What's with this Diafine revival?

[msitaraman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the longest time (I mean decades)

Diafine and other two bath developers were considered to be

reliable, jack-of-all-film developers with the considerable downside

of a particularly undistinguished "look", relegated to being

footnotes in sundry darkroom recipe books.

 

But I see that it is undergoing quite a revival, judging by the

sudden increase in mentions in this forum.

 

Am I missing some new development (pun intended, wince if you will!)?

 

Is Diafine somehow a more zappy developer with modern emulsions? Or

has the formulation been improved somehow?

 

Just asking...

[andre_noble4]

Laziness.

[robert_meyer]

I use Diafine in two cases: first, in my 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 Graflex SLR's and Speed Graphics film is hard to find (except for J and C), so I use 3 1/4 x 4 Kodak Electron Image film. I expose at ASA 10 and develop in Diafine. I get great images that aren't abnormally high contrast and have fine grain. Second, I use Diafine for old film that I expect to have high fog or background. I find that Diafine supresses background and gives an image that is easier to print. I've tried Tri-X in Diafine and tend to get flat images; I don't like it.

[randall ellis]

From what I understand, it has not changed in a very long time, if ever. I started using it recently because of the long shelf life and because I wanted to see what a two-bath, compensating developer would do. It does not care about temperatures and produces negatives that print easily, so it sounded like a good thing. It works well when you want to push Tri-X to 1250 without the negative (ouch!) effects of pushing film and I like the results for contrasty situations, although I do not use it as my only developer.

 

As for a revival, perhaps it is due to easy of use for beginners, of which there seem to be quite a few these days. Its ease of use would make it perfect for those just now learning to develop their own film and to print their own prints. I would not write Diafine use off to laziness though. Diafine has its up sides and down sides just like any other developer out there...

 

- Randy

[jay_de_fehr]

It is a strange phenomenon, and seems to be especially prevalent at this forum, perhaps due to the enthusiastic encouragement of the moderator. At Apug, Rodinal is the current cult developer. In my opinion, both Diafine and Rodinal are sub-standard developers.

 

Jay

[terry_m1]

Jay, I agree with you 100% re Rodinal and the cultish obsession people on the Web have created. It reminds me of the temporary obsessions the media have recently pushed, such as those related to the Schiavo and Pope matters. Get a life, people!

[jason_fitzmaurice]

I've found most of my friends who use diafine primarily scan their negatives. They are used to doing lots of photoshop work to get the contrast they like so the very low contrast of diafine is okay. I have a friend who used to use xtol and acutol who now swears by diafine. She says it scans well, and since you don't increase grain by increasing contrast in digital (unlike printing on a harder grede if paper) why not use it.

[dk_thompson]

the developer I use about every day (in a deeptank) is the much maligned TMAX RS, but I've always kept a can of Diafine around to run problem film. I use it at work occasionally to run film of real contrasty industrial interiors--sometimes I'd have to shoot process shots of these 10-15,000 sq foot areas that were lit by a few overhead mercury vapor lamps about 2 stories up. I'd shoot TMY and rate it at 500 EI and expose for the deepest shadow area of the room, and let the highlights fall in place. The negs were perfect. I could print at about a grade 2.5 on polymax, and could actually see the lamps up in the fixtures without any burning or anything....other times I've used it in a pinch to run film that people have screwed up by shooting maybe something like Plus-X thinking it was TX. Rahter than push the film and jack up the contrast, I just run it through Daifine. It's pretty idiot-proof to use as long as the scene contrast is sorta punchy.....

 

I used to get pretty good negs out of TMZ as well--and could backlight available light shots and use the flare to fill in the edges of the shot so they weren't film base only. Kinda like XP2 in a way, you won't block the highlights.

 

Lousy developer for low and normal contrast work though---no separation. Probably the worst developer to use for shooting interiors with fluorescent lighting as well. I don't use it much, but like I said, I always have a box on hand just in case.

 

ymmv

[trixshooter]

Guys, Diafine a cult?

<p>

Gimme a break. Many accomplished photographers process their film in developers that they have been using for many many years. For example, David Michael Kennedy (www.davidmichaelkennedy.com) is a long time user of Rodinal w/ Tri-X for his negatives. John Sexton has his favorite, and Michael Kenna has his.

<p>

These forums and a number of the participants remind me of lemmings. Someone mentions a developer as being "great" or the magic bullet and before you know it everyone is flocking to that developer. Each developer gives a look and a result. To say that Rodinal or Diafine is a cult is an over simplification. The reality is that many of these people are searching for something to make their photographs glow magically and look like those of the masters. The only way you will ever get images to look that way is to work on your craft and gain experience through hard work and dedication. No developer or film will do that for you.

<p>

As far as Diafine is concerned, good stuff, but most of us stopped using it in the late 70's as after the acid ran out. Seriously, most photograpic artists want more control over their negatives than Diafine type developers can offer. Street shooters like it for the increase in speed, but there are other ways to get a stop or two of film speed increase. The ocassional shooter likes Diafine due to the ease of processing without having to be careful with time and temperature considerations.

<P>

Personally, I can not stand the look of Diafine negatives. To me they sometimes have a chalky look that annoys me. I prefer a full bodied significantly over exposed negative (2 stops) that has been processed to a gamma of .5. This way I can print easily and get all that the negative has to offer.

<p>

There are many great developers, each has their own application and look. Saying that Rodinal is bad, or HC-110 is awful, or that Diafine is the best is short sighted and just not accurate. Have any of your tried D-23? I mean really tried it and worked with it. It has to be one of the simplist developers to make (Sodium Sulfite and Metol). Results in great negatives, is pretty active and can be used as a two bath compensating developer, and IS CHEAP! Some of the best negatives I have ever made were processed in D-23.

<p>

Diafine, it is OK for me. Certainly NOT the general purpose developer that it is being made out to be.

<p>

Bottom line; work to produce great prints that have great luminosity and work with one developer and one paper until you can obtain that look with that combination before you move on to another combination.

[lowell_huff1]

I also agree with you Jay. Rodinal and Diafine are very old technology. In the case of Diafine, it appears to be Lith A & B developer used in seperate baths. While they are not designed to maximize modern emulsions they seem to work acceptablly. Goes to prove how good todays films are.

[panmedia]

To me Diafine is very attractive.

 

The main benefit for me to use Diafine is it can be reused until it is exausted. Some posts say it can be used to develop 50 rolls with 1 liter Diafine.

 

The minimum volume of chemical waste is important for house owners with a septic tank. Processing 100 rolls 35mm per year only generates 4 liters developer waste, volume wise. It can be sent for local township chemical recycling/treatment without pour into the septic tank after every session. One shot developer need to be discard after every session. Because of liquid volume it is hard to collect waste for a few months and wait for the local chemical recycling day.

 

If any other film developer generates less volume of waste than Diafine I would like to know. More choice is always better.

[jim_appleyard]

No magic developers, no bad ones either. Lots of bad photos and bad photographers. We need to focus (intended) more on lighting and composition than grain and developers.

[trixshooter]

Although all of us are sensitive to environmental issues, and a silver recovery device is highly recommended, I just can not see the logic here.

[panmedia]

Diafine is film developer, not fixer. A typical silver recovery device deals with fixer, not film developer like Diafine. There is no logical relationship of Diafine and silver recovery. No wonder you don't see the logic here.

[jay_de_fehr]

Philip,

 

with all due respect, I think your concerns are misplaced. Most developers that I know of are biodegradeable, and among developers, Diafine is hardly the least toxic. To process the same 50 rolls of film from your example in PC-TEA would introduce into the environment:

 

ascorbic acid (vitamin C) 50g

 

phenidone 1.25g

 

Triethanolamine 500ml

 

What are the ingredients in a liter of Diafine?

 

I believe that the reason that another poster mentioned silver recovery is precisely because fixation and the attendant collection of the heavy metal silver represents the most serious environmental impact from a home darkroom. If you want to reduce your environmental impact, switch to PC-TEA and collect your fixer for treatment by a qualified facility.

