How can I avoid these sprocket hole marks with Diafine?

[loccdor]

I tried Diafine for the first time today. Followed the instructions, mixing with distilled water. As recommended, I did not do any pre-soak, and no wash between Part A and Part B. I did each part for 4 minutes around 75F with no agitation. 3 reel Paterson hand tank.

Was that the problem, do I need to agitate? This reminds me of effects I have gotten with full stand development. But I thought the recommendation was not to agitate with Diafine.

 

[Sanug]

You see the typical problem with stand development. I don´t understand why this has become so common now. You need agitation.

 

[retina_restoration]

I tried Diafine for the first time today. Followed the instructions, mixing with distilled water. As recommended, I did not do any pre-soak, and no wash between Part A and Part B. I did each part for 4 minutes around 75F with no agitation. 3 reel Paterson hand tank.

Was that the problem, do I need to agitate? This reminds me of effects I have gotten with full stand development. But I thought the recommendation was not to agitate with Diafine.

View attachment 396996 View attachment 396997 View attachment 396998

Zero agitation = bromide drift/sprocket hole streaks.
You agitate as you're meant to and the problem goes away. There's a reason why manufacturers state an agitation protocol for developers.

 

[xkaes]

I'm no DIAFINE expert, but with divided development, the PART A simply gets some of the developer into the film through absorption into the emulsion. Agitation for that part may not be necessary -- unless DIAFINE says otherwise. Even the time is not that critical -- so long as it's long enough for the film emulsion to absorb as much as it can of the developer.

It's PART B where the development actually happens -- thanks to the action of the other chemicals -- and "bromide drag" can happen, thanks to gravity, without adequate agitation. If you are using sheet film in a tray, for example, you can get away without agitation. I think Ansel Adams mentions this. It's the time in PART B that will control the Contrast Index.

P.S. What's that amoeba thing in your negatives?

 

[koraks]

I did each part for 4 minutes around 75F with no agitation.

So that was clearly not a good idea. Why no agitation? It really helps.

P.S. What's that amoeba thing in your negatives?

This?
Just a cluster of bubbles. We're looking at still wet film it seems. Looks normal to me.

 

[loccdor]

Ah, I misread the instructions. Mystery solved.

P.S. What's that amoeba thing in your negatives?

They were just taken out of the photoflo.

 

[ags2mikon]

I have used Diafine on and off since 1969, you do have to agitate. Also the temperature thing has to be within reason. I used 72F on mine and 4-5 min. It did great with Kodak Tri X and Ilford Pan F. When Plus X was here it was also great.

 

[David Lyga]

Just try this: each and every 15 seconds, turn the tank upside down once. Done. - David Lyga

 

[Paul Howell]

After a couple of decades I am now using Diafine, as you have discovered there is a fine dividing line of how long and when to agitate. I use the original directions from the 70s, 5 second agitation to start then 5 seconds every minute both A and B. I tossed the last bag I mixed, still have box from the 70s, is there any update. I generally go 4 minutes A and B. I should have saved the bag as the times for Tmax 100 seemed to be someodd with a differnt time in A than B.

 

[loccdor]

Yeah, I had come across a 20 year old thread when using a web search about it where a lot of people were saying you didn't need to agitate. It made sense to me not having used a two-part developer before, because my understanding was they would develop "to completion" and then stop, so the idea of uneven development didn't even occur to me as a possibility.

I can see now that's not quite how it works, and these two-part developers have more in common with the standard kind.

Reading the manufacturers instructions on the packet, I saw the 5 seconds initial agitation but skimmed over the 5 seconds per minute part a bit too fast. Attention deficit I suppose. I threw out the packet after I mixed it because I don't like to keep powdery residues around, so that was my one and only chance to read it before development.

 

[Paul Howell]

Newer emulsions such as Tmax and Delta, as I understand it are somewhat harder than older types and require additional time and agitation. As Trix has been updated as late at the mid 2000 it might have a harder emulsion as well.

 

[xkaes]

Yeah, I had come across a 20 year old thread when using a web search about it where a lot of people were saying you didn't need to agitate. It made sense to me not having used a two-part developer before, because my understanding was they would develop "to completion" and then stop, so the idea of uneven development didn't even occur to me as a possibility.

