Why I gave up on Diafine

Snapshot · Feb 22, 2008

I have mixed feelings on Diafine. It's works well with Tri-X, especially to obtain a speed boost but I find that it produces fairly significant fog, even with minimal agitation. However, being a panthermic 2 solution developer makes it very versatile.

Jeff Searust · Feb 22, 2008

Nuts... I have developed a thousand rolls in Diafine, with never a problem, and I read this thread and wouldn't ya know, I got 2 rolls that look just like this. Same bromide streaking...

I am of the opinion that it may be caused by the either lack of enough agitation in bath 2 or by the time taken between the emptying of bath 2 to the stop bath. I have a tendency to be slow emptying tanks, and I think I had taken longer letting the tanks sit "empty" before immersing the film in the stop.

Soeren · Feb 23, 2008

Paul Verizzo, I agree on most of what you are saying. I have a question @[5] though. If the amount of developer in the emulsion is the limiting factor and develops until exhaustion (in the highlights) how can temperature lead to more contrast? as far as I understand higher temperature will only lead to the exhaustion faster? Or am I missing something?
Kind regards

Trask · Feb 23, 2008

Paul: What's the formula as specified by Otha C. Spencer? Thanks.

usagisakana · Feb 23, 2008

There seem to be a lot of differing opinions about how to develop in Diafine- I want to start developing my own B+W, and want to start with diafine- what should I look out for? any tips?

Paul Verizzo · Feb 24, 2008

re higher contrast at higher temps

Soeren said:
Paul Verizzo, I agree on most of what you are saying. I have a question @[5] though. If the amount of developer in the emulsion is the limiting factor and develops until exhaustion (in the highlights) how can temperature lead to more contrast? as far as I understand higher temperature will only lead to the exhaustion faster? Or am I missing something?
Kind regards

Hydroquinone has about twice the increase in performance with temperature as any other common developing agent. Without actually finding my reference, it's something like most developers have a 1.2 coefficient. HQ is 2.5. HQ, of course, is well known as a contrast developer because it is not too effective in the shadows. What it can get hold of, though, it develops well. Sort of the opposite of pure Phenidone.

The ratios I mentioned come froma Haist, I think. Regardless, they are the ratios that give maximum silver reduction. But if the temperature changes from the design temperature (usually 20 C., of course), the developer activity changes for each developer. Of course, it ALL works faster, too.

I hope that helps.

Paul Verizzo · Feb 24, 2008

Spencer Two Bath

Trask said:
Paul: What's the formula as specified by Otha C. Spencer? Thanks.

I put it up here as part of a thread on sulfite: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

I've mixed a variant but cannot find the time to test it. Chomping at the metol bit! I just used DK-50, rounded off the numbers a bit. I'm hoping the .5 gram of bromide will allow more shadow development than Otha's 3 grams. Since DK-50 uses less developers, I'll be able to add more if the negatives are thin. Of course, the alkali is Bath B, but I'm using carbonate, it doesn't really matter.

Harry Lime · Feb 24, 2008

Hello Paul, I was looking at your formula for the Otha C. Spencer formula.
I'm trying to figure out what your abbreviations stand for. Did I get this correct?

Bath A

Metol, 6.5 g
SS, 32.5 g (Sodium Suplhite)
HQ, 6.5 g (Hydroquinone)
Pot. Bromide, 3 g (Potasium Bromide)

Water to make 1 Qt.

Bath B
10 g Kodalk (sodium metaborate)
Water to make 1 liter

or

?? g Borax
water to make 1 liter.

Thanks

Paul Verizzo · Feb 24, 2008

Sorry about that....

Harry Lime said:
Hello Paul, I was looking at your formula for the Otha C. Spencer formula.
I'm trying to figure out what your abbreviations stand for. Did I get this correct?

Bath A

Metol, 6.5 g
SS, 32.5 g (Sodium Suplhite)
HQ, 6.5 g (Hydroquinone)
Pot. Bromide, 3 g (Potasium Bromide)

Water to make 1 Qt.

Bath B
10 g Kodalk (sodium metaborate)
Water to make 1 liter

or

?? g Borax
water to make 1 liter.

Thanks

Yeah, you passed the APUG I.Q. test! Spencer actually says 91 grams of sodium carbonate for Bath B! That's a pH of over 11; I made some. 10 grams of sodium metaborate gives a long lived bath of pH 10.5. As you might know, the difference between 10.5 and 11+ (my pH paper wouldn't measure exactly) is substantial. However, in reducing the silver, it's not so much. pH 10.5 via 5 gms of carbonate per liter worked great for me.

