Two bath developer

[Lex Jenkins]

There may be something to that assertion, Sergio. The only two-bath type I use, Diafine, works very well with more traditional type films like Tri-X and FP4+ (despite the revisions) and not so well with T-Max films.

I plan to try Diafine next with Efke R100 and APX 100.

Some folks swear by the results from two-bath and divided developers, others swear at 'em. The tonal characteristics can sometimes be odd, especially lower tone and highlight separations. Midtones tend to be strong, shadow detail pretty good considering the speed boost Diafine gives some films, and compressed highlights. But the light has to be just right to get the most from films developed in Diafine. When it works the results are terrific.

[Annemarieke]

Hans,
I am not sure, but I think it is prohibited in Holland to send chemicals by post. Not sure if this only applies to liquid chemicals, or also to powder chemicals, but maybe you could ask TPG.
Good luck.
Anne Marieke

[martinhughesireland]

I bought two of these reels from www.thephotoshop.ie two weeks ago so they have them in stock. Worked perfectly in my paterson tank.

[Gerald C Koch]

According to Minor White/Zakia/Lorenz in Zone System Manual: "Compaction development by two-solution method can no longer be recommended for modern thin emulsion films, because they don't absorb sufficient developer solution to continue developing in the second bath."
Any experiences about that?

While convenient these developers distort the tonal scale of the negative. Despite what some people think they should not be used as a general method of development.

[presspass]

In addition to Anchell & Troop's Film Developing Cookbook, check the late Barry Thornton's book - I think the title is Edge of Darkness - and there's still a website up that gives his divided developer formula. It's the D-23 variant quoted above with 6.5 g of metol, 85 g. sodium sulfite for Bath A and 12 g of metaborate for Bath B. I've used it and found a slightly longer time - 5.5 to 6 minutes for 35 Tri-X at ISO 400 - works for me. I've also used the Stoeckler variant in A&T's book and that works very well with rotary processing. As in the old cereal commercial - try it, you'll like it. But don't try it with something important.

[albada]

Hans
Diafine has two solutions - A and B.
...
If you care, I can post the formula I'm using.
Jorge O

Yes, I'm interested in your formula, and would appreciate it if you would post it.
BTW, your posting shows a date of 2003. Odd.

Thanks,

Mark Overton

[clogz]

Unfortunately I have not heard from Jorge Oliveira since that time, so I can't help you there. However, I have used Barry Thornton's formula...and I must say...I like it a lot.

Hans

[mr rusty]

Amazing how old threads revive!!!

[David Allen]

For the past ten years I have only used Delta 400 developed in a two-bath developer rated at EI 200. I see no reason to change/

[skahde]

I did extensive testing and densitometry on Stöckler's as two bath seemed as a magic bullet for me at the time. From the theory, leaving out the second bath should leave the negatives blank or at least very thin. Been there, done that and it just lowers shaddow-density a bit. Diafine, in contrast, behaves just as written in the book and produces only a very faint negative when you leave out the second bath.

My conlusion after going throug Stöckler's, Barry Thornton's, Diafine aso. is that they are inferior to a well controlled development in a conventional developer. I found a single bath as D76 1+1 has better contrast in shaddows and highlights and better overall definition.

Tri-X in Diafine under low ligth is the only combination I still use and like.