Diafine vs Acufine

[gnashings]

Hi All,

 

I have been a big fan of Acufine, especially for TriX - shot at 800-1000 it gives a look that is very different (in my eyes)

to a typical push of that magnitude. Over time I have experimented and got pleasing results from decreased times

and box speeds on various traditional emulsions. All in all, like I said - big fan (keeping in mind, of course, that its a

case of "horses for courses").

Now, I have just come by some Diafine thanks to a friend with a keen eye (no small accomplishment in an actual

brick and mortar store in Canada - 8Elm in Toronto, by the by). I plan on using it mainly with 35mm and some 120

film, mostly TriX and other traditional emulsions (HP5 perhaps, I might try ti on some PanF as I hear it tames some

of the highlight issues that film can have... hmmm - we shall see - but mainly for high speed, old school

emulsions). I have wanted to try this developer for a while, and I am familiar with the data about, but just wanted

some input from people who have used it as to the more "subjective" if you will attributes. Other than the different

film speed, what can I expect to see? Any do's and don't's? Any curious side effects? Tricks? Tips? Funny

stories? Anything and everything will be much appreciated and greatly enjoyed - so thank you all in advance!

 

Peter.

[frank.schifano]

I can't make any comparisons of Diafine vs. Acufine. It's been many years since I've used Acufine, and I honestly don't

remember the results all that well. What's worse is that I don't even have those negatives any more for reference.

 

I am a fairly regular user of Diafine and Tri-X. I am firmly convinced that this developer was made with Tri-X in mind,

because the results obtained with this film at an EI of 1250 to 1600 cannot be beaten by any other developer that I've tried.

It is a true speed enhancing developer, and will get you some honest shadow detail at those speeds that you won't get with

D-76, XTOL, HC-110, or Rodinal. At the same time, the highlights will be under better control. If you are looking for fine

grain and/or high resolution, forget it. That's not gonna happen. All the same, it is just the thing you'd want to use to get an

image in a difficult lighting situation. Contrast is exceptionally low for this film shot at these speeds though, and that's

exactly what you want. You can always print up in the darkroom with VC papers or alter the contrast to your liking with the

photo editing software of your choice.

 

I am less than thrilled with this developer and other films. It is particularly not good with TMX or TMY. I tried it once with

Plus-X at the recommended EI of 400. I won't be repeating that experiment. FP4+ looks pretty good at EI 250, but is still

not something to rave about. You'll get a better looking photograph with a more natural looking contrast range with a faster

film at box speed. I have not tried it with Pan F+, and see little reason to do so. The speed boost is likely to be modest, and

quite frankly, there are films in the 100 to 125 ISO range that perform brilliantly with more conventional developers if I need

the speed. As for taming Pan F+'s highlights, using box speed and developing it in D-76 1+3 has worked exceptionally well

for me. It's so good that I've not been tempted to try anything else. Well, maybe XTOL at the same dilution for a little bit

less time, but it's really a wash. There's not much difference to speak of.

[jim_appleyard]

IIRC, Lex likes Pan-F in Diafine; maybe he'll see this and report.

 

Acufine is more flexible than Diafine. You can take a film like Tri-X and shoot at EI's up to 6400 (I haven't tried higher) by souping in Acufine for longer times. Diafine is more or less a fixed EI; 800-1000.

 

Acufine, like most devs, dies after a time and is often used 1+1 and thrown away. Diafine lasts a LONG time, even with re-use. It's hard to believe tha makers of Diafine actually make money on it. Does anyone really toss it?

[maesphoto]

Maybe this link can help:

Will

[lex_jenkins]

I've never tried Acufine and have no basis for comparison.

 

My opinion about Diafine matches Frank's. Excellent with Tri-X, tricky with other films. Not good with T-Max films, mediocre with FP4+.

 

As Jim correctly recalls, I got good results with Pan F+ at EI 50 in Diafine, the only developer I've liked with this film.

 

It's also very good with Delta 3200. Huge popcorn grain, but very useful for contrasty lighting, even bright sunlight. The tonality doesn't look significantly different from other developers.

 

The main reason I like it with Tri-X is for the unique tonal palette. Nothing else quite looks like Tri-X in Diafine.

[jim_appleyard]

Another cool thing about Diafine is that you can dev two different kinds of film at the same time with it, provided you like that film in Diafine to begin with.

