How old is this Diafine?

[BobD]

I got a couple of these packages of Diafine at an estate sale, both unopened.

Going by the films listed on the box, how old would say this is? I know Ilford HPS goes back to the 1950s-60s but I'm not sure about some of the others. The box has a zip code address so that would place it around mid-1960s or later.

Do you think it's still good? The metal cans inside are unopened.

 

[Paul Howell]

There is a zip code so not the 50s, no earlier than 63, just before GAF bought Ansco so between 1963 and 1966. Other date is HP3, when did it become HP4? I think current Diafine list Trix as 1600, the older emulsions were thicker allowing more of part A to soak in.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used D76, DK50 Ansco 17 and Acufine, in cans currently have a can of Acuf9ine I just bought on Ebay long with a few cans of replenisher I have on hand, to use with Foma 400 in 4X5 that I plan to shoot at 400. I have had good luck with old cans of developer, in the day the cans were often filled with nitrogen to prevent oxidation. If the chemistry is still white or even just turning off color I would give it a try, shoot a test roll at differnt ISOs to find your working E.I.

 

[Paul Howell]

i Just mixed up my can of Acufine, chemistry was still white, mixed well at 90 degrees, later I will mix a can of replenisher.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

My memory of my experience with Diafine and Accufine was that the ASA/EI numbers were wildly optimistic, wishful thinking or maybe just downright fraudulent. Maybe they just slipped a decimal point - results with Tr-X exposed at EI 240 will be OK; at EI 2400 there will be little density, no shadow detail and and a very flat negative.

Wild EI claims for developers were not uncommon in the 1960's. Edwal was another developer maker with exagerated EI numbers. Kodak did not succumb to the fad, though to tell the truth Kodak's EI ratings were maybe 2/3 of a stop optimistic. Yes, you would get good results if you controlled lighting ratios and stayed away from sunlight, but for most of the rest of us TRI-X at 240-320 (coupled with a ~15% reduction in developing time) worked better.

 

[Paul Howell]

As I recall, in the 50s and 60s the thinking was that the ASA (ISO) ratings were conservative as many armatured and hobbyist photospheres used simple cameras and did not own a light meter. Diafine, Acufine and other developers that were marketed towards advanced amateurs and professionals who used light meters and understood how to expose a scene depending on the lighting. When using Diafine with Trix I shot at 1600, which was just a bit under the Diafine recommended speed of 2400.

 

[MarkS]

When I worked in a custom lab in the late 1970s, a regular service they offered was to push Tri-X (it was always Tri-X) to EI 1600 (for a surcharge over normal development in D-76 1:1).
We/I used Diafine for those customers... there were a few regulars who liked the results, since they kept coming back.
Your box looks just like the ones we had then... who knows how old that stock was in 1978?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

HP4 was introduced in 1965, so this would have to be at least that old.

 

[titrisol]

Sometime from the early/mid 60s
Agfa IFF, Ilford HP3/HPS, Ansco SuperHypan are from that time.

 

[BobD]

Thanks to all!

 

[reddesert]

Although the films listed on the box clearly date it to be 1960s vintage, my memory of buying a box of Diafine new in the 1990s was that the package still looked nearly the same - white box with that red and blue logo and two small metal cans inside. I'm sure the list of films had been updated. Acufine was similarly packaged in a small metal can.

 

[john_s]

My memory of my experience with Diafine and Accufine was that the ASA/EI numbers were wildly optimistic, wishful thinking or maybe just downright fraudulent. Maybe they just slipped a decimal point - results with Tr-X exposed at EI 240 will be OK; at EI 2400 there will be little density, no shadow detail and and a very flat negative.

Wild EI claims for developers were not uncommon in the 1960's. Edwal was another developer maker with exagerated EI numbers. Kodak did not succumb to the fad, though to tell the truth Kodak's EI ratings were maybe 2/3 of a stop optimistic. Yes, you would get good results if you controlled lighting ratios and stayed away from sunlight, but for most of the rest of us TRI-X at 240-320 (coupled with a ~15% reduction in developing time) worked better.

The recommended film speeds for Acufine (same manufacturer) were revised downwards (quite a lot) at some time possibly in the 1970s. I might have copies of them if anyone is interested.

Acufine in cans from 1970 approx was still fine around 2000, so the Diafine is likely to be good also. Metal cans were great.

 

[Paul Howell]

As noted, films speeds dropped as emulsion got thinner. The Acufine can I have list Tmax 400 at E.I 800, which is maybe a small push, Kodak recommends that same developing times for 800 as 400. bear push, Trix is 1000.