If you are using sheet film in a tray, you don't need agitation, and there won't be any "drag" because the film is flat. So "don't agitate" advise would have been correct in the right context.

Processing of film "X" will vary depending on the vessel holding the chemicals and film -- and other factors.

 

[loccdor]

@xkaes

Ah that makes sense, I was probably reading something meant for large format.

 

[koraks]

If you are using sheet film in a tray, you don't need agitation

Yes, you do. The drag won't be drag, but there will be mottling and density differences between the edges and the center of the frame. Try and develop x-ray film which is very prone to uneven development with inappropriate agitation; this illustrates very well what kind of patterns you can also get on regular film, but usually less evident. Although it's fairly easy to develop sheet film in a tray with perfectly satisfactory evenness. Personally, I stick to one agitation cycle every 30 seconds with each cycle consisting of tilting different corners of the tray a few times. But this is with a regular, undivided developer.

 

[xkaes]

You'll have to bring this up with AA, since I've never used it. See page 229-230 in "The Negative".

 

[djdister]

Did Ansel change his mind about agitation after 1971? "The Negative, New Revised Edition," Fifth printing 1971, pages 74-78 talk quite a bit about the need for agitation, and page 75 says "In tray development, the film itself should be kept in constant motion..." and he says again on page 77 "Since tray development demands constant agitation..."

The "Zone VI Workshop" also talks about continuous agitation for tray development, for what its worth.

 

[koraks]

You'll have to bring this up with AA, since I've never used it. See page 229-230 in "The Negative".

Haven't used what - sheet film? Or agitation with sheet film?

I have a fairly modern edition of the book (19th paperback printing, 2015). On page 209 in the introductory paragraph on tray development of sheet film it says:

Agitation is more complex than with tank development, and careful attention must be paid to the frequency and timing.

He then proceeds to explain an agitation routine that cycles through a stack of sheets every 30 seconds and points out that the 30-second cycle needs to be adhered to regardless of the number of sheets, so the agitation routine needs to be adjusted for the number of sheets so that the cycle time remains a constant 30 seconds. The agitation routine he describes furthermore involves constant manipulation of the sheets, to the developer in the tray will be in constant motion.

I frankly didn't remember the 30 second thing by Adams, although as pointed out earlier, I do use a 30 second cycle myself as well. IIRC I based this on the regular Kodak agitation cycle time for tank development of roll films. I've also developed hundreds of sheets of xray films in many different ways, while visually tracking development, so I have developed (hah) sort of a feeling for what's happening at the film surface. Based on such experiences, I've settled on my present way of working.

I don't doubt that some form of stand development may work to an extent on sheet film as well. It's just very sensitive to the geometry of whatever the film is in (tray, tank, reels/hangers) during development. For instance, I've stand developed sheet film in a Paterson tank with a MOD54 holder and consistently obtained horrible flagging around the fingers of the MOD54, extending downward into the image area. Results with a DIY spin on BTZS tubes has worked a lot better for me - although I never observed any tangible benefit to this approach. It just takes a lot of time.

 

[xkaes]

Did Ansel change his mind about agitation after 1971? "The Negative, New Revised Edition," Fifth printing 1971, pages 74-78 talk quite a bit about the need for agitation, and page 75 says "In tray development, the film itself should be kept in constant motion..." and he says again on page 77 "Since tray development demands constant agitation..."

The "Zone VI Workshop" also talks about continuous agitation for tray development, for what its worth.

Of course. He writes mostly about agitation of sheet film in trays for typical one-shot developers, but he makes an exception when using split developers -- and states "no agitation" for Part B. He has a separate section for it. Look in the INDEX under DEVELOPMENT - WATER-BATH AND TWO SOLUTION.

I'm not advising this. It's AA that did. I've never used it, and probably never will. I bring it up simply as a way to try to explain why some people, such as loccdor, think that film in divided developers should not be agitated. Comprende?

Lots of people think that if AA said it that it must be "Gospel". I think that any process should be tested by YOU using your gear, and not simply believed.

 

[loccdor]

This video on extreme pull processing with Diafine I found yesterday is very interesting.