J and C Classic in Diafine

[PhotoPete]

Has anyone used J and C Classic 200 or 400 (aka Forte 200 and 400) in Diafine? I am wondering how much of a push Diafine gives either one. Thanks.

Peter

 

[reellis67]

Hmm.. No one has tried this? I have some J and C Classic 400 in 2.25x3.25 that I will try in Diafine shortly, maybe this weekend if I have time and post the results.

- Randy

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't tried it, no. In general, with films other than Plus-X and Tri-X, you can expect 2/3 to 1 stop of speed increase; that's what I've gotten with Fomapan 100, for instance.

Best to test first, of course...

 

[PhotoPete]

Hmm.. No one has tried this? I have some J and C Classic 400 in 2.25x3.25 that I will try in Diafine shortly, maybe this weekend if I have time and post the results.

- Randy

The race is on! I may get to it tonight, if all goes well...I will let you know the resullts...

 

[reellis67]

It appears that this film gets about two stops boost in speed when developed in Diafine. I tried some different combinations, and I think that, by my eye at least, the two stop films look the best. Your mileage may vary of course.

- Randy

 

[Donald Qualls]

Really? Two stops over box speed (generally reckoned to be about a stop optimistic already), or two stops over "your" speed in a conventional developer?

 

[reellis67]

Really? Two stops over box speed (generally reckoned to be about a stop optimistic already), or two stops over "your" speed in a conventional developer?

If you consider Diafine a conventional developer. I get 1.5 stops (1200) out of Tri-X 400 and Diafine and the results were similar for 1.5 or 2 stops with this film. Two might not be the best though. After further consideration I think I like the 1.5 negs better, but I still need to print each of them stright and see how the prints compare as far as ease of printing.

- Randy

 

[Gerald Koch]

When Diafine (and Acufine) first came out film manufacturers were including a large safety factor in their film speeds. The speed ratings quoted for these two developers took advantage of this and it looked like you were getting a large speed increase. Now there is little or no safety factor in the ISO speed ratings. If you use the suggested ratings for these developers expect very thin negatives. In reality you can expect only a modest speed increase of about 1 stop with Phenidone based developers whether they be two bath or conventional. You can get more speed with low contrast subjects but there is no magic here either.

 

[chiller]

If you consider Diafine a conventional developer. I get 1.5 stops (1200) out of Tri-X 400 and Diafine and the results were similar for 1.5 or 2 stops with this film. Two might not be the best though. After further consideration I think I like the 1.5 negs better, but I still need to print each of them stright and see how the prints compare as far as ease of printing.

- Randy

Is this speed based on a zone one .10 above base fog or an impression by eye?

 

[reellis67]

Is this speed based on a zone one .10 above base fog or an impression by eye?

Sorry, I don't have, or have a use for, a densitometer so I couldn't tell you. I just work off of what looks right to me (eyeball-wise) and how easily I can print. I'm not much of numbers person really, I just enjoy shooting. I would suggest that anyone who is a numbers person do their own tests so you are sure to be happy with the results. I liked the look or the negatives and they printed easily enough, so I called it ~1.5 stops based on those criteria.

I don't plan on developing this film using Diafine on a regular basis, but the question was out there and I had the film and the developer and no one else was throwing out ideas...

- Randy

 

[Donald Qualls]

When Diafine (and Acufine) first came out film manufacturers were including a large safety factor in their film speeds. The speed ratings quoted for these two developers took advantage of this and it looked like you were getting a large speed increase. Now there is little or no safety factor in the ISO speed ratings. If you use the suggested ratings for these developers expect very thin negatives. In reality you can expect only a modest speed increase of about 1 stop with Phenidone based developers whether they be two bath or conventional. You can get more speed with low contrast subjects but there is no magic here either.

I have to disagree here. I've got several rolls of pretty normal looking negatives shot on Tri-X at EI 1600, in lighting ranging from flat dawn light to direct sun (f/16 at 1/1000, about 2/3 stop "overexposed" for EI 1600). I don't find them flat or thin and they print as well as any 35 mm B&W I've got.

Unfortunately, since the meter died in my Spotmatic, I haven't used Diafine much because the only other camera I have that can meter above EI 400 has only DX to set film speed, which is a pain to fool for EI 1600 (EI 3200 is much easier, and obtainable with Diafine using a little trickery, but does give rather empty shadows).

 

[Gerald Koch]

I have to disagree here. I've got several rolls of pretty normal looking negatives shot on Tri-X at EI 1600, in lighting ranging from flat dawn light to direct sun (f/16 at 1/1000, about 2/3 stop "overexposed" for EI 1600). I don't find them flat or thin and they print as well as any 35 mm B&W I've got.

I'm glad that your satisfied with your negatives, that's really all that counts. However, you have established is an effective film speed based on your processing methods. Someone else may get entirely different results. Without a sensitometer it would be hard to determine the actual film speed. What is importasnt is the shadow speed. I stand by my criticism that the makers of Acufine/Diafine inflate their speed ratings.