. It is a highly compensating, two bath developer. By definition, it prevents any user control over the overall contrast of negatives. It cannot be used to expand or contract (push/pull) development. It will flatten the contrast curve of the highlights, effectively reducing their tonal separation and mushing them together.
2. It is not "fine grain.". Whether you like the sharpness or softness of the grain is produces is up to you, Most do not like it.
3. It was introduced in the early 1960s by the same company making Acufine. At the time, most were "speed crazy" over film speed, and both developers were formulated to chemically push film speed at the cost of other image qualities.
4. If you accept the limitations of all split or two bath developers, then many other developers have been "split" over the years. Today, the best alternative is probably divided D-76. You can make it from bulk chemicals with the formula on the internet, or you can buy it from Photographers Formulary for a third the price of Diafine. It offers the same imaging characteristics of Diafine, with a sharper image and finer grain. As a divided developer, it offers the same nearly infinite shelf life if not destroyed by intermixing the baths.
I went through my divided developer phase in the 1970s, first with divided D-23, then divided D-76. Then, I grew up and assumed control over the quality of my B&W negatives.

 

[Paul Howell]

"Short Answer: No, Diafine is not worth the price. Reasons:"

As OP lives in Iran and seems is going to mix his own, how expensive is DIY version vs. the retail for commercially available product?

 

[Randy Stewart]

"Short Answer: No, Diafine is not worth the price. Reasons:"

As OP lives in Iran and seems is going to mix his own, how expensive is DIY version vs. the retail for commercially available product?

The maker has always held the formulas for Diafine and Acufine as proprietary. I have not checked, but there might be a formula for a Diafine-life developer in The Darkroom Cookbook. Divided D-76 is on the internet and in the "Cookbook". It uses the regular components for D-76, but just divides them into two baths. The chemicals for D-76 are common, at least in the US and Europe. "Expensive" comes in two definitions. The net cost to make a liter of D-76 would probably be less than $3 (the bottles to store it would cost more). However, the minimum volume of bulk chemicals you would have to buy is probably ten times that amount, leaving you with a lifetime supply. Still less than a package of Diafine to make one gallon.

Before you go "all in" for a divided developer, know that these developers were compounded at a time when films used a relatively thick emulsion, which absorbed more developer than the thin emulsions mostly used today. The degree of development is largely controlled by how much of the first bath, containing the developing agent, can be absorbed. Simply put, a divided developer may not work well with a modern emulsion film, particularly the T-grain films. While there are a number of social media producers who swear by Diafine, the hard facts are that the quality standards of what is acceptable on social media today has degraded to the point where such subjective evaluations re not really worth considering.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Here is DIAFINE from Moscow...

 

[snusmumriken]

Before you go "all in" for a divided developer, know that these developers were compounded at a time when films used a relatively thick emulsion, which absorbed more developer than the thin emulsions mostly used today. The degree of development is largely controlled by how much of the first bath, containing the developing agent, can be absorbed. Simply put, a divided developer may not work well with a modern emulsion film, particularly the T-grain films.

While that's a reasonable speculation, it isn't borne out in practice. I have successfully used 2-bath developers with Delta 100, Delta 3200, T-Max 100, and T-Max 400, as well as with FP4+, HP5+, Tri-X, and Double-X.

 

[Paul Howell]

With the thicker emulsions ISO was rated higher, other than slower film speeds I think modern films will work just as well,. I have not tried Ortho or microfiche film, not sure how specilitie films would work Diafine may be strong enough for ortho, but might work with microfiche.