Two bath developer

[albada]

Hans
Diafine has two solutions - A and B.
...
If you care, I can post the formula I'm using.
Jorge O

Yes, I'm interested in your formula, and would appreciate it if you would post it.
BTW, your posting shows a date of 2003. Odd.

Thanks,

Mark Overton

 

[clogz]

Unfortunately I have not heard from Jorge Oliveira since that time, so I can't help you there. However, I have used Barry Thornton's formula...and I must say...I like it a lot.

Hans

 

[mr rusty]

Amazing how old threads revive!!!

 

[David Allen]

Two-bath developers

For the past ten years I have only used Delta 400 developed in a two-bath developer rated at EI 200. I see no reason to change/

 

[skahde]

I did extensive testing and densitometry on Stöckler's as two bath seemed as a magic bullet for me at the time. From the theory, leaving out the second bath should leave the negatives blank or at least very thin. Been there, done that and it just lowers shaddow-density a bit. Diafine, in contrast, behaves just as written in the book and produces only a very faint negative when you leave out the second bath.

My conlusion after going throug Stöckler's, Barry Thornton's, Diafine aso. is that they are inferior to a well controlled development in a conventional developer. I found a single bath as D76 1+1 has better contrast in shaddows and highlights and better overall definition.

Tri-X in Diafine under low ligth is the only combination I still use and like.

 

[skahde]

While convenient these developers distort the tonal scale of the negative.

And I'd like to add, that todays papers expect straight-curve films. Therefore, negatives from two-bath developers can look quite odd when printed.

 

[David Allen]

My two-bath negatives print easily and the final prints look exactly how I want them - Visually contrasty but with detail throughout the tonal range. If two-bath doesn't work for another photographer that's fine but all this flat curves, distorted tones type of comments is pointless. There are very many formulations of film, chemicals and papers and you can test all you want with densitometers but the proof of the pudding is in the eating!

To rely on test results from others requires that a complete description of the vary many variables employed. What works for me is Delta 400 film used in a Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens with no filters. Images are all urban views. Exposure is calculated via a handheld Weston meter metering close in on a shadow area that I wish to retain some trace of detail and this is placed on Zone III. Film is exposed at a personal EI of 200 and processed in my replenishing version of Thornton's two-bath developer. Prints are made in a darkroom with only red safelighting and kept at 20C. Paper is 16" x 12" Adox Fine Print Vario Classic Glossy developed in Dokumol at 1 + 6 for 3 to 3.5 minutes, then fixed, washed, selenium toned, hypo clear followed by 1 hour wash in an Archival washer. Prints are then air dried on Zone VI screens and dry mounted onto museum board with a matt.

This is what works for me.

 

[skahde]

There are very many formulations of film, chemicals and papers and you can test all you want with densitometers but the proof of the pudding is in the eating!

Testing is just a means to an end but compared to trial and error or relying on what others say it can be quite a shortcut to a very tasty pudding. If you like your results, more power to you.

 

[David Allen]

I fully agree with the need to do tests. Trial and error has lost many a photographer a good image and wasted years of their lives. I did my tests years ago (one very long and rather boring day but well worth it in terms of fixing all the variables) and settled on the combination as described. My point was in reference to the many posts that indicate that, as the result of the poster's tests, film/developer/paper combinations do or do not work or distort tonality or are absolutely 'wrong' and, without an very exhaustive explanation of methodology, this does not reveal anything to a third party not present when the tests/decisions were made.

I was simply trying to answer the original poster's question to indicate that yes, in my experience, standardisation with a two-bath formulation can be a very successful way of working. It allows for a wide range of films to be processed together, never has blocked up highlights and the negatives are generally very easy to print. This does not mean that it is better or worse than what someone else finds works for him/her.

For anyone considering standardising on a two-bath developer, I should have added to my original post the following caveat that, the majority of colleagues who have standardising on using a two-bath developer have done so using a wide variety of films BUT they photograph general scenes WHEREAS those who have gravitated to very low light photography or image making of scenes with very reduced tonality tend to use somewhat more specialised developers.

Best,