[bruce_karnopp1]

Diafine: As long as the temperature is 70-85 degrees and the time in each bath is at least 3 minutes, every result will be the same. The box in which the stuff comes gives the effective film speed. The stuff is like alchemy!

[lex_jenkins]

Diafine will work beyond 85F. Had to use it many times when I couldn't get the temp in my darkroom below 90F during our sometimes brutal Texas summers. As long as the film is fresh there's no problems. With expired Tri-X I got some fogging.

[jeff_drew4]

I still have a few cans of Acufine on my shelf for those retro self-assignments using Tri-X @ISO1200. I must have shot tens of thousands of football images for newspapers decades ago and used that combo! I tried Diafine a few times, but never needed it 'cuz my combo was rarely changed back then. Now, I have heard Lex and others sing the praises of Diafine, but with so many other film & developer choices, I would think that it's time to modernize and am spending more time with Tmax and several developers.

[larrydressler]

Modern does not always mean better. I tried Tmax and found that Good old HC-110 and Rodinal were better for what I prefer. I too have a can of Acufine but until my Diafine dies it will stay in the can.

[mjferron]

I have some Acufine and liked it with my 125 PX. I just shot a roll of 120 Pan F exposed at 40. Developed it in D76 straight up for 4.5 minutes @75 degrees F and I was quite pleased with the results. Highlights were well in check.

[jay_de_fehr]

My impression of Diafine is one of reliable mediocrity, which might not be as bad as it sounds, especially for those who

shoot rollfilm under wildly varying exposure conditions. Diafine will almost always give you SOMETHING to work with in

printing, and considering the remarkable flexibility of VC papers, and the even more remarkable flexibility of a scanning/PS/

digital print workflow, a low contrast negative with detail throughout its range can be enough, even if it isn't very sharp, or

very fine grained. I'm not a very skilled printer or PS editor, so I rely on the best negatives I can make for easy printing, and

prefer a developer that offers more control than Diafine does. My biggest complaint with Diafine is the lack of apparent local

contrast, that I can't restore in printing. Diafine negs just look lifeless much of the time, to my eyes. I would characterize

Diafine as an "automatic" developer designed to produce average results, as opposed to a "custom" developer designed to

produce optimum results. Automatic is definitely easier, and if the results are acceptable, it might be a good choice, but for

me, Diafine too rarely delivered excellent negs to justify its use. Some people claim Diafine is simpler to use than standard

developers because time and temp are not critical, but in practice, I find it to be more complicated. Diafine is a two bath

developer, and both baths are timed, even if the timing is more forgiving, so there is essentially an added step in the

development sequence compared to standard developers. I experimented quite extensively with two bath development, and

formulated a few developers in the process. My two-bath developers were unorthodox, to say the least, and while they

proved to produce excellent negatives equal in most respects to those produced by my favorite developers, the added

complication of a second developer bath wasn't justified for me, and I abandoned that method of development in favor of

simple, one-shot development. Incidentally, for real speed increases, I've found nothing to equal stand development in a

simple glycin-carbonate developer, and the sharpness obtained is equal to or better than any acutance developer I've tested.

[jim_appleyard]

Yeah, Diafine does seem to have it's narrow niche. I've never used it, but have read all about it here on internet-land. Everyone seems to agree that you need a contrasty scene for it to do its thing; stage lighting, sunny day, etc. If you can meet it halfway, then everyone loves it. Most folks also agree that it likes Tri-X film best.

[gnashings]

First of all - THANK YOU all, I really appreciate the input, definitely helps to get your varying perspectives, and the combined experience level and tenure in these posts is truly humbling. Thank you.

I don't want anyone to think that I am looking fo a silver bullet - I know that this is a veryspecific product, but since I like to shoot a lot of "available darness" (I know I am stealing the term - I just can't recall from whom!) stuff, I think it will be a good friend.

And for those of you with unopened Acufin cans - send them my way:) Jokes aside, its a pretty neat developer that gives (in my eyes) a very cool, glowing look to shots in certain light - especially on TriX. And since its my favortite film (again - horses for courses, but if i HAD TO just have one film, triX would be it) the Diafine/Acufin affinity for it does not bother me at all. Thanks again for all the "brain food", I know I will have fun playing around with it.