Soeren · Feb 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Hydroquinone has about twice the increase in performance with temperature as any other common developing agent. Without actually finding my reference, it's something like most developers have a 1.2 coefficient. HQ is 2.5. HQ, of course, is well known as a contrast developer because it is not too effective in the shadows. What it can get hold of, though, it develops well. Sort of the opposite of pure Phenidone.

The ratios I mentioned come froma Haist, I think. Regardless, they are the ratios that give maximum silver reduction. But if the temperature changes from the design temperature (usually 20 C., of course), the developer activity changes for each developer. Of course, it ALL works faster, too.

I hope that helps.

So what you are saying is that not only the developers activity but also capacity is increased?? or is it a matter of the amount of developer precent in the emulsion?
Kind regards

Harry Lime · Feb 25, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Yeah, you passed the APUG I.Q. test! Spencer actually says 91 grams of sodium carbonate for Bath B! That's a pH of over 11; I made some. 10 grams of sodium metaborate gives a long lived bath of pH 10.5. As you might know, the difference between 10.5 and 11+ (my pH paper wouldn't measure exactly) is substantial. However, in reducing the silver, it's not so much. pH 10.5 via 5 gms of carbonate per liter worked great for me.

Thanks, next week I'm going to try walking AND chewing gum at the SAME time. I'm just starting out mixing my own developers, so it's all a little new to me. GOt to pick up a copy of the Darkroom Cookbook.

Paul Verizzo · Feb 25, 2008

If I understand you correctly....

Soeren said:
So what you are saying is that not only the developers activity but also capacity is increased?? or is it a matter of the amount of developer precent in the emulsion?
Kind regards

...you are using "capacity" to mean "able to develop more latent silver."

Gelatin swells more with increasing temperature, thus allowing more developer or whatever into the emulsion. So, in that sense, probably. If using a two bath at an elevated temperature I would expect somewhat more development. I've never run tests, just my theory.

Regardless, it will be the greatly increased activity of HQ with rising temperatures that will cause much greater contrast. This is true for any developer with HQ, single bath or two bath.

Paul Verizzo · Feb 25, 2008

Watch out, Harry!

Harry Lime said:
Thanks, next week I'm going to try walking AND chewing gum at the SAME time. I'm just starting out mixing my own developers, so it's all a little new to me. GOt to pick up a copy of the Darkroom Cookbook.

Understanding photochemistry and mixing your own stuff can be quite addicting! For me it was a Pandora's box of curiosity that opened about 1983.

The Cookbook is a very good beginning source. Excellent layout, good commentary's. If you really want to get into the meat of it, I suggest Haist's "Modern Photographic Processing", 1979? and Mason's "Photographic Processing Chemistry," 1967?. I just stole the latter for $20 via an online search and sale. Haist is going for $100 minimum, but you can get it through interlibrary loan first to see if it's for you. I just did that here in Florida, having walk-in access years ago to it at the local university in California. It's two volumes totalling about 1400 pages.

Oh, and thanks for taking my jab good naturedly, as I intended.

Paul Verizzo · Feb 25, 2008

Oops, that should be "commentaries."

Stupid fingers.

Harry Lime · Feb 25, 2008

Thanks for those suggestions, Paul.

I'm intrigued by the extra level of control, that mixing your own developers offers. That's and it's a lot cheaper, if you are shooting large volumes of film.

cheers

jim appleyard · Feb 25, 2008

Paul, are there times listed with Spencer's 2-bath?

Paul Verizzo · Feb 25, 2008

Spencer two bath

jim appleyard said:
Paul, are there times listed with Spencer's 2-bath?

Yeah, two minutes per! I used three as a CMA. I wish I had more time to putz with this stuff right now. Stay tuned!

As a side note, some recent thoughts about grain. Most grain is inherently due to the film characteristics. Developers can only modify what is (or isn't!) there. Once upon a time, 35mm film had horrible grain due to the enlargement needed. We've come a long, long way. I would say that today's Tri-X is about the grain of Plus-X when I was a kid, maybe not quite, but almost. So, I don't think the quest for fine grain is as needed as 50 years ago.

OK, off track. Fine grain developers, to over simplify, use components to dissolve the grain filaments as they form. Why do they form? Due to long development times. Why is the development time (relatively) long? Due to low alkalinity of "fine grain" developers.

Now, Spencer's two bath uses a quite alkaline Bath B. Probably with the emulsion saturated with Bath A, the B bath develops in moments in the highlights, longer in the shadows. The highlights are where grain shows the most. If developed in some few seconds, silver filaments never grow much.

Some of Patrick Gainer's developers use healthy amounts of metaborate and have similar pH and give fine grain.

