Thoughts on Diafine for film?

[TJPope]

Hi all,

With snow fast approaching I figure it's time to get some B&W going. And I'm not going to pay the lab the prices they want when I know I can develop it myself.

While looking into developers, I came across Diafine and like the rather lax temperature needs, boost to the film speed and what I'm hearing about it keeping the highlights from blowing out. I'd be mostly using it with HP5+, HP4+ and Tri-X which seem to be films it works well with.

So any thoughts in general from those that have used it?
I didn't see any requirements for a specialty fixer, so just regular fixer?
My three main films as well as pretty much everything from Kodak and Ilford have pretty well agreed on speeds, but what about something like Fuji Acros II? I tried searching the web, but am only finding info on V1.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!
-T.J.

 

[vedmak]

Diafine works best on the high speed older films not Tmax or T-grain films, it used to be a choice of people working in the newspaper business back in the days where there was still film workflow, they kept it when film needed to be developed quickly in a field conditions. Has its pluses and minuses like any other developer, I picked Xtol and sticking with it for most of my work.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Diafine, as @vedmak noted, works best with cubic grain films, and ideally thicker emulsions -- because it depends on developing agent carried over in the gelatin from Bath A to do all the work when Bath B creates an alkaline environment; thinner emulsions will carry over less developer, and thus get less development. Diafine was a miracle in the 1960s. Today, you may find it doesn't work well, because even the "old technology" films of today are thin emulsions by the old standards.

That said, I've used it with Fomapan and early-2000s vintage Tri-X and generally got good results. Since it develops one way and one way only, you need to shoot some tests to determine what EI to use for your film in Diafine. I used to shoot Tri-X at EI 1200 (but the Tri-X we get now isn't the same as what I had in 2003), but Fomapan 400 was only good for EI 640 in Diafine.

I have a pair of bottles of Diafine that appear to be still good (after sitting in a shed for five years, and unused for seven before that) but I haven't tried them since getting my darkroom back in operation. I've been so happy with Xtol, I haven't worried about any other developer.

FWIW, Xtol is very temperature tolerant -- I routinely process at 16C because that's the temperature the air conditioning gives my darkroom. I expect that through the winter, I'll get the same excess from the heat, and wind up running my Xtol at 24C. I use a development timer app on my Android phone that compensates the time for actual temperature, and I find it works very well; my development has been very consistent just by way of compensating time for temperature.

 

[TJPope]

Thank you both, I am a much bigger fan of classic grain B&W than T-Grain. I've never tried Xtol, just D76, though I was initially thinking of trying one of the Ilford developers. The number of B&W developers is both amazing and maddening at the same time...

@Donald Qualls - Your point about the emulsions changing even in the recent past is a good one that I wasn't thinking about. Part of the temperature issue is that I was planning on kind of field developing in the summer out of an RV with no AC. Didn't want to try and figure out how to store the film until I was able to get somewhere with temp control to develop it as my freezer is rather small. What's the name of the App you use? The answer may be to use something like that and develop as long as it's not too hot and stash it in the freezer if it is.

 

[MattKing]

If you are going to try Diafine (or Acufine for that matter) be cautious of low temperatures.
Results are consistent over a wide range of temperatures of 68F/20C or higher, but the developers do not work well with colder temperatures.

 

[TJPope]

Thank's @MattKing , I'm planning on trying to stay above 70 most of the time and it would be easier to hold film when it's under 70 than to hold it when it's warmer.


My fridge does have a digital thermostat... Maybe I could just set it for 70 (I'll have to check if I can set it that high), keep everything in there and just remove to agitate. As much as the idea is making me laugh to myself it seems like it should work as long as I don't have any food in there that would go bad while developing.

 

[vedmak]

Diafine, as @vedmak noted, works best with cubic grain films, and ideally thicker emulsions -- because it depends on developing agent carried over in the gelatin from Bath A to do all the work when Bath B creates an alkaline environment; thinner emulsions will carry over less developer, and thus get less development. Diafine was a miracle in the 1960s. Today, you may find it doesn't work well, because even the "old technology" films of today are thin emulsions by the old standards.

That said, I've used it with Fomapan and early-2000s vintage Tri-X and generally got good results. Since it develops one way and one way only, you need to shoot some tests to determine what EI to use for your film in Diafine. I used to shoot Tri-X at EI 1200 (but the Tri-X we get now isn't the same as what I had in 2003), but Fomapan 400 was only good for EI 640 in Diafine.

I have a pair of bottles of Diafine that appear to be still good (after sitting in a shed for five years, and unused for seven before that) but I haven't tried them since getting my darkroom back in operation. I've been so happy with Xtol, I haven't worried about any other developer.

FWIW, Xtol is very temperature tolerant -- I routinely process at 16C because that's the temperature the air conditioning gives my darkroom. I expect that through the winter, I'll get the same excess from the heat, and wind up running my Xtol at 24C. I use a development timer app on my Android phone that compensates the time for actual temperature, and I find it works very well; my development has been very consistent just by way of compensating time for temperature.