 

Jay

[pics]

I've been using Diafine recently because I have been experimenting with Pan-f in contrasty lighting and I find that Diafine does a good job of taming blown highlights. Its not "laziness" or the desire to cop out and follow a trend on the internet. Its also not to try and find a developer to make my sorry ass negatives look like a pros. Is it just me or is their an increasing number of malcontents on this site that are in love with the sound of their own voice?

[panmedia]

Jay,

 

Thanks for the recommendation of PC-TEA. I will definitely give it a try. The reason I don't want to pour used Diafine into septic tank because I am not sure what is inside of it. Its formula is not published, isn't it? If I can figure out what it contains it will be better. Homes with septic tank usually use well water too. Anything into the septic tank, finally, after many years, will gradually get into the ground water, more or less. The accumulated chemicals will slowly show up in ground water.

 

The simplicity of using Diafine is, the used developer will be sent out twice per year. And every time just one gallon or two. As of fixer, it will be sent to local lab with silver recovery unit. The only thing goes to the septic tank will be washing water and stop bath. With measures like this, there will be definitely no harm to the septic tank, and the long term quality of ground water will be maintained.

[philippe_beaudry]

I tried Diafine last year after reading all the praises in these forums.

Like Jay J., I find it to have a chalky look that I really don't care for, the tones seem compressed.

Pushing a film using a speed enhancing developer like Microphen or XTOL gives me better results. Maybe I have a bit less shadow detail this way, but the final print look way better.

[trixshooter]

Phillip Wang, pouring developer into your septic system in a diluted state will not hurt the biological processes. It is the silver that will hurt the septic system and destroy the bacteria. My point was that I just can not see your logic for the use of Diafine as an environmental issue. In fact, I process in a Jobo and use less developer than a traditional tank. But that is not the point.

 

The point is; Diafine is a fine developer for it's intended purpose. Many newspaper photographers used it in the days before the introduction of digital cameras. They were able to shoot at higher EI ratings and process lots of film of different types in one batch.

 

In fine art photography where one needs to have control over the negative to produce a print that will allow for the artist's interpretation of the scene, Diafine just does not stack up.

 

Over the years many of us have done much testing of developers. Diafine will produce controlled highlights, incresed shadow contrast and chalky subdued and flat midtones as compared to other developers. As long as one can live with these characteristics, Diafine is another tool.

 

Here is a challenge. Shoot a roll of film, Tri-X, HP5+, anything you want. All frames should be of the same scene with the same metering. The camera should be on a tripod. Cut the film into 4 pieces. Process one in Diafine, one in HC-110B, one in Rodinal 1:50 and one in PMK Pyro or other staining developer. Next make a well exposed straight print. No dodging or burning. Pin the 4 prints up on a wall and examine them over the period of 2-3 days.

 

I believe that you will soon find that Diafine may not be what it is purported to be by the so called revival!

 

As I said earlier, many people stopped using Diafine after the acid ran out. ;-)

[al_divenuti]

I've always viewed Diafine as a one-trick pony...

 

It can give you fairly pictorial (read: doesn't looked pushed) negatives if you are shooting Tri-X or similar film at EI 800 to 1200 in contrasty light.

 

That may well cover quite a bit of shooting for many people, but I think using the stuff with any film (even Tri-X) at or around box speed is asking for flat negatives and disappointment.

 

To lump Rodinal in with Diafine, however, is unconscionable.

[panmedia]

Jay Johnson, your points are well taken. I will try to see if Diafine is that bad comparing with other film developers. I don't have a fixed mindset on the use of film developer or other photographic materials - as long as it generates better negatives, and has lesser impact to the environment, that will be my cup of tea.

 

By the way I would like to see if anyone can list some environment friendly darkroom chemicals.

[silent1]

Philip, just to back up the thread a little -- if you're getting only 50 rolls from a liter of Diafine, you've got a leak somewhere. A roll of film will typically carry over between 5 and 10 ml of developer to the next bath, which should let you develop about 100 rolls of film in a quart before there isn't enough to cover 120, or possibly as many as 150 if you develop only 35 mm; that depletion of Bath A is the only limitation on the reuse of Diafine (and you can replenish by simply replacing lost volume with fresh Bath A, then discarding enough Bath B to add a similar quantity of fresh Bath B to that bottle).

