Tri-x in Diafine and Effects of ISO on Contrast

[jlkphoto]

Does it make sense to vary ISO settings on the same roll of Tri-x,

depending on the lighting, when the film will be developed in Diafine?

 

For example, using 1600 for night shots with high contrast lighting

but using 400 in overcast daylight conditions?

 

I've ordered some Diafine after reading about it here and have zero

experience with it.

[amul]

I use Hp5+ in Diafine fairly regularly, but so far have only ever tried shooting it as 800 ISO, which comes out just fine. I tend to find that Tri-X in Diafine comes out unusually grainy for me, but this is an aberration compared to most reports. However, according to most websites, Tri-X actually gets a 2-stop bump in speed, giving you effectively 1600 ISO.

 

According to http://www.photoslave.com/misc/diafine.html :

"Diafine sounds pretty good, right? Well, it is, but there are a few things to be aware of that have likely kept this developer from being commonly adopted. Because Diafine has a set development time, and films need to be shot at specific EI's, you can't do N+ or N- development with it. In other words, there's no way to modify the contrast of a scene through development the way you can with normal developers."

[frank.schifano]

My experience with Tri-X in Diafine says that in really hard light with a lot of contrast in the scene, you are better off at EI or 1250 rather than the usual 1600. You'll more often get a little bit more shadow detail that way without making the highligths go so dense that you can't print through them. If the light is very soft and dim, then you can go for an EI of 1600 if you need to and have negatives that are a lot easier to print than you might expect. Exposing Tri-X at EI 400 for development in Diafine is not something I'd like to do on a regular basis. The negatives are printable, but they are dense and kind of flat looking as are the resulting prints. Bumping up to the next higher grade paper helps a bit but the results are sub-par to my eye.

[cenelsonfoto]

Diafine is an excellent choice for Tri-X from a scanning/printing perspective. I have never been in a wet-print environment, so I am certain my feelings are void compared to more traditional folks.

<p>

See my thread two doors down for more on what TriX looks like shot at 400 and dev time in B pulled to 2mins.

<p>

Peace,<p>

Craig<br>

<a href="http://nelsonfoto.com/phpBB2/index.php">nelsonfoto forums - what's keeping ya?</a>

[lex_jenkins]

I rate Tri-X at 1200-1250 (depends on the meter) for development in Diafine, regardless of light. In my experience the usual developing factors - time and temperature - have little or no effect with Diafine. Agitation can be important with Part B, however, but only because even development depends on careful agitation. It has no effect on contrast or other factors.

 

However, if you read this thread you'll find a different point of view:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F6Lj&tag=

[klix]

You can experiment to see what comes out, but the primary advantage (at least to me) of using Diafine is developing Tri-X (@1250 or 1600), HP5+ (@800), APX100 (@200), and others (at specified EI's) in the same tank at the same time.

 

KL

[jlkphoto]

Thanks for all the insights.

 

Where do you get Diafine via mail order?

 

I found that B&H won't ship Diafine while Adorama and Calumet have no restrictions.

 

Any other sources for Diafine?

[cenelsonfoto]

<a href="http://nelsonfoto.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1916">Make your own, why dontcha?</a><p>

[ivan_dzo]

Jeff, I'm a bit confused by the above statement. Others posting here are much more knowledeable than me so hopefully they will chip in. Exposure for negative film is dependent on shadow detail. In high contrast night scenes, the shadows are very deep so you need to get as much light to them as possible. On low contrast cloudy days, the clouds act as huge fill reflectors, so the shadows are very light. consequently you can give much less exposure (you call it a higher iso) on cloudy days than you can on sunny days. If you don't believe me, map a scene on a bright day with a spot meter vs a cloudy day. I find the difference of exposure needed is 2 stops. So your statement would be better the other way round! Looking forward to answers to this.

[jlkphoto]

Ivan, it is confusing to me too because as I've read through photo.net threads about Diafine, I see reference to folks using Tri-X at ISO 1600 for high contrast night street scenes. Also, many people advise 1200 or 1250 as the best all around ISO for ANY light when Tri-X is developed in Diafine.

 

My main curiosity was whether one could, or should, vary the ISO setting according to the lighting, on the SAME ROLL of Tri-X that will be souped in Diafine.

[ivan_dzo]

Jeff, yes you should, but not in the direction that you suggested. People shooting it at night at 1600 iso are not getting this as an actual film speed. ie the shadows are badly underexposed, but they manage some printable mid tones without too burnt out highlights. This looks ok with night shots because we lower our standards. Daytime shots done in the same way would look terrible. So yes, we all vary the exposure for shots on the same roll, but not in the direction you were suggesting. That's how I understand and shoot it. Others may have other views???

[paulh]

Jeff

 

If you're in the US, try Huron Camera - they ship anywhere in the world. In the UK, Retrophotographic or Mr Cad, in Holland try FotoHuisRovo.

 

I use the TriX/Diafine combo in 120, and usually rate the film at 1000. Quite satisfied with the results (for scanning).

 

Paul