Using Diafine as a "normal" developer

Discussion in 'Black and White' started by leon chang, Apr 15, 2007.

  1. I'm currently using Diafine to develop pushed film (in my case Tri- X pushed to
    EI 1250). Results are vey good. What happens if I use Diafine to develop my
    films at the normal rated film speed?? (so not using it as a speed enhancing
    developer.) Particularly interested in Neopan at 1600 and Rollei at 100.
     
  2. Diafine develops films to a single effective film speed. By changing the times in Bath A and Bath B you may have a bit of flexibility, but you run the risk of uneven development.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "Neopan" or "Rollei" (Fuji Neopan comes in four different varieties), but Neopan 1600 in Diafine gives good results right at EI 1600, which is at least 1.5 stops faster than its actual speed. You may want to read up about high speed films, true film speed and how it is determined if you plan on using a lot of Neopan 1600.
     
  3. jtk

    jtk

    I use Emofin, a two bath like Diafine. I rate Neopan 400 @ 1200 and get very little grain, plenty of shadow detail. I don't use it for Normal rating because I like acutance and that's not what Diafine or Emofin are about: as a trade off for low grain pushes they both soften grain, along with detail resolution.
     
  4. I'd like to see some of these full-shadow, grainless 1200-speed images.
     
  5. I've tried Tri-X 400, FP4, and HP5 with Diafine. When shot at the manufacturer's recommended ISO and developed in Diafine I find the negs to be more dense than usual, but it's not excessive. I find them to be grainier than if I'd used the single bath, phenidone developer I normally use, so I don't use Diafine unless I want the ISO boost or contrast control of a compensating developer.

    Tri-X 400 at 1250 http://flickr.com/photos/manuelfocus/308029732
     
  6. jtk

    jtk

    Pico, if you were addressing me, I didn't say "full-shadow," I said "plenty of shadow detail."

    As in "doesn't look pushed, most shadows are more than black holes"

    We're talking about 35mm after all: we both know that if a person is trying to emulate Ansel Adams he's not using the optimum format :)

    At 1200 the only film I've seen that gave "full-shadow" was 2475 Recording Film (DK50). I've not even tried Neopan 1600.

    Emofin and Diafine may be chemically similar two-bath developers, I simply don't know. My impression is that both are soft working, versus Rodinal or Neofin.

    I've never used Diafine, but the hostility that surfaces when Diafine users talk about their happiness is nothing short of bizarre :)
     

Share This Page