Is Diafine really that easy to use?

[Roger Cole]

Certainly if bath A changes with time it is not ripening in the traditional sense as would occur with replenished developers. Since bath A is acidic no development should occur in it. So just what would explain any ripening. This is the first mention of this phenomenon and runs against Diafine's claims that development remains uniform throughout the developers life.

This would also make me hesitate to try the multiple passes through both baths. They warn you about not getting any of B into the A bath. Maybe with a very thorough water bath.

I did not get any "push" at all on old TMY, and in fact the box doesn't list any push. If anything I got less speed. I know some people like it but I did not like it at all with either TMX or TMY. Is TMY-2 different in this regard?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When Baumann owned Diafine it published very specific instructions concerning agitation for their developers Diafine, Acufine, and Acu-1. While two bath developers are convenient their use should not be taken as an opportunity for sloppy technique.

 

[Roger Cole]

Also WRT contrast - my experience with it on traditional films is that a normal scene will print well with about grade 3, maybe 3.5 filtration with my condenser enlarger. Pan F+ seems to be an inherently contrasty film but I still end up printing those on grade 3 more often than not. But if you expose properly for your system you'll get shadow detail, and while you might need a little harder paper it isn't a problem getting a normal looking print. Maybe not the best choice for very flat lightling, but good for contrasty lighting for the same reason.

 

[Roger Cole]

When Baumann owned Diafine it published very specific instructions concerning agitation for their developers Diafine, Acufine, and Acu-1. While two bath developers are convenient their use should not be taken as an opportunity for sloppy technique.

+1. Follow their instructions, particularly with regard to contamination of A with B (don't), minimum time and agitation (agitate gently and don't over do it) and it really is very easy. You might or might not like the results, but if it sounds interesting to you it's worth a try. With its relative insensitivity to time and temperature as long as the minimum times and wide temperature range are complied with it's a lot easier in most ways than single bath developers.

 

[Worker 11811]

Sounds to me like more of a pain, I already dislike multiple steps without adding a 4th... Lol

The mfg. instructions say that a stop bath is not necessary and, in fact, recommend against it.

Therefore, instead of Dev. > Stop > Fix > Wash, it becomes Dev.-A > Dev.-B > Fix > Wash. The same number of steps. You just trade Dev.-B for the Stop.

They also recommend a rinse between Stop and Fix but I do that already. It prolongs the life of the fixer. Right?

Bottom line: No more work than other workflows.

 

[Roger Cole]

The mfg. instructions say that a stop bath is not necessary and, in fact, recommend against it.

Therefore, instead of Dev. > Stop > Fix > Wash, it becomes Dev.-A > Dev.-B > Fix > Wash. The same number of steps. You just trade Dev.-B for the Stop.

They also recommend a rinse between Stop and Fix but I do that already. It prolongs the life of the fixer. Right?

Bottom line: No more work than other workflows.

They do recommend a water rinse between bath B and fix, though. I've always done this. In fact, after some problems with pinholes in Foma, I'm going to that for all my film. An acid stop is not necessary for most developers anyway.

It's one more bath, but it's so easy it really turns out simpler. Really. About the only thing really bad I can say about it is that it's pretty expensive to try if you don't know you'll like it. But if you do like it, it lasts so long it's very inexpensive to actually use.

 

[ntenny]

(using Diafine twice for more speed)

Yup, it's been done. I can't remember who did this, but a longtime APUGer posted this trick here. I think he go EI 6400 from TX by doing this. If you search the archives, you may find it.

I think it was Donald Qualls, who also cooked up a developer that gets a very respectable 6400 and an arguably-usable 12800 from HP5+ or TX400. He seems to have wandered away from APUG in the last few years, which is a shame as he contributed some very good mad-scientist darkroom ideas.