Donald, I just want to make sure we are clear, I said that it works best with the older formulation films such as Kodak Tri-X and Ilford HP5 not the newer T-grain like Delta and Tmax. I would not recommend using it on a slower films. Also if someone tries to get into B&W film developing at home, other than sending it to the lab, I would suggest something else than Diafine, just to get the hang of the process, D-76, Xtol or Ilford ID-11 are much more versatile and give you better look with all kind of films. Today we have so many options that people sometimes move to some hyped new formula, even though it has not been proven( I am looking at you Adox CMS), and marketing team is promising you nirvana.

 

[TJPope]

@vedmak I do have experience developing B&W, I did it a fair bit in the 90's when I had free access to a darkroom and chemicals.


I find a 2 part appealing due to not having to worry about what temperature is going to do to the time, and holding the highlight development to keep contrast in check (I do a most of my shooting while hiking so can wind up with very high contrast in the forest). Wanting to develop in upper 70's to mid 80's F would be a situation I'd run into frequently. A 2 part would make my life way easier as it can only develop so much as there is a limited amount of developer. That said I could probably do a high dilution of something else to compensate for the temperature and still get a long enough Dev time to stand develop it (Rodinal comes to mind). But that almost seems like it would require more experimentation and have a much greater potential for issues than using Diafine or the divided D-76 I just was looking at.

I've been shooting C-41 mostly color but some B&W since I got back into film. But figured I'd develop my own true B&W instead of paying the $8 a roll that the lab wants since I know you can do it cheaper yourself and I'm not worrying about getting to somewhere to print a label and the post office, etc. The trick is figuring out the best way to do it under non ideal essentially in the field conditions.

 

[Paul Howell]

When working as a JP I shot a lot of Diafine in the 70s, indoors sports, news conferences, and when working in the back woods of Africa I carried a quart Diafine, fixer, small bottle of photoflow, a 2 reel tank and reel, so I could develop in my hotel room. But, Diafine is very soft working, grain gets mushy, contrast is low, and tones can be be very unpleasant. Split grade printing my help.

 

[voceumana]

As an alternative to Diafine, you can also consider other 2-bath developers. Divided D-76 and D-23 are options. Barry Thornton's divided developer is also good--it uses sodium metaborate as the accelerator (alkali) to compensate for the lower absorbtion, with reduced sodium sulfite for slightly finer grain.

Note that Diafine has become ridiculously expensive (to my mind). You will have to mix the others from scratch, but not are overly complicated as they only use a few ingredients. You probably won't get as long a life as Diafine but they have a decent life.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Worth noting that divided D-76 and divided D-23 aren't true two-bath developers -- the pH of their Bath A is high enough that development takes place. The advantage of the second bath, for those, is that it produces the kind of local exhaustion you'd get with stand development and highly dilute developer, but with the sort of grain smoothing you get with original D-76 or D-23.

 

[voceumana]

Film Developing Cookbook has suggestions for divided development that are worth reviewing, including variations on Divided D-23/D-76. If I recall correctly, they address minimizing development in Bath A.

 

[TJPope]

@Paul Howell - From the images I've seen online I get the somewhat mushy grain. With the resolution loss in scanning compared to printing it really doesn't look much worse than anything else to me. I'll likely never have a space to install a darkroom of my own and I'd rather spend $ on film than renting one out. As far as contrast and tonality, both looked pretty good to me. I've read elsewhere where people don't really like it for printing but do for scanning, so perhaps it was the post processing that was done.

@voceumana - It is a bit expensive, but it's not a one shot so it should last a good long time and equal things out, right? The main problem I see is everyone seems to be out of stock so I can't even try it currently. I was poking around and had just stumbled on divided D-76 last night but haven't done a through look around the internet about it yet. I'll have to look into getting a copy of this book, sounds like it would be fascinating reading!

@Donald Qualls - Excellent information to know. So unlike Diafine, divided D-76 would need to be kept around normal developing temps to prevent part A from over developing? Other than that I rather like everything else you've said about it! The biggest issue is going to be my lack of climate control in the summer.

 

[Donald Qualls]

What I'd recommend if you can't keep your chemicals cool in the summer is to use a diluted developer that gives times around 15 minutes, and then apply the 4% per degree F compensation rule. I've developed Tri-X and Fomapan at temperatures in the 30s (C) with Parodinal 1:50 and had no problems related to temperature -- I just calculated how much shorter to set the timer and went ahead. More recently, I've been using Xtol replenished stock at 16C (because that's been my darkroom temperature) and with compensated time, again, perfectly fine negatives.

If your chemicals are too warm, put .96 into your calculator and multiply by itself once for each extra degree F above 68, then multiply the result by the number of seconds in your intended time (for 7 minutes, Foma 400 in Xtol stock, that would be 420 seconds). Convert back to minutes and seconds, round to nearest 15 seconds if you like, set your timer, and pour. If your darkroom is too cool, make that 1.04 for the multiplication, same drill. I've got an app for my Android phone that acts as my development timer and automatically makes this calculation for me, but I've checked; its results are the same as I get with my old method -- and you can do this on a dime store 4-banger calculator, you don't need the HP-41C app I use for a calculator when I need it.

