fp 4 + in diafine

<p>Just received some Diafine and I am trying to decide which film would do best developed in it. I read a post dated 2003 by Lex Jenkins who thought that FP-4 + looks great developed in diafine. I am wondering if that is the consensus? Also, some commenters suggested shooting FP 4 + at iso 250 (double the box speed) if developing in Diafine. Is that still the recommendation? Has Ilford changed its fp4+ since 2003 the way kodak did with tri-X? I ask because one might suppose diafine would not be a good developer for it now. </p>

<p>Following the old rule, if you have a hammer everything looks like a nail, I pretty much use Diafine for everything since my grandfather taught me about it 47 years ago.</p>

<p>The Massive Development Chart has both EI 200 and 250. </p>

<p>I have used PanF+ with Diafine, at the recommended IE 80, up from box speed of 50 so not a big step up.</p>

<p>Many people like new and old Tri-X with Diafine at 1200 or so. 1600 might be too much. </p>

<p>It does seem that Diafine isn't quite as special as it used to be, but is still a fine developer. Even without the speed increase, the convenience of not having to watch the time and temperature carefully might make it worth using. That, and that Diafine lasts close to forever. (My 32oz A is now close to 16oz, so about time to mix a new batch, after about four years.)</p>

 

<p>200 to 250 it is fine. Diafine is a fun developer just try not to abuse the lighting.</p>

<p> many combinations of film and<br>

developers are quite usable.<br>

they will leaqd to pleasing and usable<br>

results. the importand thing to remember that the film<br>

has basic characteristics.<br>

if the film yields very usable results in a standard<br>

developer such as d-76, rodinal, or hc-110.<br>

it will likely yield good results in other developers..<br>

there are exceptions and some developers may yie;ld poorer results with some<br>

films. If nobody says avoid a certain combination - believe it.<br>

otherwise you will be satisfied.<br>

once you choose a combination<br>

stick with it. </p>

<p>Thanks for the answers. I'll now try the fp-4+ at 200 +/-. Larry: I assume what you meant by not abusing the lighting is not to under expose too much?</p>

<p>Yes </p>