Tri-X in Rodinal or Diafine?

[gone]

I have this old Rolleicord that I'm selling, but after looking at some negs from my other Rolleicords w/ Triotar lenses, these things are just too darned good to let go of. So I'm going to keep it and go w/ what used to work real well....Tri-X shot w/ a yellow filter to bump the contrast up a little w/ the uncoated lens. In the past I used D76 or the Photographers' Formulary version called TD-16, but I might want to try something a little different this time. The Rodinal I can figure out, but having never used Diafine, I'm wondering what the grain and tonality might look like?

The shot below is more what I like. It was D76 full strength that was accidentally developed using the 1:1 times. This turned out great because it gave the neg a lot more "bite", but the grain tamed down on the wet print :[

Any Tri-X in Diafine users here that might give me some tips? I understand that Tri-X in Diafine is usually shot at 800, but that may not be practical on this camera w/ the limited shutter top speed, so will it be OK at box speed in that developer?

 

[MattKing]

Diafine is an inherently low(er) contrast developer, tweaked to give reasonable results when films like Tri-X are under-exposed.

Are you sure that you want a low(er) contrast developer?

 

[gone]

If it's lower contrast, I can get by using Tri-X, I think. Maybe. Just trying to get a little different look (although how much of that translates from the neg to the print is debatable). The Tri-X in Rodinal I only have experience using 35mm, and honestly, the grain is acceptable even w/ that small format at 1:25. I'd like some good grain and good tonality, and when you move up to 120 the grain tends to disappear on the prints.

 

[j-dogg]

HC-110 in Dilution B, the only way Tri-X should be ever developed.

 

[bernard_L]

Judging from the one time I tried it, and from posted images by others, Diafine is not only low contrast, but dull. Kills the life out of light tones. Not exactly what you praise in your example photo. Just saying.

 

[whlogan]

Well, Sir, I am that TriX/Diafine guy you have been looking for. I have been shooting TriX @ 800 and developing it in Diafine for about 2 years now and I must say i have no complaits at all. I do use an Orange #22 or a red @25 or @29 filter nearly all the time for outside shots. I am lucky enought to have an LPL enlarger with the variable contrast head so getting the contrast up to where it needs or where I want it to be is never any problem. I keep the film in both solutions for 5 or 6 minuters at 70 degrees and I get really good looking negatives with very fine grain, which doesn't bother me even if if it were worse. I took my 4 over 50 year old kids out to Monument Valley about 4 years ago and shot the whole trip on one of my two Rollei SL66's and developed all the negs in Diafine. They were shot @ 800. Being handicapped I can't around as well as I would like so I had to use the 120 and the 150mm mostly, The results are on my website, loganphotographics.com\The Trip West\Monument Valley which I am afraid could be better but will give you some idea of how the combination works. It is the best I have found. I do need to say that the part about the Slot Canyon was shot with a Hasselblad SWC as I was being carried by two of my youngest Sons. It was quite a trip and and the film there was Ilford 3200. Give it a try, TriX/800/Diafine, that is... I think you'll like it... sorry to be so long winded.
Logan, CWO4 USN Retired

 

[gone]

Those shots look good Bill, w/ plenty of contrast, but red filters will do that. Of course, you're using much better gear than my little 'cord w/ it's uncoated Triotar, but I can perk up contrast easily enough on the print w/ filters using my Durst enlarger, so there's options if the neg is a little flat.

Condenser enlargers tend to be contrasty (and dusty) anyway, which is why I like them. With D76, all I had to do was overdevelop it and you get more contrast and pronounced grain.

I did some sleuthing on flickr, and while it's hard to tell anything on that site, it looks like what Matt and bernard said....low contrast indeed, and it seems to be designed for shooting at 800 and above to get any good tones and contrast. Oh well. Back to D76 then, but I'll give the Rodinal a whirl first. Hard to go wrong w/ either developer really. Maybe in the end, D76 and Tri-X is still the gold standard, although j-dogg respectfully disagrees.

 

[Michael W]

Tri-X in Rodinal looks great, I would rate at 320.

I've used Tri-X in Diafine when I was exposing at 1000 EI and got good results. Not suitable if photos are taken in flat light, as someone else mentioned you end up with flat, low contrast negs.

 

[gone]

Thanks Michael. I may even try 200, as that's what I usually shoot Tri-X at. Believe it or not, I once did an ISO test using D76 at standard development times w/ Tri-X that was rated at 400, then 200, and last at 100 (all w/ a yellow filter, so 100 was really 50), and they all looked good. The 100 shots were a little blocked up in the shadows, but the tones were fine.

Yep, I saw exactly what bernard mentioned on those flickr shots. The whites looked dead. Lots of grey.

 

[Michael W]

For Tri-X I use Rodinal 1+50 for 13 min at 20 deg C. Agitate first 30 secs then 10 secs per minute. That's rated at 320. For 200 you might reduce the time a bit, a few test rolls should get you to your own preferred method.

 

[jim appleyard]

These are really two different types of devs. TX in rodinal is classic; grain, great tones, plenty of contrast.

Diafine is for "pushing" TX, giving speeds around 1250EI (although one post says 800). Diafine will probably give finer grain and I think it was formulated for stage lighting and because we are "pushing" the film we will get higher contrast. Being a two-bath developer it would give lower contrast or at least control it more.

Both have a place in my darkroom.