I never tried this particular trick myself, but clearly you'd have to rinse the holy hell out of it after the first B bath to avoid any contamination of the A bath. If you only needed to do it once in a blue moon, I suppose you could throw away the second A bath rather than putting it back in the stock bottle. Even then, it seems like the emulsion wouldn't absorb too much of the A bath due to being already wet---might it work even better to let it *dry* in the tank, at least partially, before doing the second round?

The approach makes sense, but of course you'd lose a certain amount of the compensating effect in the highlights. Reduced agitation might bring back some of that compensation, I guess, but maybe at the cost of unevenness. IMHO, some experiments are justified to find out what does and doesn't work well in practice.

-NT

 

[henry finley]

When I was 17, back in 1974, I got hooked on Plus-X and Acu-1 at ASA 320, just as the label on the Acu-1 can said to. I heard about it from another guy, because I hung around the camera stores back then (I should have been tending schoolwork). Anyway, it really was neat stuff and it made those 35mm blow-ups look as pretty as the big negative stuff. It was a qyart can of powder for one-shot use. Seems like 1:15 or so. Neat stuff, and I didn't have to fool around with the replentisher jazz. That's why that Diafine or Acufine didn't interest me. And besides, when I did Tri-X in Microdol 1:3, I got pictures at 11x14 without a speck of grain. That was with my trusty Mamiya/Sekor 1000DTL I got for Christmas in 1972. I forgot what the name of the company that made those 3 developers, but it really was pretty good stuff and not just voodoo developers. OK Regards.

 

[MattKing]

I haven't used Diafine in decades, and when I did, it was while developing film for others.

What sort of results might I expect if I used it for T-Max 100?

 

[gliderbee]

How sensitive is the agitation scheme? Can it be used in a jobo processor?

Stefan

Verstuurd van mijn GT-P7510 met Tapatalk

 

[Roger Cole]

How sensitive is the agitation scheme? Can it be used in a jobo processor?

Stefan

Verstuurd van mijn GT-P7510 met Tapatalk

Someone on the large format forum was talking about trying it but I don't recall any results posted. I have a Jpbo I use with conventional developers but just use the 1500 series tanks and inversion (I have both lids) with Diafine.

 

[Harry Lime]

So it ripens huh? Interesting, is that the B developer that ripens or the A?

Also does this mean IN THEORY that if you took it and soaked in A... The. Developed in B till completion... Then soaked in A again and back to B, you could push it beyond the normal point as more developer could soak in?

Sounds to me like more of a pain, I already dislike multiple steps without adding a 4th... Lol

You don't want to contaminate bath A with bath B (don't cross the streams!). So you really can't try that unless you want to use it as a one shot developer.

I give the tank a good tap after filling it to dislodge air bubbles. After that I invert once and slowly at the halfway mark.

I have had bromide (?) drag marks with the plastic reels, but never encountered that problem with the stainless type.

 

[Roger Cole]

I've always used it with plastic reels and never had a problem. Why are you inverting only once half way through? Instructions say to agitate gently for 10 seconds (three inversions or so if done slowly) initially followed by 5 seconds each minute - which is what I do, two gentle inversions and tap the tank each minute including the last one, then pour. Never any problems with unevenness.

 

[Worker 11811]

With Tri-X you get very good classic looking results....

...Once it has 'ripened' a little your negatives will become noticeably smoother and take on a pearly appearance.

Those are, pretty much, the results I'm looking for. If I get my exposure and development just right I have been able to get that with D-76 and XTOL but I just can't do it every time.

Neopan 100, Neopan 400, Pan F+ and Tri-X are my films of choice. As I have read and, as you all have said, those are the films that work best in Diafine.

I often increase or decrease my exposure by a little bit to catch the shadows or the highlights. Just, sometimes, I have trouble getting exactly what I want.
I like to shoot outdoors on sunny days or bright, hazy days. I'll shoot indoors if there is enough light. Sometimes, I'll shoot using a sunny window for light but, mostly I like that global light that you get outdoors. I usually prefer mid to bright contrast levels.

