Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,287   Posts: 1,535,333   Online: 858
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    174
    The negs I've got in mind were horribly underdeveloped. You're probably right. A more experienced darkroom tech than I could probably pull just as much information out of those negs as I did with a scan. But it's beyond me for the moment. Apologies all around.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    I shot a TriX devleoped in Dinafine, it can be a little soft so you want to print at a higher contrast, I usally print at grade 3, but for negatives souped in Dinafine grade 4.

  3. #13
    Snapshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    912
    I've printed images shot on Tri-X and developed in Diafine. The grain is nice but can be "salt and pepper" like in nature. In general, the results are fine, especially considering I'm shooting Tri-X at 1250 or 1600 ISO.
    "The secret to life is to keep your mind full and your bowels empty. Unfortunately, the converse is true for most people."

  4. #14
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    I think you're going to find that the negs print just fine. Not that I scan a whole lot, but I like to print really dense negs, so I expose the Tri-X at an EI of 800-1,000. Scanning those negs have not been fun, but I love printing them. They are probably grainier than a more normally dense negative, but I like grain.

    I use a normal condenser head enlarger, by the way, where denser negs are easier justified than for a cold light head enlarger.

    It's a great combination that's really fool proof and the process is so simple.

    - Thomas

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Caselton Corners, Staten Island, New York
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    23
    For your examples, I would have used D-76 pushed 800-1600 undiluted or with 6X7 Rodinal 1:25. I find Diafine expensive and reserve it for high contrast subjects like the beach and contrasty City Scapes, etc.

    Regards.

    Bob McCarthy

  6. #16
    Akki14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    London, UK
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,873
    Images
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert T. McCarthy View Post
    For your examples, I would have used D-76 pushed 800-1600 undiluted or with 6X7 Rodinal 1:25. I find Diafine expensive and reserve it for high contrast subjects like the beach and contrasty City Scapes, etc.

    Regards.

    Bob McCarthy
    Diafine isn't that expensive in the long run since you can use it over and over for many years. The inital startup and 4 soda bottles may be daunting but from what I've read, it'll keep for at least 2 years and most people tend to get sick of the results, etc and chuck it out before it actually goes off. I bought my diafine after using up quite a bit of FD-10 on 120 film (since you need that larger volume to develop the taller negatives in a tank) and figured, in the long run, I'd be better off with Diafine. Much more economical especially if you're using larger tanks like my monster 3 120 tank...

  7. #17
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,241
    Images
    296
    I don't know about expensive. A kit I believe is fifteen bucks, but you can literally process almost countless rolls in it. I had a mixed up kit for about a year, and I had at least 100 rolls processed through it. Worked great, and it allowed me to stop being so obsessed with the film and film chemistry. I needed to get into the darkroom more and print, so I simplified to spend less time farting around with developers.
    Good luck with it. The look is really nice with Tri-X.
    - Thomas

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    415
    I used to shoot TX @ 800 in Diafine. Easy to print, beautiful for high contrast scenes, but not always the shadow density I'd like, as this is two stops faster than I'd rate TX for most developers. Keep it replenished and it will last a long time.

  9. #19
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by MMfoto View Post
    I used to shoot TX @ 800 in Diafine. Easy to print, beautiful for high contrast scenes, but not always the shadow density I'd like, as this is two stops faster than I'd rate TX for most developers. Keep it replenished and it will last a long time.
    Does someone actually sell a Diafine replenisher? Tell me more!




    In terms of general comments, although I think Diafine might not compare all that favorably with other developers in a head-to-head, I think it compares quite favorably with machine processing in a lab.

    During the year and a half or two years we were without a darkroom, we processed many, many rolls in Diafine at the kitchen counter. Loaded up our tanks in a changing bag. worked great. Since you're re-using it, filter your diafine as you pour it back into the jug. It's especially good for ad-hoc darkrooms (or UNdarkrooms, as as the case for us) because precise timing and temperature control isn't necessary. As I recall, as long as you're in each of "A" and "B" for at least three minutes at any temperature remotely comfortable to humans, you're fine.

    Do not presoak -- that works against the general means of operation of a divided developer. As I understand it, the point is to saturate the emulsion with developer when you're in part "A", then activate that developer to exhaustion in part "B".

    Another interesting thing about Diafine is that the times are universal. Anything you process in Diafine uses the same time, so you can load up different films in your tank at the same time. In fact, we had decades old C41 and C22 film (35mm and 126 cartridges) that we were experimenting with, and ran them and got somewhat useable images out of them, so there's definitely is a certain amount of magic to Diafine.

    -KwM-

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    Quote Originally Posted by kwmullet View Post
    Another interesting thing about Diafine is that the times are universal. Anything you process in Diafine uses the same time, so you can load up different films in your tank at the same time. In fact, we had decades old C41 and C22 film (35mm and 126 cartridges) that we were experimenting with, and ran them and got somewhat useable images out of them, so there's definitely is a certain amount of magic to Diafine.

    -KwM-
    It's universal if you accept widely different contrast from your films. I tried Diafine quite a bit with different films, and I don't think two of them were developed to the same contrast. I also found that claims of increased shadow speed to be doubtful at best - what I saw was that some of the films came out with high contrast. In other words, Diafine pushed them.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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