Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,700   Posts: 1,548,395   Online: 1142
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    Obscura26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Halton Hills, Ontario
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22
    Well I took a shot last night and souped two rolls of Tri-X in my 3 year old diafine and wow, I am amazed at the results.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,465
    Can you develop Tri-X that was shot at 400 in Diafine? What results should one expect?

    Thanks, Bill
    - Bill Lynch

  3. #23
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,872
    Yes, the negatives will be somewhat grainy and have great shadow detail. If the light was contrasty, the results will be better than if the light was flat.
    f/22 and be there.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,465
    Quote Originally Posted by BetterSense View Post
    Yes, the negatives will be somewhat grainy and have great shadow detail. If the light was contrasty, the results will be better than if the light was flat.
    Thanks.

    By circumstance rather than intention, I often end up using Tri-X on bright-sunny Southern California days with strong contrast so this is good to know.

    I think I'll get some and mix it up just to have on hand.
    - Bill Lynch

  5. #25
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,927
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Martiny View Post
    I have found that FP4+ rated at 250 gives very fine negatives in Diafine.
    Agree, but I like Plus-X in it even better, mainly because it's almost a stop faster in apparent speed. Box says EI 400 and that seems spot on.

    I started to say I used tons of Diafine in the old days but that's not true. I used maybe three quart sizes, but did tons of film in it! It was my standard developer for years when I was a high school yearbook photographer and later in college, because it was very cheap to use, gave increased apparent speed when I needed it (with Tri-X, I used to rate at 1600, now I use 1200, not sure if the film changed some, my tastes changed or my meters are different) and was stone simple all the time. Like others said, it's not really controllable. It does what it does. For most light and subjects it does fine.

    There are arguments all over the place about whether the speed gain is real, but the bottom line is the negatives don't look right and are grainy if exposed at box film speed, and they look good, have finer grain, print easily (mostly, unless the light was flat to start with) and have adequate shadow detail when uprated a bit, so that's what I do.

    I no longer use it as my standard - that's now T-Max RS, but I do keep it on hand and use it for when I need 1200 speed with Tri-X but don't need higher speeds. Dimmer light calls for TMZ or Delta 3200 in 35mm and 120 respectively, with good results but if light allows I prefer the Tri-X in Diafine. It's also good for taming contrasty scenes.

    Bottom line like many said, if it works for you there's no reason not to use it as your standard. I need more versatility now, for + and - development of 4x5 in particular, but still find it very handy at times.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,865
    Quote Originally Posted by Dali View Post
    Hello all,

    I sometimes use Diafine in case I need a speed increase (TRI-X @ 1000 ASA) and I know I face rather high contrast (indoor). quality you are prepared to lose.I like it because it's a kind of no-brainer (same developing time for all films whatever they are, no need to be picky with temperature).
    An even better no-brainer is digital. Why mess with nasty solutions at all.

    Seriously, I have never been happy with Diafine. Whether you use it or not depends on how much quality you are prepared to lose. Ask yourself this question how many cans of Diafine are sold each month compared to standard developers like D-76 or HC-110.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Usagi View Post
    a bit offtopic. Has anyone compared diafine to divided D-23 or it's variants like stoeckler?
    I also want to know the answer. I'm very happy with Thornton's D-23 two bath. Wondering how Diafine compared to other two bath developers.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Seattle
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4
    I've used Diafine exclusively for the last four years, and I've souped about 7800 rolls of all kids of film in it. Last night I took a roll of Kodak Technical Pan, Rollei Advanced Tech-Pan 1.1, Adox CHS Art 100 and Rollei Ortho 25 out of the tank and they were stunning looking. Where else can you soup those four rolls together without agitation or temperature concerns?

    Typically I rate the film one or two under and the results, I find, are generally the very best for scanning purposes, as it produces a very evenly developed negative with all shadow and all highlight details available for use unlike any other developer that I've used. It is by far the most consistent developer I have ever used.

    I typically buy it in quarts and make liters from that and have at any one time two liters going for each A and B, and in a four tank I'll use a liter and the other liter will stay in the bottle, this method serves an a sort of rejuvenation. I get about 200-240 rolls of film (35 or 120) per two liter mix, then I'll add in new powder and water to bring up the A and I have to chop off some B in order to keep them rejuvenated at the same time.

    I have noticed that over the course of time Diafine builds up a silver precipitant in the bottle, and this actually has a very positive effect on the film you are developing. It takes about 50 rolls in to make the beginnings of change in my negatives, and I can see a subtle contrast and detail change in the scans afterwards. I think at this point I might have the price of a few bottles of fine Irish whiskey from that silver precipitant.

    I'm not very technical about developing, I just do what is easy fast and looks good when scanned and printed in a darkroom. I love this developer.

  9. #29
    Harry Lime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    467
    Quote Originally Posted by BugraK View Post
    I also want to know the answer. I'm very happy with Thornton's D-23 two bath. Wondering how Diafine compared to other two bath developers.
    I use Thornton's 2-bath for everything up to 400asa. Beautiful, consistent results.
    Usually I'll mix up 1 liter of A & B and that's good for about 15 rolls, although you could renew bath B and probably double that.

    I used to shoot a lot of Delta3200, but unfortunately it's gotten quite expensive. I'll still buy it on occasion, but for the most part I now I'll grab a Summilux and shoot Tri-X or TMY-2 400 @ 1000-1250 and develop in Diafine. I love Diafine for low light shooting, because I can really favor the shadows during exposure and the two bath properties of Diafine will go a long way in retaining detail in the highlights. It's a truly great developer.

  10. #30
    Thomas Bertilsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    14,299
    Images
    302
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    By circumstance rather than intention, I often end up using Tri-X on bright-sunny Southern California days with strong contrast so this is good to know.
    That is what the developer was designed for. Photographers shooting mid-day in high contrast. Great speed for indoors photography (using Tri-X) and good at compensating for high outdoor contrast.

    You know, the kind of photography where one doesn't have time to wait for really good lighting.
    "Often moments come looking for us". - Robert Frank

    "Make good art!" - Neil Gaiman

    "...the heart and mind are the true lens of the camera". - Yousuf Karsh

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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