It seems to me that Diafine is a good match for the films I shoot, the way I shoot them and the look I want. I have no illusion that Diafine will be some sort of a silver bullet but it's worth a try. Right?

I like experimenting and trying new things. As I see it, Diafine is a good thing for me to try.
Cross my fingers and, if I get some good stuff, I'll post.

Thanks for the advice!

 

[Roger Cole]

If you like experimenting and trying new things, that's reason enough to try Diafine. Unless you've used other true two bath developers, it's unlike anything you've used.

FP4+ also works well, EI 200 or so. Not as much effective speed as Plus-X which worked great in it - the box suggested 400 for Plus-X but I actually thought that was a bit too slow and often went to 500, at least with old style Plus-X I used in Diafine in the 80s. But FP4+ looks fine. So did Agfapan 100 (EI 320 or so IIRC.)

 

[StoneNYC]

The mfg. instructions say that a stop bath is not necessary and, in fact, recommend against it.

Therefore, instead of Dev. > Stop > Fix > Wash, it becomes Dev.-A > Dev.-B > Fix > Wash. The same number of steps. You just trade Dev.-B for the Stop.

They also recommend a rinse between Stop and Fix but I do that already. It prolongs the life of the fixer. Right?

Bottom line: No more work than other workflows.

Oh gotcha.

And yes I alway wash between steps to prolong the fixer.


~Stone

The Noteworthy Ones - Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1 / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Lime]

I've always used it with plastic reels and never had a problem.

It was random with me. I never could trace it to something specific. I switched to steel reels a few years ago and haven't had the problem since.

Why are you inverting only once half way through? Instructions say to agitate gently for 10 seconds (three inversions or so if done slowly) initially followed by 5 seconds each minute - which is what I do, two gentle inversions and tap the tank each minute including the last one, then pour. Never any problems with unevenness.

I follow the instructions for bath A, but only invert once and very gently for bath B. I also run closer to 4+4, than 3+3. It's been a few years since I came up with that routine, but the thinking was to attempt to harness the maximum compensating action. I like low contrast negatives with plenty of highlight detail. Here is an example of Tri-X @ 1250 in Diafine. I'm pretty sure I shot this with the Voigtlander 2/28 on an M7. None of the backlight hair is clipped and the light behind his head rolls off gently.

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Diafine works best with strong, directional lighting, or even some crazy, unpredictable indoor lighting like Harry showed. If you like to shoot in flatter lighting, you will have trouble getting enough contrast for a good silver print. (The negs do scan beautifully - if you see the Rodeo project on my website, those were all Diafine and either HP5 or TMAX 400, scanned and then printed with Eboni-6 inks).

Most of the time for silver you will be in the Grade 4 range with a diffusion enlarger. The negs don't look thin, there's lots of detail there, they just have a very low gradient/contrast. That, in fact, may be the biggest knock against Diafine. So again, make sure you have some strong or interesting lighting. I have another series of beach portraits (not ready to show, alas) that are all done in that early morning Equatorial light where it's so bright you can barely keep your eyes open. Diafine worked wonders on those Acros negs.

 

[jim appleyard]

(using Diafine twice for more speed)



I think it was Donald Qualls, who also cooked up a developer that gets a very respectable 6400 and an arguably-usable 12800 from HP5+ or TX400. He seems to have wandered away from APUG in the last few years, which is a shame as he contributed some very good mad-scientist darkroom ideas.

I never tried this particular trick myself, but clearly you'd have to rinse the holy hell out of it after the first B bath to avoid any contamination of the A bath. If you only needed to do it once in a blue moon, I suppose you could throw away the second A bath rather than putting it back in the stock bottle. Even then, it seems like the emulsion wouldn't absorb too much of the A bath due to being already wet---might it work even better to let it *dry* in the tank, at least partially, before doing the second round?

