Do any Labs Process in Diafine?

[jffielde]

I would like to have a lab develop my Delta 3200 in Diafine, but I cannot find a lab that uses it. Does anyone know of one? I'm happy to ship the film anywhere in the US. Thank you.

 

[gone]

Of all the developers that are easy to use, this is the easiest. Pretty foolproof to get consistent results, so I would suggest investing in a change bag and a Paterson tank/reels and do it yourself. We're talking about maybe 50 bucks here, or less if you can find it used. You'll save LOTS of money in the long run. I learned so much when I started developing my own negs it's not funny, and yes, it is easy. I haven't made any hard calculations, but it probably costs me $1 a roll or less to develop a roll of B&W film. And you get to see the results within a few hours, vs a week or two if you send it out.

It used to cost me $15-$20 to send it out when you figured in the shipping, so you can see how quickly you start to get ahead. Developer, stop bath, and fixer are maybe $35 (Diafine is expensive to buy initially but it goes a long way), and you will get many, many rolls w/ this. All you need is a sink.

Or you could sent it to me or probably many of the members here and we'd do it for a nominal fee to cover the cost of the chemicals. Just throw it in a two reel tank when we develop one of our rolls. But I highly recommend doing it yourself just to see how much you will learn.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Diafine is so very easy to work with. It's almost foolproof. What I like is that it gives me a good printable negative with appropriate density in all areas without bulking up the highlights. When printing, I much prefer to just dial in the contrast with filters rather than going the whole Zone System route, which I have tried so many times over the years despite the fact that it's really not necessary for my type of work. The same neg is perfect for scanning as well. Plus, Diafine lasts a very long time.

If you ever find yourself with a too flat neg, just give it some intensification in 1:1 selenium. I suspect that, if you are shooting 3200 in low light, Diafine would be perfect for your subject matter.

 

[jslabovitz]

Blue Moon Camera (http://bluemooncamera.com) in Portland, Ore., will probably do it. I once talked to them about doing a bunch of film in Microphen. Call them and ask.

But I also second the other suggestion here of trying to do it yourself.

—John

 

[Truzi]

I agree, you should get some and try it yourself. As mentioned above, Diafine is easy, and with the cost of sending film out, it would take only a few rolls before you break even. If it turns out you don't like Diafine, it would probably cost the same to send film out as buying your own developer by the time you reach that decision.

I'm still learning to use Diafine, and haven't decided if I like it yet, but I can say that I don't dislike it.

 

[railwayman3]

I'd definitely do it myself, as others say, the cost of a changing bag, tank, plus the other bits needed, will be easily recovered if you want to process future films. If you're unfamiliar with loading a tank in a changing bag, or in the dark, I'd recommend that you pick up a roll of scrap film or unwanted negatives to practice with. It's not at all difficult once you have confidence, but you don't want to risk any damage to an important film on your first try.

IIRC, and FWIW, on an Ilford UK factory visit last autumn I think it was mentioned that their UK lab service was looking into the possibility of using bespoke developers for customers films.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

I would like to have a lab develop my Delta 3200 in Diafine, but I cannot find a lab that uses it. Does anyone know of one? I'm happy to ship the film anywhere in the US. Thank you.

If you need some tanks to get started, I can sell you a decent Paterson 2 roll tank for the cost of shipping. For 35mm, they are much easier to load than stainless.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's as easy as they all say. I like it a lot for some films, particularly for pushing Tri-X (EI 1000 nowadays, can't really get the 1600 I used to, at least for tungsten lighting. Daylight, overcast days and such, do pretty well at 1600) and for taming highlight contrast in Pan F+. I also get a useful bit of speed bump with that film and usually shoot it at 64.

That said, I doubt it's really a good match for D3200. It isn't really for TMZ. It gets more effective speed increase with conventional films. I get a really awesome effective 3200 out of D3200 developed in T-Max developer per Ilford's instructions for 6400. (Same with Kodak's times for TMZ - I always develop for one stop more than I shot at. I suspect they are trying to minimize grain but at the expense of detail in the low midtones and upper shadows which still record some. I'll take tonality over grain any day when I have to make a trade off between them.)

Granted, I don't KNOW - I haven't tried D3200 in Diafine. I did try TMZ in it years ago when TMZ came out and didn't like it. I got more effective speed with Tri-X.