 

[TJPope]

What I'd recommend if you can't keep your chemicals cool in the summer is to use a diluted developer that gives times around 15 minutes, and then apply the 4% per degree F compensation rule. I've developed Tri-X and Fomapan at temperatures in the 30s (C) with Parodinal 1:50 and had no problems related to temperature -- I just calculated how much shorter to set the timer and went ahead. More recently, I've been using Xtol replenished stock at 16C (because that's been my darkroom temperature) and with compensated time, again, perfectly fine negatives.

If your chemicals are too warm, put .96 into your calculator and multiply by itself once for each extra degree F above 68, then multiply the result by the number of seconds in your intended time (for 7 minutes, Foma 400 in Xtol stock, that would be 420 seconds). Convert back to minutes and seconds, round to nearest 15 seconds if you like, set your timer, and pour. If your darkroom is too cool, make that 1.04 for the multiplication, same drill. I've got an app for my Android phone that acts as my development timer and automatically makes this calculation for me, but I've checked; its results are the same as I get with my old method -- and you can do this on a dime store 4-banger calculator, you don't need the HP-41C app I use for a calculator when I need it.

For some reason (Likely remembering things I've read or learned at some point incorrectly), I thought that developing at higher temps even with properly adjusted times impacted the contrast in a negative way? I don't remember the exact reason given but something about the faster reaction causing additional acceleration or I really don't remember. However I don't imagine you would suggest it if that was the case.

D-76 / ID-11 at 1:3 should give an unadjusted working time in the 20 minute range. That's something that if I run out I should be able to find at any camera shop that sells film as well. And I think the massive dev chart has a calculator that you put the new temps in and it will adjust the working time for you.

 

[voceumana]

Freestyle has 1 gal Diafine in stock: https://www.freestylephoto.biz/16128-Acufine-Diafine-Powder-Film-Developer-1-Gallon/

They also have the latest edition of the FDCB https://www.freestylephoto.biz/3201...ookbook-2nd-Edition-by-Steve-Anchell-and-Bill

I strongly recommend the book to anyone who is serious about B&W photography who develops their own negatives.

 

[Donald Qualls]

For some reason (Likely remembering things I've read or learned at some point incorrectly), I thought that developing at higher temps even with properly adjusted times impacted the contrast in a negative way? I don't remember the exact reason given but something about the faster reaction causing additional acceleration or I really don't remember. However I don't imagine you would suggest it if that was the case.

D-76 / ID-11 at 1:3 should give an unadjusted working time in the 20 minute range. That's something that if I run out I should be able to find at any camera shop that sells film as well. And I think the massive dev chart has a calculator that you put the new temps in and it will adjust the working time for you.

I've seen many claims of increased grain from developing at elevated temperature, but it's hard to sort out which were reticulation (caused by large temperature swings in the wet film), which were overdevelopment (caused by failing to correctly compensate time for temperature), and which were actually grain due to temperature at a correct CI. I'm pretty confident in saying that if you compensate time for temp in order to get the same CI and keep temperature constant through the process to avoid reticulation, you'll find grain doesn't change significantly over a range from about 15C to about 35C. There is the caveat that there are films that just can't be processed above about 25C without risk of emulsion damage -- some of the old Efke stocks, for instance, and Forte (all long out of production).

I've personally process Fomapan at 27C without problems, and Tri-X at above 30C (did I mention my old darkroom had no A/C?) and never saw an issue.

As you say, D-76/ID-11, Xtol, etc. at highest dilutions are good choices for "too hot" conditions. High dilution Rodinal (equivalent) is another (and what I've used most in those conditions).

 

[TJPope]

Freestyle has 1 gal Diafine in stock

I hadn't previously heard of them, but doing a quick search around the forum they seem to be pretty popular here. Odd that they are the only place that has it. Thanks!

As you say, D-76/ID-11, Xtol, etc. at highest dilutions are good choices for "too hot" conditions. High dilution Rodinal (equivalent) is another (and what I've used most in those conditions).

I'm not sure if it counts for anything since it's been about 20 years since I've developed B&W, but I used to use D-76 and was always pleased with my negatives. So I'll probably look into that. At this point I have to get the Diafine and try it as well, I'll start a new thread with my thoughts once I start developing film with it as it doesn't seem to be used much.

 

[Paul Howell]

B&H has both quarts and gallons.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=diafine&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

 

[TJPope]

B&H has both quarts and gallons.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=diafine&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

Thanks, but unfortunately it's both backordered and they won't ship it. No clue what's up with B&H and not shipping a number of developers. I placed an order with Freestyle after confirming that they do have a number of them in stock.

 

[dourbalistar]

B&H has both quarts and gallons.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=diafine&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma

Unfortunately, neither of those are available for purchase online, at least for me here in California - seems like in-store pick-up only. It might be one of those chemicals that B&H doesn't ship? The OP is in New York, but I think Buffalo is quite a ways from Manhattan.

 

[MattKing]

I think Buffalo is quite a ways from Manhattan.

Are you speaking metaphorically?

 

[voceumana]

It is both.

 

[TJPope]

It is both.

Quite correct, WNY is a long ways from NYC in most ways.