Is Diafine really that easy to use?

Worker 11811 said:

Both my enlargers are condensers. (Beseler 23C & Omega D-II)

I mixed it up last night. I've got my camera all loaded up with some Pan F+ (Set to 80.)
We had a big snowstorm last night.

I'm just waiting for the sky to clear up so I can go out and shoot!

I'm pretty psyched to try this Diafine out!

Click to expand...

I'm curious about it, but I'm a control freak haha but I also like to save money and it sounds a lot cheaper overall haha... hmm what to do...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

scheimfluger_77 said:

Here's a question. Rollei and Maco IR film instructions indicate a pre-soak to remove the halation backing. What effect do you think this would have using Diafine as the developer? It seems to me the pre-soak would inhibit maximum A absorption. Develop longer or pass on the pre-soak and develop normally in Diafine? What are your thoughts? My experience so far with this developer is with Retro 80s, no pre-soak needed there.
Steve

Click to expand...

A pre-soak would certainly effect Diafine absorption. I would recommend following Diafine's instruction not to pre-soak. IIRC both Kodak and Ilford specifically do not recommend pre-soaking their films with any developer.

ParkerSmithPhoto said:

Hey Rog,

I have done selenium intensification just recently on some test negatives, and the results looked pretty good. Maybe closer to a 1/2 grade, though. These were HP5 in Diafine negs. TMY400 is supposed to intensify quite well in selenium, according to Mr. Sexton.

Click to expand...

Good to know Parker, thanks. Did you use it at 1+3? I've read somewhere that's the strength to use for negative intensification. I assume it just goes to completion so time and temperature are more a matter of minimums?

Not so much specifically for Diafine but there are times it would be useful to have in the tool kit.

Worker 11811 said:

Both my enlargers are condensers. (Beseler 23C & Omega D-II)

I mixed it up last night. I've got my camera all loaded up with some Pan F+ (Set to 80.)
We had a big snowstorm last night.

I'm just waiting for the sky to clear up so I can go out and shoot!

I'm pretty psyched to try this Diafine out!

Click to expand...

I would recommend shooting some of the roll at 64 and even 50. The box recommends 100 for 35mm and 80 for 120, but I have found with modern films, by which I mean the modern formulation of traditional films not necessarily "new tech" films, the box ratings are often a bit optimistic. I shoot 120 Pan F+ at 64. You will get a bit more effective speed with Diafine, but then most people seem to shoot Pan F+ at 40 or 32 in conventional developers.

Incidentally I just gave my MIL and FIL in law a mounted custom framed print for Christmas, 15.5" square, from a 6x6 negative on Pan F+ developed in Diafine. They loved it. It's the one I've posted before of the beach at Apalachicola.

Roger Cole said:

That was his "Super Soup" :

http://silent1.home.netcom.com/Photography/Dilutions and Times.html#Super_Soup

I've been meaning to try it with TMZ and Delta 3200 and see what it will do.

Here's a recommendation for pushing Tri-X to 12500 by developing first in Diafine, then stand developing in Rodinal, and finally following up with Super Soup:

http://www.digitaltruth.com/articles/pushing-tri-x.php

Click to expand...

Yes, it was "Super Soup". It sounds like fun, and I know that film and chemisty are low in cost compared to other things, I just don't have the extra to go play with these days. Someday!

I can afford it now (for simple stuff like this) but I just don't have the time. In the past I had the time but not the money. Funny how that seems to work, innit?

jim appleyard said:

Yes, it was "Super Soup". It sounds like fun, and I know that film and chemisty are low in cost compared to other things, I just don't have the extra to go play with these days. Someday!

Click to expand...

I use it semi-regularly with TX at 3200---obviously it can go higher, but I found that to be sort of the sweet spot. (I did more careful testing with HP5+---results at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ntenny/sets/72157620654443216/---but it seems generally similar with Tri-X.)

-NT

scheimfluger_77 said:

Here's a question. Rollei and Maco IR film instructions indicate a pre-soak to remove the halation backing. What effect do you think this would have using Diafine as the developer? It seems to me the pre-soak would inhibit maximum A absorption. Develop longer or pass on the pre-soak and develop normally in Diafine?

Click to expand...

I've used Diafine successfully with both those films without a presoak. It's a mystery to me why the instructions call for one.

-NT

ntenny said:

I use it semi-regularly with TX at 3200---obviously it can go higher, but I found that to be sort of the sweet spot. (I did more careful testing with HP5+---results at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ntenny/sets/72157620654443216/---but it seems generally similar with Tri-X.)

-NT

Click to expand...

Is this at 68F? I prefer to develop warmer most of the time, as in the summer my room temperature is usually closer to 75 (occasionally solutions, which will be slightly cooler than room temperature due to evaporative cooling, will run 76 or even, rarely, 77) and in the winter when room temperatures without the heater on are more like 65 the higher standard can still be reached by my Jobo - even if not using the Jobo for the processing I can use it as a tempering bath.

Or maybe this is kind of like Diafine and just goes to completion?

I'm actually really pleased with the results I get from both TMZ and D3200 at 3200 with T-Max developer. 6400 is workable with TMZ though I haven't tried it yet with D3200. I'm wondering if Super Soup could get even more speed out of D3200 and maybe TMZ (which still seems to be in stock most places, and I have a few rolls in the freezer.)

StoneNYC said:

I'm curious about it, but I'm a control freak haha but I also like to save money and it sounds a lot cheaper overall haha... hmm what to do...


~Stone

Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Try it! Little to lose. If you find it lacks the control you like move on. In the meantime might be fun.

Roger Cole said:

I can afford it now (for simple stuff like this) but I just don't have the time. In the past I had the time but not the money. Funny how that seems to work, innit?

Click to expand...

Wow, same here. Funny how things flip like that. Finally old enough and far enough along in my career that I can certainly afford fun things like this, but have to pick and choose what to spend my precious little free time on. OK I'm not going to complain... also I get to use film cameras now that I could only dream about when they were new, so no complaining!

StoneNYC said:

I'm curious about it, but I'm a control freak haha but I also like to save money and it sounds a lot cheaper overall haha... hmm what to do...

Click to expand...

rich815 said:

Try it! Little to lose. If you find it lacks the control you like move on. In the meantime might be fun.

Click to expand...

Okay, I haven't developed film with the stuff. I'm still gearing up but consider...
"Control" can also include things like pinning down one variable while you work on another. Then when you find out what you need to know, pin down the other variable and work on the first.

I like D-76 and XTOL. I'll probably never stop using them but, if Diafine locks down most of the variables associated with development, I can work on film exposure and printing, knowing that my development will always be consistent. Then, when I understand how that works, I can take the information gained and go back to the other developer and experiment with them.

So, in this case, Diafine might give me "control" because I know that I my development will always be consistent.

The downside might be that I have less latitude for varying my exposure but, at least for experimental purposes, that could be a good trade-off for consistency.

Bottom line: I hope Diafine will be one more tool for me to keep in my tool box (cupboard) for use when I need (or want) it. Thus, what seems to take away control gives me more ways to handle my workflow as situations demand.