Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,571   Posts: 1,545,606   Online: 977
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16

    Tri-X + Diafine = posterization?

    I've been spending some time today looking around at examples of Tri-X shot at 1200+ and processed in Diafine. My hopes are/were that Tri-X + Diafine could end up being my high ISO film/developer choice. I think I've settled in on FP4 + Pyrocat as my low ISO choice.

    Anyway... check out this detail view of a 35mm frame of Tri-X shot at 1250 and processed in Diafine. (not my image, but an example I found):

    http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?p...484195&size=lg

    It looks like the hand/arm and some of the background are speckled with posterization. That's one of the reasons I stopped doing digital capture.

    Does that look like posterization to you? Is that an inevitable price I must pay for processing Tri-X in Diafine, or are there techniques to retain continuous tonality throughout the image, like maybe pre-soaking or alternate agitation regimes?

    -KwM-

  2. #2
    Eric Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    124
    Images
    16
    Do you plan on scanning the negatives or printing traditionally? If printing traditionally one thing you will notice is highlight compression compared to other "normal" developers. But the grain from Diafine is much smoother IMO than using other developers and extending development aka "pushing". It may be that this particular example is extreme and who knows how it was scanned. I often use Diafine and get some great tonality out of shots that could not be taking most other ways. And I have always found Diafine easy to scan due to the low contrast (CI of .75)

  3. #3
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Jones
    Do you plan on scanning the negatives or printing traditionally? [...]
    Hi Eric,

    Definitely traditional wet printing. Specifically, I'd print on VC paper using split filtration, so I'd guess I could make use of a higher CI than with single-filter or single-grade printing. No intent to scan the neg. Any scanning would likely be of a print.

    -KwM-

  4. #4
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    I know Lex and he uses Diafine for everything. I think it is an artifact from the jpg compression I could be wrong. I have never felt Diafine did anything for my film. Why shoot trix at 1200 or so when the 3200 stuff is really good at 1200?

    lee\c

  5. #5
    fingel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    298
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by lee
    Why shoot trix at 1200 or so when the 3200 stuff is really good at 1200?

    lee\c
    Well,I use it because I've never seen iso 3200 film in 4x5 or 8x10, but I can use Tri-x @ 1200 with diafine if I'm hand holding my speed graphic. I don't see where he states what format he is planning on using, but if he is shooting a smaller format I agree he should probably go with a 3200 speed film.
    Scott Stadler

  6. #6
    lee
    lee is offline
    lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Fort Worth TX
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,913
    Images
    8
    picky picky


    lee\c

  7. #7
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by fingel
    Well,I use it because I've never seen iso 3200 film in 4x5 or 8x10, but I can use Tri-x @ 1200 with diafine if I'm hand holding my speed graphic. I don't see where he states what format he is planning on using, but if he is shooting a smaller format I agree he should probably go with a 3200 speed film.
    yeah. what he said. (4x5, handheld crown)

    Seriously, though, for 35 & MF, you find the tonality of delta3200 superior to stuff processed in Diafine? What developer? (or alternate version, how is your experience with Delta3200 and pyrocat or Ansco130?)

    -KwM-

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Irving, TX.
    Posts
    5
    This is Mark down in Irving. I think I'm the only one at North Lake college who uses Diafine. I use it for pan f fp4 and tri-x 35mm & MF. I haven't seen anything unnormal. Skies will have a pronounced grain in 11x14prints. I'll be processing tri-x night shots after lunch tomorrow, I can scan one if you want a look.

  9. #9
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by a0667318
    This is Mark down in Irving. I think I'm the only one at North Lake college who uses Diafine. I use it for pan f fp4 and tri-x 35mm & MF. I haven't seen anything unnormal. Skies will have a pronounced grain in 11x14prints. I'll be processing tri-x night shots after lunch tomorrow, I can scan one if you want a look.
    you bet! If you've got a place to put them where I can either HTTP or anon-FTP them, either PM me or post here, if you don't mind other apuggers pulling them down.

  10. #10
    Eric Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    124
    Images
    16
    I agree with everyone above in that if you are using MF or 35mm and plan on shooting a full roll under low light then a 3200 film @ 1200 to 1600 is a good way to go. The way I use Diafine is when I am expecting random shooting situations, I can rate the film from anywhere from 200 to 2000 and get good looking prints from the negs. I almost always end up on a 4 or 5 filter for VC paper depending on how I rated it. Rating it slower (ie: overexposure) naturally tends to open up the shadows with little affect on the highlights. I also use it for those fun handheld 4x5 shots as well. It is in no way a magic bullet but yet another tool to chose from.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin