From my experiance using Diafine, don't presoak your film in water. The whole point of the two baths is for the part A to absorb into your film. Then the bart B is added to activate the A stored in the film. Once all the part A is exhosted in the film development stops. That is why it works at any temperature. Part A by itself does nothing. Part B alone also does nothing (useful anyway).
If you presoak your film in water it will inhibit the absorbtion of the first bath into the emultion. The rusults that I got when I presoaked before using diafine was a mottled look, probably caused by uneven absorbtion of Part A (ie: some areas exhosted before others)
Other than when using Diafine I presoak everything also, but learned the hard way not to do it with Diafine.
Hrm.. that makes sense. This is one of the reasons why I closed up shop and am returning to get my BA (followed by MA, if I can pull it off) in photography -- so I can have a much better command of process (and art, but that's another topic) than I do now, and knowing just what's going on when I separate a developer, how to charge into sensitometric tests and make best use of my time and materials to quickly find out what I need to know and get on with taking pictuers and, ultimately, make the print in my hand reflect the image in my mind.
Originally Posted by fingel
Not pre-soaking on separated developers makes a lot more sense to me now.
Hear is another split. Perhaps it's been mentioned, the Ansel
Originally Posted by kwmullet
Adams split where the hydroquinone portion is a second solution
and added to the metol + glycin portion to increase contrast.
Interestingly Ansel's A solution is very similar to Crawley's FX-2.
Likely Ansel's A will make a good film developer just as he has
compounded it and FX-2 will make a good paper developer.
Of course correct dilutions would need be made.
For panthermic processing use a mild alkali for the HQ bath. Say!
That may be a good idea! Remember, I thought of it first. Dan