What are the CONS of Diafine?

[fred_obturateur]

Hi,

since there have been 2 posts regarding Diafine in a very short period of time it

prompted me to post my own. I've been a TRI-X (I.E. 250) & D-76 (1:1) person for

years but I was wondering whether I should switch to Diafine. I will save money

(1 gallon of this stuff a year vs buying 2 packs of D-76 a month), I won't have

to worry about chemicals temp. (what a relief) and I will gain more than TWO

stops (since I will expose y TRI-X at 1600 iso).

 

So where are the cons? Why people still use X-tol ID-11 D-76? What am I missing?

Thanks & happy new year to you all, even the digital-only people (just kidding)

[dbltap4]

Fred:

A few observations from my own experience. I am persently using Diafine.

1. It is imperative that solution B not contaminate solution A.

2. Diafine is sensitive to outside chemicals, ie, photoflo. Cleanlines of processing equipment is a must.

3. I don't use tri x much, but I have used HP 5 and Neopan 400 with

Diafine, and found that an EI of 800 to 1000 is more realistic. For EI 1600, I have had better results with Acufine.

4. For flat lighting, drop to box speed; for contrasty lighting, go for the higher numbers.

Your film strip may appear underdeveloped coming out of the tank, but looks better as it dries.

Why do people use D-76? It's always there, and it always works. I like to use it 1:3. The stock I am using now, along with Diafine, is well over a year old, is not discolored, have taken no precautions to evacuate air from the bottle in storage. Works as well now as the day I mixed it.

I am sure that other people will have more to contribute to the "cons" of Diafine, but it is worth a try. It certainly is hassle free in use.

JIM M.

[fred_obturateur]

Thanks Jim for the prompt reply! :-)

To give you sth to munch on :

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AL0L&tag=

and especially this :

"At 1600, the manufacturer's suggested EI, I find that shadow details thin out beyond an acceptable level."

"at 400 I didn't see any significant improvement, just a different set of problems other than underexposure. Shadow detail and midtones had poor separation. Even under bright or contrasty lighting the photos were grayish and flat." Lex Jenkins.

Comments are welcome! :-)

[randall ellis]

One of the cons as I see it is that you can only develop one way, so it, for me anyway, is a developer for certain situations rather than an all-around developer. With the other developers, you can achieve different levels of apparent sharpness, acutance, etc. so, as with anything in the world, there is no one thing that performs all tasks better than any other.

 

- Randy

[jay_de_fehr]

The biggest downside, for me, is the loss of contrast control with Diafine. Negs are flat to very flat, dense and flat or thin and flat, but always flat. Diafine would probably work best for those scanning their negs, who can easily adjust contrast in PS. GSD-10 is far more flexible, permitting expansion/contraction development over a wide range, and much sharper, and finer grained than Diafine.

 

Jay

[james_itard1]

I was counseled in photography school not to used diafine, though I did get some nice but thin 6x6 cm plus x negs with diafine. I have a feeling that you can get a richer ranges of tones with classic D76 or HC-110 and, in a different register, Rodinal.

[al_kaplan1]

When Diafine was first introduced they recomended two minutes in each solution. The three minutes came later. It was a godsend to newspaper photographers. They weren't the greatest or most grain free negatives but you could get the film souped, cleared in rapid fix, rinsed and ready to print wet in ten minutes! A lot of news photographers then used grade 3 paper as standard so a slightly flat negative was OK.

 

It doesn't go bad but it does get used up. The dry film soaks up solution A and the already wet film just sort of exchanges A for B. If your developing in big tanks with the reels in a rack they suggest bringing tank A up to level with fresh solution and discarding enough solution B so you add the same volume to both tanks. Odds are you'll lose 1/2 ounce of solution A for each roll you develop, whether deep tank or stainless steel. If you "replenish" deep tank style you'll have to add a quart of new A and B for each 50 or 60 rolls. Still pretty economical!

 

As for flat negs and prints, the guy on the process camera shooting the half-tone negatives that were used to "burn" the plates could do wonders with adjusting contrast by making three seperate exposures on the same piece of litho film. One was of the screen only, no photo, the second was through the screen of the photo, the third of the photo without the screen. This allowed control of overall contrast as well as optimizing both shadow and highlight detail.

[larrydressler]

FLAT?

 

No only under some lighting situations have I gotten Flat from Diafine. And there is a small measure of controle also. First you can reduce time in Solution "B" and reduce the ISO. You can use Solution "A" as a full stand developer for an hour and get great negatives ... It works great for harsh lighting .... As it will with some films ad a stop or 2 that depends on the film. I use both D-76 And Diafine depending on what who where and how.. I also use Rodinal and HC-110

 

If you want to save money try HC-110 as a straight from Syrup to 1 shot developer. It is almost but not exactly like your D-76.

 

Or you can mix your own D-76 for alot cheaper....

 

Just my 2 cents worth ... Just though try it and play with it... You can have alot of fun sometimes playing with new things that cost nothing but your time and about the price of 1/4 a tank of gas to get started.

 

Larry<div></div>

[ronald_moravec1]

My experience is I lose highlight separation with all two bath developers. Mostly I used a D23 with various types of bath 2 like borax or usually sodium carbonate.

 

They are nice in that you never get blocked highlites, but the trade is a rather flat highlight neg.

 

I went back to home mixed D76. Home mixed D76 is very cheap, $3 /gallon, if you get bulk chems. Use the Chemistry Store for sodium sulfite and Photographers Formulary. Put the metol in small bottles and tape seal the small lids. Work from one at a time. Cut down a plastic spoon to remove the small amounts required. Metol is the only component that will spoil.

[fred_obturateur]

Hey Thanks for all the plenty-to-chew-on replies. I will probably need a few days to weight the pros and the cons.

PS : since I am not in the US at the time I estimate that a gal. of this stuff wil cost me 48$ instead of the regular 19.99$ (yep that's right export prices for Diafine are quite high...)

[jtk]

It softens grain.

[jim_appleyard]

Fred, If Anchell's book, "The Darkroom Cookbook", is available to you, there is a homebrew version of Diafine in it. If you can get the chemicals, homebrewing is a very cheap way to go.

 

I have not tried this formula. If you go that route, do test rolls first.

[profhlynnjones]

Hi Fred,

 

The CON is fixed film speed and a slight loss of contrast.

 

The Pro is the expectation of consistent results and expected quality.

 

A very good friend of mine would sometimes photograph Air Force bases, primarily outside the US. He would photograph with TX 120, Hasselblads, Hulchers, and a custom made wide file 2 1/4 X 7 camera.

 

When he came back to NY, he would have from 50 to 150 rolls of film which he would process in custom made Nikor tanks that would handle about 10 reels at a time. He always used Diafine and used a replenishment schedule for consistant results.

 

As I recall it, he used a film speed of about 640. His prints always were #2 +/- one paper grade, and the sharpness/granularity were excellent.

 

Lynn