[profhlynnjones]

I had a great deal of experience with Acufine for many years, as well as other developers. In the late '50's and through the 60's, it was the pricipal developer used by New York labs for virtually all b/w labs. I did a great deal of consulting with those folks especially in the 60's when I was Eastern Div. Mgr. of Calumet (the original manufacturing company, not the retail store whech evolved later). Standard processing was by hand agitation with racks in 3.5 gal tanks and using Acufine R. Standard procedures always told us that after about 60 rolls per gal or equivalent, then the developer the had to be dumped and replaced. Not true with D76 or UFG, they can go on forever if occasionally filtered to remove the colloidal silver.

 

If I remember correctly, It was Dr. Harold Bauman who first was with Ethol, inventing Ethol 90, LPD, and the grand champion, UFG among others. Harold later left Ethol and founded Bauman Chemical. He wanted to create another UFG but would have been in conflict with his UFG patent assigned to his earlier employer, Ethol. Therefore he created a developer which took about 40% longer did a good job, and called it "Acufine". It became so popular that he renamed the company, Acufine Chemical. Harold retired and BKA of the Chicago still makes it together with the former Ethol products such as LPD and UFG.

 

I agree with some who state that Acufine is a little peculiar, working well with some films and not nearly as well with others. Frankly, I still prefer UFG for most medium and high speed films.

 

For those of you who would like to try one of the most spectacular developers of medium speed films, I would suggest that you get some MCM 100, it is now compounded by Photographers Formulary(it was originally made by Jounson's of Hendon, England. I have used it since I first bought some in London in 1951! The name came from a once very famous English photo magazine, Miniature Camera Magazine. It is a stunningly good developer using both metol and pyro and producing normal film speeds with incredible tonalities.

 

Bye all,

 

Lynn

[profhlynnjones]

Let me add something, Diafine(also, I believe from Bauman), a split developer, will give results similar to simple "water bath processing" but not with the time it takes in total darkness as is the case with water bath. As Lex mentioned, the brutal temperatures of Texas (I know, I'm a Texan), you won't over develop the film, you can't, the only development takes place by the chemical soaked into and carried by the emulsion of the film. Step one is an un-activated developer and step two has only the activating chemical which act on the carried in developer. Therefore, the shadow and middle tones can develop as long as they will, the developers in high density areas are used up in a matter of some seconds, perhaps 10 to 25 seconds!

 

Diafine is a pretty remarkable developer, neither fine grained or coarse grained, but with tremendous shadow detail. That is why many Tri X users love it so much.

 

Lynn

[larrydressler]

Lynn

 

I thought the same thing about Solution "A" but I was wrong development does take place in it. Put a roll you

shoot for fun in it let it sit for 45 minuets and you will get printable negatives.

 

Don't know how all the Stories got started because it is Magic I figure. : )

 

Larry

[jim_appleyard]

"Put a roll you shoot for fun in it let it sit for 45 minuets and you will get printable negatives."

 

A new stand dev?

[larrydressler]

It works.

[jim_appleyard]

Larry, Interesting. Do you still get the speed increase?

[larrydressler]

No give it a try shoot at box speed.

[jim_appleyard]

OK, thanks. Box speed isn't so bad to work with.

[charles_a_goodman]

<p>I just revisited some of my photos using TMAX 400 with Diafine. Very nice! Much finer grain than TriX in Diafine, better edge definition and acutance. Very wide tonal range. This may be my favorite.<br>

Although, for a "classic" TriX 320 look, nothing beats HC110.</p><div></div>

[charles_a_goodman]

<p>Completely unretouched. No apologies. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>I learned about Diafine from my grandfather when I was about 10 years old. Not long after, I got a quart package and used that until we moved six years later. I was always careful to keep the bottles full, adding marbles and/or squeezing the air out. (I also learned about marbles from my grandfather.)</p>

<p>I did many pictures for 7th and 8th grade yearbooks with Diafine, and I believe Tri-X. I still have the negatives from those, over 40 years later. </p>

<p>I also bought Panatomic-X from Freestyle in 100 foot rolls. It wasn't the same as regular FX, but worked fine for me. At the time, they recommended EI 250, it might be lower now. </p>

<p>When I started doing darkroom work again about six years ago, I bought more Diafine. I have used it with many films, and been happy with it. Many current films don't get the big EI increase that older films did. For PanF+, they recommend EI 80, up from the usual ISO of 50.<br>

With T-Max, the recommended EI is only slightly higher than box speed. </p>

<p>More recently, I often use older films, and have started using HC-110 for that. <br>

But I got fine results with older films in Diafine, some fogging, but not so bad.</p>