Diafine: Help please for uneven development

[Ken Lee]

Thank you

If you get back to your Glycin/Metol formula, I'm sure there would be more than a passing interest here among members.

Here's another subject with extremely high dynamic range: a black record under the lid of an old Victrola in a dimly lit room, with a reflection of light coming through the window. A 45 second exposure.

Victrola, 2012
Sinar P, 135mm uncoated Tessar
4x5 TMY, Diafine

[Mark MacKenzie]

Wow, very cool photo. It seems to amplify the "uncoated" look. The spectacles are a coated modern lens. I think its a great treatment and I'd like to see it in print instead of on a laptop...

[RichardSperry]

One of the traits of Diafine is that it is reusable. If you are adding Photo Flo to it, are you just tossing it after each use?

[Ken Lee]

No - I haven't tossed anything out. So far I have just returned the used developers (A & B) to their original 1-gallon bottles.

The next time I develop some sheets, I will add some more Photo Flo, but after that I will stop adding it. I plan to just keep using the original 1 gallon of each solution until something goes wrong.

Experimenting is part of the fun: using different lenses, formats and cameras can also help keep us in a beginner's frame of mind.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

Ken

I would be interested in how you metered and planned the exposure for the Victrola photograph.

[Ken Lee]

I would be interested in how you metered and planned the exposure for the Victrola photograph.

Ordinarily - when using a truly divided developer - we can meter for the low values and not worry about the high values, but in this case the light was too dim to measure the low values. (Even though that old Tessar opens to f/4.5, it was very difficult to focus and compose under the dark cloth.)

The reflections on the record were bright enough to measure. Using a spot meter, I "placed" the reflections on Zone VI and figured that rest of the record would look normal. The metal arm of the victrola "fell" several stops higher - and would ordinarily be burned out - but I relied on Diafine to retain texture.

[rdenney]

Jay, having usable densities in the negative beats the pants off not having it. One can always increase contrast, especially when using a scanning/Photoshop workflow. But making unscannable densities scan usably is a bit more challenging.

The choice of what one does with those usable densities is a whole separate discussion, particularly with regards to test photos. I, for one, think Ken is a master of rendering subtle middle grays, which makes his work distinctive compared to my own soot and chalk. But as you say, to each his own.

Rick "who last used Diafine--incorrectly and disastrously--in, oh, maybe 1972 or so" Denney

[Ken Lee]

I confess that I'm still stuck on one of the assignments I was given back in 1971: study the effect of adjacent tones. As a result, I have often lost site of the potential inherent in more dramatic lighting.

[sanking]

Ordinarily - when using a truly divided developer - we can meter for the low values and not worry about the high values, but in this case the light was too dim to measure the low values. (Even though that old Tessar opens to f/4.5, it was very difficult to focus and compose under the dark cloth.)

The reflections on the record were bright enough to measure. Using a spot meter, I "placed" the reflections on Zone VI and figured that rest of the record would look normal. The metal arm of the victrola "fell" several stops higher - and would ordinarily be burned out - but I relied on Diafine to retain texture.

Thanks for the information about your metering procedure. And interesting that you are still thinking in zone terms even with a two bath developer.

Was it too dim in there to take an incident reading in the shadows?

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Rick!

Sorry to hear you've become a moderator here, but that's another subject.

I'm aware that lower than needed contrast is more malleable than higher than needed contrast, but that has nothing to do with my comments. Ken stated that he added contrast to his test image for presentation in this thread, and the image in question looks very much like the larger body of his work. It's reasonable to assume the image looks just as Ken wishes it to look, and not that it is simply raw material for some other interpretation. It's further reasonable to conclude that Ken enjoys seeking out very high SBR scenes and shoe horning them onto film by various processing techniques. I simply question whether this exercise is a means to an end, or an end in itself. If rendering a sunny day as an overcast one is Ken's intention, his methods are very effective, but why would he want to do that, except as an example of that particular technique? I know many here have expressed admiration for Ken's work, and I mean no disrespect, but I don't share that admiration, which is not to say that I'm right, and they're wrong, just that I don't share their opinion.