Orwo UN54 Rodinal vs. Diafine

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by JerryWo, Feb 2, 2012.

  1. JerryWo

    JerryWo Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Location:
    Warrenton, V
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    I shot a test roll of Ultrafine Extreme (UN54) at box speed (ASA100), cut the film in half and developed one half in Rodinal (1 + 50 @ 16 min) and the other half in Diafine (3 + 3). I have the side-by-side comparison here:
    http://www.apug.org/gallery1/showimage.php?i=65041&c=502

    The 5 x 7 print was a vertical slice of an 18" wide image on my enlarger baseboard.

    Now I better understand the comments regarding Diafine, more specifically comments regarding image contrast.

    and am also beginning to see this "Rodinal Look" that the Rodinal crowd likes. Along with souping this half roll, I shot a full roll (24 exp) of UN54 in WashDC and will post a few of those images as soon as I get back in the darkroom.

    I bought the Ultrafine extreme on e-bay where it was cheaper than the online shop at Photo Warehouse.

    Jerry
     
  2. baachitraka

    baachitraka Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,436
    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2011
    Location:
    Bremen, Germany.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm not a subscriber yet, unfortunately to see those pictures need subscription. :-(
     
  3. misok

    misok Member

    Messages:
    4
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    Slovakia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    same here i admit..
     
  4. erikg

    erikg Member

    Messages:
    1,455
    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Location:
    pawtucket rh
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Time for you guys to subscribe :wink:

    Good test. Nothing works like a side by side comparison. Good info to keep in mind depending on what you are shooting, I can think of times when either developer may be the better choice.
     
  5. Tronds

    Tronds Member

    Messages:
    122
    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    No!
    I see no reason to pay for a subscription here.
    Too many naysayers and self-proclaimed experts that are better than photographers that have done some serious testing over the last hundred years.
     
  6. eddie

    eddie Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,002
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Vir
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Other than helping pay for the upkeep of the site, for the cost of a few rolls of film, you can see some superb, imaginative, and inspirational photographs.
    I have no idea what your second sentence means.
     
  7. semi-ambivalent

    semi-ambivalent Subscriber

    Messages:
    703
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2011
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I doubt you'll find very many places where you pay to have people agree with you. Politics, perhaps.

    Also, I would think those photographers you hold in esteem would expect you to examine and challenge their work; that's what made them scientists, as well as photographers.

    Welcome,

    s-a
     
  8. cmo

    cmo Member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    In fact the good people, galleries and sub-forums are hidden from non-subscribers to protect the subscribers from them :smile:

    Tronds, there is a subscription for just 6 months for $12. It's worth trying.
     
  9. cmo

    cmo Member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Sometimes it's good to be the king (until the reolution starts).
     
  10. Trond

    Trond Subscriber

    Messages:
    734
    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Location:
    Harestua, Norway
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I don't understand what you are saying here. I don't know you particular experiences here on APUG, but do you really expect everyone to agree with you? The galleries are the most valuable part of this site. Your are missing a lot.

    Trond
     
  11. cmo

    cmo Member

    Messages:
    1,457
    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Here is a short glance:

    appetizer1.jpg

    appetizer2.jpg

    Getting back to topic...

    Jerry, the subject on your photo is not what Diafine is made for. The forest that you photographed has very low contrast. In addition, the grain caused by Rodinal is somewhat hidden by the structure of the trees.

    Diafine is great when it comes to scenes with a lot of contrast: night shots, bands on stage etc. - that's what it's made for, to get as much ASA as possible in high-contrast scenes. It's not very suitable for scenes with low contrast because it dampens the highlights.

    If you had tried the same film and the same developers with a street photo at night your verdict would be totally different.
     
  12. JerryWo

    JerryWo Member

    Messages:
    40
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Location:
    Warrenton, V
    Shooter:
    35mm RF