[jay_de_fehr]

Philip,

 

Pat Gainer's ascorbic acid developers are the least toxic that I know of, but that is not the same as "environmentally friendly". There are a lot of chemicals that are toxic to humans, but pose no real danger to the environment. This might seem counterintuitive at first glance, but consider that these toxic chemicals don't remain toxic in the environment, but biodegrade into harmless substances. Sodium hydroxide is very toxic to humans, but not to the environment. The environmental impact of any substance or product is best considered as a continuum from production, through packaging, distribution, use and disposal. Seen in this light, compounding our own chemicals from bulk supplies represents the lowest environmental impact possible. Collecting your fixer for silver recovery, and avoiding other heavy metals like selenium will effectively eliminate any septic tank/ground water concerns you might have. So, get yourself a good scale, some bulk chemicals, and rest your conscience.

 

Jay

[lex_jenkins]

There's no Diafine revival. If you check the archives you'll find that it's been mentioned fairly often for years, long before I began using it and discussing my opinions about the developer on photo.net. And I don't see how my position as moderator of these forums is relevant. If I take boring photos and upload crappy scans I doubt many folks will be pursuaded.

 

And while I'm enthusiastic about Diafine for my purposes using a limited number of films (mainly Tri-X) for specific types of photography (seldom what anyone is likely to call "fine art"), I've never recommended it as an all purpose developer. Few of us who've used Diafine for long honestly regard it as a universal or all purpose developer.

 

However it will deliver excellent pictorial results with Pan F+ when exposed at the nominal speed of 50, something I haven't seen with this film in other developers.

 

As for how effective it is, I prefer to let my photographs speak for themselves. My interests range from the photojournalistic style (I was a photojournalist many years ago) to fine art pretensions. For flexibility using my lifetime favorite b&w film, Tri-X, Diafine is among the best I've found for photojournalistic type photography. I wish I'd known about it 20 years ago - it would have saved a lot of struggling with D-76 and HC-110 trying to keep contrast within the printing limits of typical newsprint reproduction.

 

And, nope, Diafine isn't particularly well suited to use with newer style emulsions such as T-Max or Delta 100 and 400. However it works very well with Delta 3200 exposed at 1600. Some of the worst negatives I've ever personally turned out were TMX and TMY in Diafine.

 

Diafine has a place in the darkroom of any photographer who at least occasionally must shoot under unpredictable conditions and, especially, must bracket heavily or guesstimate exposures because it's impossible to meter accurately and quickly. It's well suited for development of different *compatible* films (such as, for example, Pan F+, FP4+, Tri-X and Delta 3200) in the same tank simultaneously because development time does not change.

 

It is an extremely forgiving developer and can create usable negatives that any skilled printer can make good use of. It is not necessarily an ideal developer for those who want perfect prints without having to do any manipulation such as dodging, burning or varying contrast during dodging and burning. But I seldom see any negative from any film developed in anything that can't use some manipulation during printing to achieve the best results.

 

So for those whose photography includes the above, at least occasionally, Diafine is a good option. I include HC-110, Microphen, Rodinal and Tetenal Neofin Blue among my other developers. I'd rather omit Rodinal entirely and substitute Neofin Blue because it's a superior acutance developer, tho' it's considerably more expensive. I may try a homebrew recipe Lester Gediman has provided.

 

Diafine is a bit like a specialized vehicle - a boy-racer motorcycle, a monster truck, or a stretch limo. None is a good all purpose vehicle, but nobody ever pretended they were.

[msitaraman]

Thank you for the detailed answers and information, Lex and others.

 

I did mean my question literally, notwithstanding the jokey tone, and not as certainly not as criticism (it's only a developer, for goodness' sake!)

 

:-)

 

So, it looks like Diafine is pretty much the same formulation, and has the same utility-it works well if you can't achieve temperature control or want to process multiple film types, but more importantly, it is very useful in shooting indoors against daylight or similar 'contre-jour' high contrast situations.

 

But I also did wonder if Diafine does in fact work better with modern emulsions; that's not as clear from the thread-it may or it may not.

 

What is new and interesting is that its old weakness, flattish negatives in regular lighting, may actually be a considerable strength in the digital age, by making scanning the negative an easier task...