The approach makes sense, but of course you'd lose a certain amount of the compensating effect in the highlights. Reduced agitation might bring back some of that compensation, I guess, but maybe at the cost of unevenness. IMHO, some experiments are justified to find out what does and doesn't work well in practice.

-NT

It was indeed Donald Qualls. You have a good memory and he is missed. I happended to print out the page from this thread. Here's what it says:

Give the film a thorough water rinse after the B bath, you can then put the film back in A for another 3 min, followed by another 3 in B. Fix and wash as normal.

Shadow detail will surley be compromised--that's already a given, based on how you shot the film, and the results will be fairly grainy, but you'll get good midtones and quite printable negs if you didn't cheat on the metering even at 3200.

He goes on to get EI 5000 from a mixture of HC-110 and Dektol. WOW!

 

[Roger Cole]

Diafine works best with strong, directional lighting, or even some crazy, unpredictable indoor lighting like Harry showed. If you like to shoot in flatter lighting, you will have trouble getting enough contrast for a good silver print. (The negs do scan beautifully - if you see the Rodeo project on my website, those were all Diafine and either HP5 or TMAX 400, scanned and then printed with Eboni-6 inks).

Most of the time for silver you will be in the Grade 4 range with a diffusion enlarger. The negs don't look thin, there's lots of detail there, they just have a very low gradient/contrast. That, in fact, may be the biggest knock against Diafine. So again, make sure you have some strong or interesting lighting. I have another series of beach portraits (not ready to show, alas) that are all done in that early morning Equatorial light where it's so bright you can barely keep your eyes open. Diafine worked wonders on those Acros negs.

I agree that it's great for harsh lighting, but I've never had a problem printing Diafine negs shot in even flat lighting. But the difference may, in part, be that I have always printed on a condenser enlarger. With a condenser enlarger I still end up printing negs from flat lighting on grade 3.5 or sometimes 4, but I've always been able to get good prints.

Since I haven't had a problem with getting enough contrast I've never tried it, but I wonder if you could intensify flat Diafine negatives in selenium toner to get more contrast and print more easily on diffusion enlargers?

In any case this seems very variable so I'd suggest anyone wanting to try it go ahead and do so and see if the results are good for your particular tastes and printing set up.

 

[Roger Cole]

It was indeed Donald Qualls. You have a good memory and he is missed. I happended to print out the page from this thread. Here's what it says:

Give the film a thorough water rinse after the B bath, you can then put the film back in A for another 3 min, followed by another 3 in B. Fix and wash as normal.

Shadow detail will surley be compromised--that's already a given, based on how you shot the film, and the results will be fairly grainy, but you'll get good midtones and quite printable negs if you didn't cheat on the metering even at 3200.

He goes on to get EI 5000 from a mixture of HC-110 and Dektol. WOW!

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

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In my experience Selenium can give you up to about a grade, but it really depends on how much density there is to begin with. If the negative is thin, or if it doesn't have much contrast to begin with, you might not get much expansion with Selenium. Sometimes even a slight boost can help, though.

Although I'm not a Diafine user, if anyone has tried it with Acros and has some characteristic curve data I'd be interested in seeing it. I've always thought for those who like Diafine Acros might be a good candidate for general use with it (and other two-baths or compensating developers) since Acros inherently has very high highlight contrast.

While I don't have any curves to show, my friend Andrew Moxom used Acros 35mm with Diafine and had some really great results with it. Good call on the combination of that film and Diafine.

 

[scheimfluger_77]

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

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Since I haven't had a problem with getting enough contrast I've never tried it, but I wonder if you could intensify flat Diafine negatives in selenium toner to get more contrast and print more easily on diffusion enlargers?

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.

 

[Worker 11811]

...I have always printed on a condenser enlarger. With a condenser enlarger I still end up printing negs from flat lighting on grade 3.5 or sometimes 4, but I've always been able to get good prints.

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!