Excessive grain and underexposure with Diafine

<p>Hi, So I just developed a bunch of rolls in Diafine and the negatives have come out very grainy and look underexposed. Even the black bars between frames have grain. I have been developing in Diafine with this exact process for a while and never seen this before and not sure whats going wrong. <br>

Details:<br>

Trix 400 35mm exposed at iso1250<br>

4mins in A&B at 70 degrees.<br>

2 initial inversions followed by 2 inversions every minute.<br>

rinse twice<br>

NH5 for 2 minutes<br>

Rinse for 10 minutes<br>

Scanned on V800<br>

Shot on several different cameras.</p>

<p>The only thing I can think is that it is from the X-ray when I went through airport security, but other rolls look fine...<br>

Thanks in advance!<br>

Examples below:<br>

<img src="http://s33.postimg.org/4tdfevdpb/img2419.jpg" alt="" width="1279" height="898" /></p><div></div>

<p>Can you tell the difference in underdevelopment and underexposure?<br>

As far as grain, pushing Tri-X will give you enlarged grain. Your shot above does not look bad at all. X-rays at the airport generally give wierd fogging and odd exposure striping. This just looks like Tri-X pushed.<br>

<br />How about a scan of the negatives from this roll next to negatives exposed and processed identically from one of the other rolls?</p>

<p>Thanks Zelph,<br>

Its not necessarily a push with diafine, thats just the best speed to shoot trix with it. <br>

Normally I get results like the photos attached.<br>

I also don't normally say grain on the frame...<br>

Totally stumped</p><div></div>

<p>This problem seems to be confined to Tri X. I had a roll of HP5 in the same batch and it looks great.<br>

I think its actually not grain, but noise from the scanner auto-exposing and pushing the image a stop or two...<br>

Is there a reason that I would be getting less speed from my Tri X all of a sudden, the film isn't excessively old or anything. Maybe 6 months max, NOT refrigerated, thats really the only thing I can come up with.</p>

"I think its actually not grain, but noise from the scanner ..."

 

I have an idea. Why not get a loupe and actually look at the film itself?

Hi James, I did check it with a loupe, that is part of reason why I think may be noise. I really need a higher magnification to be sure that the grain is in fact not there

<p>I used Diafine and Acufine many years ago (when it first came out) and am impressed with the quality of the large normal image. Any chance the scanner was set wrong?</p>

<p>Randyc</p>

<p>Hi Randy, I don't think its the scanner, other rolls have come out just fine. Its weird because nothing really changed in my process, processing or digital, only the quality of the negative...</p>

<p>I think I see your problem. 70F is too low, I always use Diafine at 72-80F.</p>

<p>Diafine says 70 to 85F, so 70 should be fine.</p>

<p>Grain in the bars between frames sounds like fogging due to old or kept too warm film.</p>

<p>Looking at your times, the 2 minute fix sounds a little low for Tri-X.</p>

<p>Usually rapid (ammonia based) fixer says 2-5 minutes, where 2 is for Panatomic-X, and 5 is for Tri-X. (and maybe longer for T-grain films.)</p>

<p>I would try refixing for about 5 minutes, then usual wash and dry. </p>

<p>Normal underfiximg gives a milky look, but if you are just a tiny bit underfixed, maybe what you see. </p>

<p>Also, rapid fixer is pH sensitive, and might work slightly slower at some pH values.</p>

<p>And underexposed means more work for the fixer.</p>

Hmmm - Underfixing could definitely be the problem. Very curious to test that out.

 

Thank you!!

<p>That grain will pretty much disappear if you make an enlarger print. To a large degree, anyway. Underexposed Tri-X and Diafine are not made for each other, while overexposed Tri-X and Diafine are.</p>

<p>Having said, it's a combination I was never fond of. It became popular because newspaper photogs could get a useable image this way in all sorts of lighting, but it's not an optimal image. Tri-X looks a lot better in D76 or Rodinal, two classic combinations. You'll see a lot more tonal range and better whites w/ something like that. In Diafine, Tri-X gets sort of grey.</p>

<p>The Diafine box recommendation for Tri-X has been between 1200 and 1600 over the years.</p>

<p>As Kodak recommends Tri-X at 800 with no development change, and 1600 with extended development, it doesn't seem so hard to believe that Diafine can do it.</p>

<p>The Diafine box speed for Panatomic-X used to be 250, so about three stops. I used to do that and get reasonable, though maybe not optimal, results. I suspect that 120 or 160 would have been a better choice.</p>

<p>But with many modern films, the Diafine speed increase is much lower. Pan-F+ goes from 50 to 80.</p>

<p>Diafine claims optimal development for all films, though it isn't so obvious that there haven't been more changes in films over the years, such that the formula should be re-optimized for newer films.</p>