Tri-x in Diafine

[m_liddell]

Does anyone have any experiance with diafine and tri-x? Searching the net seems to bring up mixed opinions, some people love it and others hate it and the EI seems to be about 1250.

I'm intending to use it for street photography. I shoot in very fast moving situations (zone focused @ f/8-f/11). Right now my shots suffer a bit from camera shake even 1/250, so I'm looking to use a faster shutter speed to help. Right now I use xtol and EI200-320 just isn't enough speed but I like the results.

Also I don't shoot much so I only got through 2 litres of the 5 litres of xtol I made in 1 year before dumping the rest since it could have gone bad. The keeping properties of diafine sound excellent.

Clearly you don't get EI1250 for nothing, how does tonality and grain compare with xtol 1:1?

 

[matt miller]

Tri-x in Diafine is a great combo that is very easy to use, and has a look all it's own. It's particularly good for contrasty lighting. I've never used xtol so I don't know how it compares.

See Andre R. de Avillez's gallery here for some FINE examples of this combo:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Paul Howell]

I used a lot of Diafine in the 70's and 80's when I worked overseas for a wire service when I needed either speed or a developer that is not touchy about tempature. I also used Diafine durning the summer as my tap water is about 90 degrees. TX in Diafine is very fine grained and hold shadows without blocking high lights, I usually print at grade 3 or 4, at grade 2 it can be rather flat. Diafine will keep for at least 6 months, I kept my last batch for a year.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Diafine is an excellent two-part developer that works well with a large number of films, but it seems as if Diafine was specially made for Tri-X. It works great.

I do not use X-Tol, but I have quite a bit of experience developing Tri-X in good old D-76, and I'd have to say that Tri-X at EI 1250 in Diafine and Tri-X in D-76 1:1 and pushed to EI 800 are about the same. This is my experience only, YMMV.

Oh, FWIW - my experience is recent, but with 35mm, not MF.

 

[matti]

I use Diafine to get high speed. I kind of like the sharp grain of diafine + tri-x. (See enclosed example.) In flat light I have been using Tri-x@1000 and in contrastier conditions where I could use higher asa to lower the contrast with Diafine, I usually use something else than Diafine anyway.

/matti

 

[psvensson]

In my experience, the film speed claims on the Diafine box are way exaggerated, at least if you're measuring shadow detail. It gives high contrast with many film, i.e. a "push," but it doesn't do much for shadow detail. True speed in Tri-X was about 400 when I tried.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

In my experience, the film speed claims on the Diafine box are way exaggerated, at least if you're measuring shadow detail. It gives high contrast with many film, i.e. a "push," but it doesn't do much for shadow detail. True speed in Tri-X was about 400 when I tried.

Really? That's just completely the opposite of my experience. In fact, Diafine is designed to develop to exhaustion. That's why times (3 minutes in Solution A, 3 minutes in Solution B) don't matter all that much as long as you get at least 3 minutes in. It is a compensating developer, and to me, that means you get great shadow detail. In fact, some of the best shadow detail I've ever seen - it is nearly impossible to lose details in black or blow them out in highlights. The problem from my perspective is that it spreads out contrast so much that you really need a high-contrast scene to render it properly (ie with midtones). A low-contrast scene may come out quite muddy.

However, since Diafine is really good for using with available light (ie, high-contrast by definition), then it does well with those tonal values and shadow details.

Just my experience, but I have never met anyone who claimed that Diafine didn't handle shadow detail well - some have complained just the opposite.

I took all these with Tri-X rated EI 1250, processed in Diafine, 35mm.

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

 

[m_liddell]

Thanks for the responses. I'll def try this combo out, it sounds exactly what I need. The extra speed will also be useful to get some extra DOF using my new mamiya 7 on the street.

 

[craigclu]

In my experience, the film speed claims on the Diafine box are way exaggerated, at least if you're measuring shadow detail. It gives high contrast with many film, i.e. a "push," but it doesn't do much for shadow detail. True speed in Tri-X was about 400 when I tried.

This has been my experience, too. I ended up in that same general "true" speed range and attempts to print shadow detail at what would be considered push speeds just didn't pan out. I gave it quite a few experimental trials with many films as I was trying to find out what others' enthusiasm was all about but I ended up frustrated with odd curves, etc. I imagine the develop-to-exhaustion nature of it can help to control out-of-control highlights in push situations and this might prove effective with certain materials and equipment.

 

[derevaun]

I like Tri-X in Diafine at box speed when the light's flat, and up to 1600 during the other three months in the PNW The thing about this combination is that the highlights don't seem to block up as much as HP5 or Neopan 400 at box speed. At 1250 there can be some loss of shadow detail, as above, but usually without a "pushed" look. A nice benefit is that you can shoot at any speed from 320 to 1600 to get a look you want--in my experience that's from punchy to murky respectively--on the same roll in about six minutes.

 

[P C Headland]

I shoot TriX 400 @ 1000 in my MF folders (120) when developing in Diafine. I really like the combination.

I also quite like Neopan 400 in Diafine, in this case using an EI of around 600 (I set the Russian meter on GOST 500)

You can see some examples of both :

TriX and Neopan 400 Examples

See the descriptions to see the film details.

BTW, this shot I completely screwed up the meter reading.

HTH