Maybe someday I can run tests. Anyone out there, feel free to run with these thoughts and experiments. Maybe I'm nuts.

jim appleyard · Feb 25, 2008

Thanks Paul! Two min? WOW! I think I'd go for 3 as well.

dynachrome · Feb 29, 2008

Some people have reported that they see drag marks if they do stand developing with Paterson type reels rather than stainless steel ones. I just used Diafine for a roll of Tri-X and did not have a problem. One problem you may be facing is that 3 minutes is a very short stay in Part A. I use Amaloco AM-74 at 1:15 becaus ethe times at 1:7 are too short for my liking. This is also why many people use HC-110 with higher dilutions than B. With a stainless steel reel and adequate agitation this problem should not show up.

Paul Verizzo · Feb 29, 2008

dynachrome said:
Some people have reported that they see drag marks if they do stand developing with Paterson type reels rather than stainless steel ones. I just used Diafine for a roll of Tri-X and did not have a problem. One problem you may be facing is that 3 minutes is a very short stay in Part A. I use Amaloco AM-74 at 1:15 becaus ethe times at 1:7 are too short for my liking. This is also why many people use HC-110 with higher dilutions than B. With a stainless steel reel and adequate agitation this problem should not show up.

I use a plastic Yankee tank. No problemo. Not sure why bromide drag would appear with one material and not the other.

Dilutions (none) and agitations (minimal or none) are moot with divided developers. Time is of almost, although not entirely moot, too, as long as the minimums are met.

Wishy · Mar 1, 2008

Can I ask a silly Diafine question. I've got a quart (900ml) pack from Retro Photographic. I'm fine with mixing it up, etc. But everything says it lasts forever and does hundreds of films.
My question is, how do it know when its depleted and is nolonger useable?

Akki14 · Mar 1, 2008

It tends to give weaker results before it fails completely. Check the film markings on the edge - if they start becoming lighter and your shots are going lighter, that's an indication it's about to fail.
Mine's coming up to its one year birthday this April. I've not been using it very much but it has a nice blue/yellow colour now (Blue is A and Yellow is B).

Soeren · Mar 1, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
...you are using "capacity" to mean "able to develop more latent silver."

Gelatin swells more with increasing temperature, thus allowing more developer or whatever into the emulsion. So, in that sense, probably. If using a two bath at an elevated temperature I would expect somewhat more development. I've never run tests, just my theory.

Regardless, it will be the greatly increased activity of HQ with rising temperatures that will cause much greater contrast. This is true for any developer with HQ, single bath or two bath.

Do you have any references to back up that theory or can any one else here agree?
I my textbook the developer in the emulsion have a limited capacity it may be greater than the amount of silver requires but nevertheless its limited. If the capacity is much greater than need I must agree with you regarding the higher contrast if not then I disagree.

If amount of developer is the limiting factor you will never get higher contrast by increasing the temperature. On the contrary the highlights will be exhausted very fast and the midtones and basefog will be increased resulting in lower contrast. But then again there must be a safety factor built into the formulary assuring the right amount of development somehow.

Im obviously not an expert on this but Im puzlled

Kind regards

Paul Verizzo · Mar 1, 2008

I think we are both right, it's semantics

Soeren said:
Do you have any references to back up that theory or can any one else here agree?
I my textbook the developer in the emulsion have a limited capacity it may be greater than the amount of silver requires but nevertheless its limited. If the capacity is much greater than need I must agree with you regarding the higher contrast if not then I disagree.

If amount of developer is the limiting factor you will never get higher contrast by increasing the temperature. On the contrary the highlights will be exhausted very fast and the midtones and basefog will be increased resulting in lower contrast. But then again there must be a safety factor built into the formulary assuring the right amount of development somehow.

Im obviously not an expert on this but Im puzlled

Kind regards

There are the matters of adequate developing agents in the total liquid and in the emulsion itself. An example of the former is when using a very dilute developer, you may need only 250cc to cover your film, but there isn't enough developer in the whole amount to reduce all the silver. So, you use 500cc or whatever. Agitation keeps bringing new developing agents to the grains.

OTH, I did say it was my theory, thanks for recognizing that, an expanded, soft emulsion will allow more of any chemical to get into the silver grains faster, and then work faster. That would apply whether one bath or two bath.

IIRC, Kodak's old low temperature developers (i.e., little emulsion swelling) compensated by using lye for the activator.

Bob Carnie · Mar 1, 2008

I totally agree with Gary here, first 15seconds are critical

glbeas said:
I would think this is one developer that would do well to avoid gentle agitation. You might try a sacrificial roll in it and give it good agitation, especially at the start, so the chemicals can get distributed evenly as it diffuses into the emulsion.

Why I gave up on Diafine

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency