PDA

View Full Version : Diafine and Acros 100 - Two Bath Dev.



Jim Cole
23-Jul-2008, 12:44
I develop by B&W for a scanning workflow and after reading Sandy King's article in the most recent View Camera magazine, I decided to give the two bath development a try. I really bought it to try with the new TMax 400, but decided to give it a try with a few sheets of Acros 100 to compare to the same images developed in Rodinal.

Since the article did not test Diafine with Acros, I was looking for some first hand experience before I commit the sheets to Diafine. Has anyone used this combo with satisfaction?

Fred Newman at the View Camera Store did not recommend using Diafine with the Acros, but before I defer to his opinion, I was hoping to hear about some other results.

Sandy, have you tried this combo yet?

Thanks,
Jim

sanking
23-Jul-2008, 13:20
Jim,

Yes, I have tried Acros 100 in Diafine. To get the same average contrast that you get with most other films you should increase development time to about 5 + 5. It is also a good idea to agitate a bit more with Acros as too little agitation may cause uneven development and bromide drag.

Sandy King






I develop by B&W for a scanning workflow and after reading Sandy King's article in the most recent View Camera magazine, I decided to give the two bath development a try. I really bought it to try with the new TMax 400, but decided to give it a try with a few sheets of Acros 100 to compare to the same images developed in Rodinal.

Since the article did not test Diafine with Acros, I was looking for some first hand experience before I commit the sheets to Diafine. Has anyone used this combo with satisfaction?

Fred Newman at the View Camera Store did not recommend using Diafine with the Acros, but before I defer to his opinion, I was hoping to hear about some other results.

Sandy, have you tried this combo yet?

Thanks,
Jim

Jim Cole
23-Jul-2008, 13:31
Sandy,

Perfect! Thanks for your quick reply. The box does recommend a 5/5 time with the 35mm Acros, but they don't reference the sheet film.

Would a Jobo 2500 tank on a Uniroller be too much agitation for the compensating effect? Or, should I try just doubling the recommended hand agitations to 5 seconds every 30 seconds?

sanking
23-Jul-2008, 13:45
Jim,

Continuous agitation will work fine, but if you develop in a Jobo this I would recommend trying the Diafine diluted 1:1 with water. That should give about the same average contrast as if using the developer full strength with intermittent agitation. That was the case with the films I specifically tested this way, but I did not test Acros this way.

Sandy King








Sandy,

Perfect! Thanks for your quick reply. The box does recommend a 5/5 time with the 35mm Acros, but they don't reference the sheet film.

Would a Jobo 2500 tank on a Uniroller be too much agitation for the compensating effect? Or, should I try just doubling the recommended hand agitations to 5 seconds every 30 seconds?

Jim Cole
23-Jul-2008, 13:53
Thanks again Sandy. I'm going to try doubling the hand agitation before attempting the roller jobo with the diluted developer.

I'm going to do this right now so I'll post the results in a couple of hours after the film dries.

Jim Cole
24-Jul-2008, 08:07
Ok, here's my results with the Diafine on 4 Acros 100 sheets. All film was shot at my tested speed of ISO 80. Subject matter was a landscape with Ponderosa Pines, a pond with reflections and stormy clouds shot with front lighting in late morning light. Scenes were metered for shadows on Zone III and the highlights in the clouds hit Zone IX.

Diafine sheets were compared to identical sheets developed in Rodinal 1:49 in a Jobo 2553 (double 2509n reel) tank on a Uniroller with a normal development time of 7 minutes with a 5 minute prewash.

The Diafine development at about 75F was in a Jobo 2521 tank (single 2509n reel) using 1500ml of each solution which fills up the tank. Gentle agitation was done with hand inversion. The development time used was 5 minutes per solution and I doubled the suggested agitation time from 5 seconds every minute to 5 seconds every 30 seconds. No prewash as suggested on the box. Development in A and B was followed by a 30 second wash, normal fixing and final washes. I used tap water for the solutions.

Negatives were scanned on an Epson 4990 using VueScan. Linear scans were made using the green channel only for 16 bit grayscale scans. Scans were then inverted using ColorNeg with a gamma of 1.00 and all highlight and shadow clipping eliminated.

The results with Diafine:

1) A much lower contrast negative as expected.
2) Greatly improved shadow detail, with much smoother tonal transitions.
3) Highlights similar to a N-1 development in Rodinal with improved tonal transitions
4) A definite reduction in grain although I don't find the grain in the Rodinal development to be objectionable. Athough the grain reintroduces itself after scanning when a steeper curves adjustment is made to compensate for the flatter neg, it can be moderated with a little masking of the curves adjustment.
5) Definitely improved edge effects for a sharper appearing negative and scan.

I must note that this is my first attempt at hand inversion instead of using a Uniroller base and I did get uneven development with considerable vertical streaking on the negatives. I may try Sandy's suggestion of diluting the working solution 1:1 and putting it on the roller in the larger tank. I'm not sure if using distilled water for the working solutions would eliminate the streaking as I get a little uneven development using the roller base with Rodinal and tap water as well. I am careful to only load 4 sheets on each reel leaving the center position on each side open for maximum developer flow, so I'm not sure why this is happening.

Overall, I really like my initial results with Diafine for a scanning workflow. I have to dial in the process to eliminate the uneven development. If I can be successful with that, Diafine may become my principal developer.

Ron Marshall
24-Jul-2008, 10:12
Sandy, I enjoyed your article in View Camera. Very informative. Thanks!

How precise does one need to be with development times for a two bath? For example: developing TMY, using Diafine 1:1 in a Jobo, would a 20% increase or decrease in development time have an obvious effect on contrast?

Jim Cole
24-Jul-2008, 10:21
Ron,

I'm not Sandy, but I'll jump in here. I think you need to hit the minimum time for Diafine which is 3 minutes each for solutions A and B (for most films). According to the instructions on the Diafine box, extending the times will have no effect.

So it seems that you need to error on the long side rather than the short.

sanking
24-Jul-2008, 11:01
Ron,

Thanks for the comment. It was fun doing the research and testing for the article as this was a methodology I had not previously used so there was a lot of learning to do.
However, since most of my work these days is scanning rather than direct printing I can see that this method is one that I will use a lot in the future.

Two-bath development is pretty simple. The film soaks up the reducer in Bath A, and then development takes place in Bath B. It is actually a bit more complicated than that because with some formulas (D-23 divided for example) some development actually takes place in Bath A, whereas with a formula like Diafine no development takes place at all until the film goes into Bath B.

Time is probably less important than the temperature of the developing solutions, especially Bath A, in determining the average gradient to which the film will develop. In other words, you won't see much difference in contrast between three and five minutes, with Bath A at 72F, but you will see a lot of difference between Bath A at 70F and 80F. The higher temperature causes the emulsion to swell more, which allows it to soak up more of the reducer. The more reducer it soaks up the higher will be the gradient to which it will develop in a given time.

As Jim notes, the key is to do the minimum time at the temperature recommended, and a a minute or more in both solutions won't have much impact on contrast. But a change in temperature of five degree or more will have a significant impact at a given time so it is important for consistency to keep your temperature as standard as possible.

Sandy


Sandy, I enjoyed your article in View Camera. Very informative. Thanks!

How precise does one need to be with development times for a two bath? For example: developing TMY, using Diafine 1:1 in a Jobo, would a 20% increase or decrease in development time have an obvious effect on contrast?

sanking
24-Jul-2008, 14:11
Jim,

Thanks for the very informative post of your tests.

I don't know what to say about the uneven development. As I mentioned earlier, Acros definitely requires more agitation than other films. On the other hand, I use four agitation cycles per five minute development with roll film on stainless reels and am getting very even development with Acros, using both Diafine and divided D-23. I just developed some 30 plus rolls of Acros in divided D-23 that I exposed on a recent trip to the Pacific northwest and after scanning most of the important negatives I don't see any uneven development at all.

My suggestion would be to definitely try developing in the Jobo with the developer diluted 1:1. Given the small amount of developer that would be necessary for rotary development I would suggest that you just discard the solutions after use.

Sandy







Ok, here's my results with the Diafine on 4 Acros 100 sheets. All film was shot at my tested speed of ISO 80. Subject matter was a landscape with Ponderosa Pines, a pond with reflections and stormy clouds shot with front lighting in late morning light. Scenes were metered for shadows on Zone III and the highlights in the clouds hit Zone IX.

Diafine sheets were compared to identical sheets developed in Rodinal 1:49 in a Jobo 2553 (double 2509n reel) tank on a Uniroller with a normal development time of 7 minutes with a 5 minute prewash.

The Diafine development at about 75F was in a Jobo 2521 tank (single 2509n reel) using 1500ml of each solution which fills up the tank. Gentle agitation was done with hand inversion. The development time used was 5 minutes per solution and I doubled the suggested agitation time from 5 seconds every minute to 5 seconds every 30 seconds. No prewash as suggested on the box. Development in A and B was followed by a 30 second wash, normal fixing and final washes. I used tap water for the solutions.

Negatives were scanned on an Epson 4990 using VueScan. Linear scans were made using the green channel only for 16 bit grayscale scans. Scans were then inverted using ColorNeg with a gamma of 1.00 and all highlight and shadow clipping eliminated.

The results with Diafine:

1) A much lower contrast negative as expected.
2) Greatly improved shadow detail, with much smoother tonal transitions.
3) Highlights similar to a N-1 development in Rodinal with improved tonal transitions
4) A definite reduction in grain although I don't find the grain in the Rodinal development to be objectionable. Athough the grain reintroduces itself after scanning when a steeper curves adjustment is made to compensate for the flatter neg, it can be moderated with a little masking of the curves adjustment.
5) Definitely improved edge effects for a sharper appearing negative and scan.

I must note that this is my first attempt at hand inversion instead of using a Uniroller base and I did get uneven development with considerable vertical streaking on the negatives. I may try Sandy's suggestion of diluting the working solution 1:1 and putting it on the roller in the larger tank. I'm not sure if using distilled water for the working solutions would eliminate the streaking as I get a little uneven development using the roller base with Rodinal and tap water as well. I am careful to only load 4 sheets on each reel leaving the center position on each side open for maximum developer flow, so I'm not sure why this is happening.

Overall, I really like my initial results with Diafine for a scanning workflow. I have to dial in the process to eliminate the uneven development. If I can be successful with that, Diafine may become my principal developer.

Jim Cole
24-Jul-2008, 14:21
Sandy,

I will try the Jobo with the roller on my next go around with the 1:1 dilution and use it one shot and then post the results.

I definitely like the look of the Acros negs with the Diafine. Can't wait to try it with the TMax 400-2.

Thanks for your excellent articles and your help on this forum.

Jim

D. Bryant
25-Jul-2008, 07:36
Jim or Sandy,

When using Diafine part A diluted 1:1 with H2O, is part A being used as a one shot when used in a rotary processor?

Sandy have you tried using PyroCatHd for two part developing.

Also I suspect that part B of Diafine is anhydrous Sodium Carbonate?

If that is the case could other developers such as TMAX be used as part B if highly diluted? Probably not since the "activator" is already contained in the developer itself.

And has anyone tried 2 part developers in BTZS tubes?


Thanks,

Don Bryant

sanking
25-Jul-2008, 07:52
Don,

Since you are using such a small amount of the diluted developer with tube or drum type development I would recommend just discarding it after use. I am certain that it could be re-used several times but since the developer is so inexpensive anyway I would at least discard it at the end of the day .

Yes, I have used Pyrocat-HD as a two-part bath and discussed this a few months back in a thread on APUG. Basically you will want to dilute the stock solutions 1:10 with water to make the working baths. The developer is obviously less economical to use with such a strong dilution than with the standard 1:1:100 or 2:2:100 dilutions. I am currently working on refinement to the formula to optimize for two-bath development and may have something better in a few months.

And yes, I am fairly certain that the B solution of Diafine is sodium carbonate. The working pH of 10.8 is consistent with what we would expect from a carbonate solution. Divided D-23 uses sodium metaborate and the working pH iof the B solution is about 9.2. Divided D-23 appears to give slightly finer grain than Diafine but the difference is not significant for LF sheet film in my opinion.

I used BTZS type tubes for some of my two-bath tests. The only inconvenience is that you have to change solutions in the dark. Treat development as you would with Jobo, i.e. dilute the solutions 1:1 with water and give continuous agitation. You could also develop in tubes with the developer full strength filling the tube as you might do with stand or semi-stand development.

Sandy






Jim or Sandy,

When using Diafine part A diluted 1:1 with H2O, is part A being used as a one shot when used in a rotary processor?

Sandy have you tried using PyroCatHd for two part developing.

Also I suspect that part B of Diafine is anhydrous Sodium Carbonate?

If that is the case could other developers such as TMAX be used as part B if highly diluted? Probably not since the "activator" is already contained in the developer itself.

And has anyone tried 2 part developers in BTZS tubes?


Thanks,

Don Bryant

Ed Richards
25-Jul-2008, 08:28
How much Diafine do you need per 4x5 sheet? If I were using the 3010 drum, I only need about 350ml of solution, but if I dilute the diafine 1:1, is that enough developer? Do you also dilute part B 1:1?

sanking
25-Jul-2008, 08:42
Ed,

I diluted both Part A and Part B.

In the tests I did to reach the average gradient values given in the article I used 60ml of total A and B solution per sheet of 4X5 film. That is, 30ml of A + 30ml of water, and 30ml of B + 30ml of water.

Although I did not actually test this I feel very confident that one could develop up to 6-8 sheets of 4X5 film with 350 ml of total solution. Capacity is much greater than with a developer like D76 or Xtol.

Sandy King





How much Diafine do you need per 4x5 sheet? If I were using the 3010 drum, I only need about 350ml of solution, but if I dilute the diafine 1:1, is that enough developer? Do you also dilute part B 1:1?

Ron Marshall
25-Jul-2008, 08:48
Thanks for the info Sandy.

Do you have a preference for either of the developers you discussed in the VC article?

sanking
25-Jul-2008, 09:02
Ron,

Both developers have strong points. Diafine in my tests gave a slightly more linear curve, divided D-23 gave slightly finer grain. However, both developers give very sharp negatives with nice tonal range and good edge effects.

Basically, if one likes to mix their own developer, I would recommend divided D-23. But if you like to buy developer in a kit, as most people do, Diafine is a good choice.

BTW, Formulary sells a divided D-76 formula, the David Vestal variant I believe. That might be a better choice for 35mm or MF because of the grain, but both Diafine and divided D-23 appear to me to give sharper negatives.

Sandy





Thanks for the info Sandy.

Do you have a preference for either of the developers you discussed in the VC article?

sanking
25-Jul-2008, 09:07
Jim,

BTW, did Fred Newman mention why he did not recommend the Diafine/Acros combination? Fred knows a lot about films and developers and I would be interested in what he did not like about the combo.

Sandy








Fred Newman at the View Camera Store did not recommend using Diafine with the Acros, but before I defer to his opinion, I was hoping to hear about some other results.


Thanks,
Jim

Hugo Zhang
25-Jul-2008, 09:10
Sandy,

I have read your article in the VC with great interest. But I don't use scanner for negatives. Do you know your method works with negatives for straight contact prints?

Thanks.
Hugo

sanking
25-Jul-2008, 09:59
Two-bath development could be made to work for contact printing with VC papers, but it would not be ideal IMO unless you incorporated some contrast control in development, which defeats the original purpose of the article. For contact printing with the original negative we want a negative with a density range that closely matches the exposure scale of the paper process. This generally requires a Zone or BTZS type solution.

I personally plan to continue to use Zone and BTZS for most of my LF and ULF sheet film development where I plant to print directly with the in-camera negative in a specific process

Sandy King



Sandy,

I have read your article in the VC with great interest. But I don't use scanner for negatives. Do you know your method works with negatives for straight contact prints?

Thanks.
Hugo

Jim Cole
25-Jul-2008, 10:07
Jim,

BTW, did Fred Newman mention why he did not recommend the Diafine/Acros combination? Fred knows a lot about films and developers and I would be interested in what he did not like about the combo.

Sandy

Sandy,

Fred did not detail why he didn't recommend the Diafine with Acros. I mentioned that I was going to try the combo in passing while we were discussing a film test with TMax-2 and DD-X. I know I didn't mention that I was doing a scanning workflow with the Diafine so he was probably assuming traditional darkroom printing and thinking along the same lines as the comments you made to Hugo a few minutes ago regarding contact or enlarger printing.

David Karp
25-Jul-2008, 11:42
Hugo,

I used to use Diafine, and now use Barry Thornton's variant of divided D-23 for all my negatives. I am not a heavy tester, so all I do is shoot some film of a scene in open shade at a variety of film speeds and develop them in the 2 bath using a slosher. I contact print them and then decide which IE looks best to me. Most of my enlargements from 4x5 are on grade 2 or 3 (Ilford MGIV FB mostly).

Recently I developed some WP HP5+ negatives and contact printed them on Kentmere Bromide developed in Agfa 100 print developer. I am pleased so far.

Try it. Freestyle carries Diafine. Thornton's formula is easy to mix.

Hugo Zhang
25-Jul-2008, 12:06
Sandy & David,

Thanks.
Hugo

sanking
25-Jul-2008, 12:50
For some variations on divided D-23 have a look at this site.

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html

As a caveat I should mention that I have not personally tested all of the specific formulas suggested in this article.

Unless I have missed something the Ansel Adams variant of D-23 is same as that of Barry Thornton, hereafter referenced as AA and BT. I give credit in the article to AA since he promoted the formula long before BT.

Other variants use borax, or different combinations of accelerants.

But the best one for LF workers IMO is the AA/BT variant, which uses Kodalk/sodium metaborate as the alkaline accelerator.

Sandy



Hugo,

I used to use Diafine, and now use Barry Thornton's variant of divided D-23 for all my negatives. I am not a heavy tester, so all I do is shoot some film of a scene in open shade at a variety of film speeds and develop them in the 2 bath using a slosher. I contact print them and then decide which IE looks best to me. Most of my enlargements from 4x5 are on grade 2 or 3 (Ilford MGIV FB mostly).

Recently I developed some WP HP5+ negatives and contact printed them on Kentmere Bromide developed in Agfa 100 print developer. I am pleased so far.

Try it. Freestyle carries Diafine. Thornton's formula is easy to mix.

David Karp
25-Jul-2008, 16:46
Unless I have missed something the Ansel Adams variant of D-23 is same as that of Barry Thornton, hereafter referenced as AA and BT. I give credit in the article to AA since he promoted the formula long before BT.
Sandy

Hi Sandy,

I don't have my references available, because I am painting my house and all the photo books are boxed up, but I believe I recall the amounts correctly. My memory is that the AA version and the BT version are different. If I recall properly, the AA version calls for 7.5g/L of Metol in bath A, while the BT version (from his book the Edge of Darkness) calls for 6.5g/L. Whether this is significant, I do not know. AA's divided D-23 calls for 100g/L of Sodium Sulfite, while the BT version (again from the Edge of Darkness) calls for 80g/L. His reason for this was to avoid the negative impact of 100g/L sodium sulfite on sharpness. Although both versions call for sodium metaborate in the B bath, I believe that the concentration is different.

Thornton felt that his version was less contrasty than AA's.

I am not a chemist, so I do not know whether any of these differences are significant chemically, although BT claimed that they were.

Also, one of these days I will get around to trying Pyrocat MC as a 2 bath!

sanking
26-Jul-2008, 06:53
David,

You are correct in that there are some slight differences between the two-bath D-23 of Ansel Adams and Barry Thornton. In fact, there are some slight differences between Thornton's own versions as published in his book The Edge of Darkness and in a short article called The Stoëckler formula which on his web site, which is maintained by a friend. You can see both the AA formla and the BT formula here in the article on the Stoeckler formula. http://www.barrythornton.com/

My intuition is that the small differences in the various formulas would not make much difference in practice, especially with large format sheet film. In The Edge of Darkness Thornton suggests a more radical formula which would reduce the amount of sulphite in Bath A to 30 grams per liter and substitute sodium carbonate for sodium metaborate in Bath B. That change would certainly make a difference in results, though I would be concerned about the shelf life of Bath A.

Sandy





Hi Sandy,

I don't have my references available, because I am painting my house and all the photo books are boxed up, but I believe I recall the amounts correctly. My memory is that the AA version and the BT version are different. If I recall properly, the AA version calls for 7.5g/L of Metol in bath A, while the BT version (from his book the Edge of Darkness) calls for 6.5g/L. Whether this is significant, I do not know. AA's divided D-23 calls for 100g/L of Sodium Sulfite, while the BT version (again from the Edge of Darkness) calls for 80g/L. His reason for this was to avoid the negative impact of 100g/L sodium sulfite on sharpness. Although both versions call for sodium metaborate in the B bath, I believe that the concentration is different.

Thornton felt that his version was less contrasty than AA's.

I am not a chemist, so I do not know whether any of these differences are significant chemically, although BT claimed that they were.

Also, one of these days I will get around to trying Pyrocat MC as a 2 bath!

David Karp
26-Jul-2008, 07:22
Hi Sandy,

Thanks for the response.

For what it is worth, and for those who might be interested in using one of the BT formulae, the BT formula in Edge of Darkness was the most current version (as opposed to the version given in the article on his website). This is based on E-mail correspondence I had with BT not long before he died.

I often wonder about the differences in developer formulae. For example, if you look at the different print developer formulae in Anchell's Darkroom Cookbook, so many of them have the identical chemical composition (metol, hydroquinone, sodium sulfite, sodium carbonate, potassium bromide), with only what seem to be slight variations in the proportions. These changes are reputed to have significant impacts on the final product, such as warm tone vs. cold tone, or warm vs. neutral tone.

Jim Cole
31-Jul-2008, 10:06
I'm back with more results. I just finished a couple days of shooting and processing some more Acros and using Sandy's suggested dilution of Diafine 1:1 for my Jobo on a Uniroller. The dilutions were for one shot usage per his instructions as well.

I have to say that this dilution completely eliminated the uneven development I was getting in the 2500 drum except for the areas where the sheets touch the 2509n reels which also improved, but a bit of unevenness persisted. I have this problem with the reels often enough that I just ordered a Jobo 3010 Expert drum. Ouch! Ouch, again!

The other result from the dilution is even finer grain. These negs scan beautifully and give me a great start for digital processing and printing.

Thanks for all your help Sandy. You are a valuable resource here and in View Camera Magazine.

Jim

Henry Ambrose
31-Jul-2008, 15:13
I've played around with divided D23 and its variants, all gave good results. Also tried David Vestal's Divided D76H. (I hope that attribution is correct)

My favorite ended up being either classic Divided D23 as listed at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/DD-23/dd-23.html or Divided D76H (maybe a little more film speed). Divided D76H splits the sodium sulfite between the A and B baths. (if I remember correctly)

What you've got are just variations on a classic, simple metol and sodium sulfite developer with slightly different proportions. I suggest you try several variations and then stick with the one that makes you happy with your film. If/when Xtol is no longer I'll be using one of these. Until then Xtol is really hard to beat.

Jim Cole
31-Jul-2008, 15:42
Henry,

What does the D23 do better than the Diafine? Sandy seemed to have settled on the D23 as well. I have to say that I can't imagine getting a better neg to scan that what I'm getting with the Diafine 1:1. I have almost non-existant grain and nice smooth tonalities. However, I am a newbie at this B&W stuff and have a lot to learn so I would appreciate any light you can shed on this for me.

Henry Ambrose
31-Jul-2008, 17:15
I think Diafine and Acros gives a long toe to the curve so the shadows seem clipped to me. It does give speed but its a push (not real film speed) with the downside of a push. I thought Diafine was good with old TriX (a classic combination for sure) but not at the film speed they quoted. 800 worked great not 1600. Not if shadow detail meant anything to you.

I like the look of HP5 in Xtol. But the thing that does it for me is lots of info in the shadows and gentle fluffy highlights.

But whatever anyone else writes, if you're getting scans that satisfy and maybe even thrill you, don't change.

Henry Ambrose
31-Jul-2008, 17:17
And I'll throw in that Acros in Pyrocat is very nice.

Jim Cole
31-Jul-2008, 18:34
Henry,

Thanks for the followup. Maybe because I shoot Acros at ISO 80 and meter properly for where I want to maintain shadow detail, I haven't noticed any clipped shadows. Making a linear scan with Vuescan and inverting with ColorNeg using highlight and shadow clipping set to near 0.0001 gives me very smooth transitions. Again, I am new at B&W so pehaps I have not yet developed the critical eye of more experienced folks.

You have given me food for thought and it is greatly appreciated. Haven't decided to wrestle with Pyro yet.

Are most of the B&W portraits on your website HP5 and Xtol? They have a very nice look.

Thanks again,
Jim

Andrew O'Neill
31-Jul-2008, 21:20
I am currently working on refinement to the formula to optimize for two-bath development and may have something better in a few months.

That's interesting, Sandy. Since I am a pyrocat user (mix my own from scratch), I will definitely give it a try. Sandy, do you think you will do an article about it in VC?

Wallace_Billingham
1-Aug-2008, 15:07
Hi long time lurker first time poster, but some of you know me from other places (Hi Ralph)

Anyway I have been using Diafine for a while now, it has replaced Rodinal as my developer of choice (however I still like Rodinal). One great trick with Diafine that I think is worth mentioning in this thread is to presoak your film. I had intermittent issues with uneven development and bromide drag until I started a presoak.

My Diafine workflow now is to presoak for 2-3 minutes. I use water that is the same temp as the developer will be. I use Diafine at room temp and just keep an extra jug of plain water next to my Diafine jugs.

Then I put in Solution A and invert 2-3 times let it sit for 1:30, and then do another 2-3 inversions and let it sit for another 1:30, then invert another 2-3 times and let it sit for another minute or so, then dump back into the jug. Total time in solution A is a little more than 4 minutes (counting inversion time, and exact time is not really that important but don't go more than 5 minutes).

Then do the exact same thing for Solution B.

I have heard people say that you should not presoak film when you use Diafine as the emulsion on the film is saturated and will not soak up enough of solution A. I think what happens is that you get an effect much like the 1:1 dilution mentioned here on this thread.

The above works very well for scanned negatives as you get a lot of controled highlights with full shadow development so the negatives are a little on the flat side. I like to do this with the old school films like Efke, HP5, and Tri-X but it works well will T-grained films also. I also mainly do this with 120 roll film but I have done it with 4x5 film as well. I do a lot of pinhole and toy camera stuff and like the compensating effects of this method. Attached is an image developed this way shot using Efke IR820 infrared film.

weasel
1-Aug-2008, 15:17
That is very cool.