Flat Diafine negs?

[evan_parker]

I have developed a number of Tri-X rolls, shot at 1250, both new and

old emulsion, and they seem kinda flat and low contrast. Is there a

way to remedy this?

 

Also: There's very little shadow detail in the negatives. I realize

this is a result of pushing film greatly, but I thought that Diafine

was supposed to salvage most of the shadow areas?

[barry_kenstler]

Evan,

 

If your Diafine developer is in good shape and you are processing correctly, you should be getting normal contrast with Tri-X 35 mm film. You could use an intensifier to add density to your negatives, but if shadow density is nil that is not going to help much. Your 1250 may be different than my 1250, but I do see reasonable shadow detail at 1250 when I process Tri-x in Diafine. My first guess is that there is something wrong with your developer, especially if you get good negatives with other combinations. The following questions come to mind:

 

When using other developers and TRI-X, do you get negatives with appropriate density and contrast?

 

If so, what exposure setting works best?

 

Have you developed any film other than Tri-x in this batch of Diafine?

 

Are you following the minimum immersion times specified in the manufacturers instructions ( 3 min. in A, 3 min. in B) and agitating at least once per minute?

 

I judge a film to have normal contrast if it prints well on a grade 2 (medium-medium soft) to grade 3 (medium-medium hard) paper. How do you judge the negatives contrast?

 

Is there any possibility that you may have accidentally contaminated solution A with some solution B? Solution A is quite stable as long as none of the activator (solution B) gets in there. My current batch is well over one year old and still going strong.

[lex_jenkins]

The strong suit of Tri-X in Diafine is good midtones, Zones IV-VI. Highlights can be compressed, depending on available light. I usually see a hint of Zone III in my negs in any situation.<p>

 

Tri-X in Diafine is not really an all-purpose combination. It's an all-purpose <i>available light</i> combination, for which it might otherwise be impossible to get good results on an entire roll that contains exposures ranging from bright stinkin' sunlight to dark interiors.<p>

 

It would not be my first choice for what I'd consider fine art photography. I'd use Tri-X at or near its nominal speed in ID-11 or just about any other developer for that purpose. But such a combination wouldn't enable capturing shots in wildly different lighting on the same roll.<p>

 

Even shots in bright sunshine tend to be a bit flat. But I can always spark them up with a Grade 2.5-3 magenta filtration during printing on VC paper. That's fine with me. Better a little flat than too contrasty on the neg.<p>

 

The one problem that nags at me, one I'm still learning to cope with, is the often muddy separation between Zones III and IV with Tri-X in Diafine. This can make for some odd looking photos, even in bright sunlight, when your subject is wearing blue jeans and a dark shirt. There should be clear separation between the two but isn't always.<p>

 

OTOH, I have no complaints about how Tri-X in Diafine renders skin tones. That's what makes it ideal for me as a candid photography combo.<p>

 

A better combination for fine art photography, while still enjoying the no-muss, no-fuss ease of Diafine, is FP4+ at EI 250. Plenty of genuine shadow detail and overall normal looking tonality. This is what I've been migrating toward for my nighttime photography jaunts under a full moon.<p>

[lex_jenkins]

To add to Barry's advice, here's my method:

 

1. I believe agitation in Part A is not critical. I tend to agitate normally, three inversions every 30 seconds. The trick is getting enough of Part A soaked into the emulsion for activation by Part B.

 

2. Agitation in Part B is probably absolutely critical. I agitate *very* gently once or twice a minute.

 

I've standardized on 4 minutes in each of Part A and Part B, regardless of film or temperature. This enables me to readily see any changes. This has worked with several films: Tri-X, FP4+, TMX, TMY, Delta 3200, Pan F+.

 

That said, I don't like the results I get from T-Max films in Diafine. There was no failure; I just don't like the look. Results with the other films were all very good.

 

BTW, if you think Tri-X looks flat in Diafine, you should try Delta 3200 in Diafine at EI 1600 under shade. Flat as roadkill. But, again, a little magenta filtration during printing livens things up. The overall tonality is terrific, shadow detail is all there and grain is a bit fat.

[justin low]

<P>My results are exactly the opposite of yours. I use the new Tri-X (400TX) shot at 1250 and I develop it for 4 minutes in A, another 4 minutes in B. I agitate for 10 seconds every minute with the plastic twirly thing for my tank.</P>

 

<P>My prints (and scans) show very good tonal range, with details in the shadows. I find it very contrasty though, as I have to print at around Grade 1/2 to Grade 1. Maybe I am agitating too much.</P>

 

<P>Here are some samples.</P>

 

<P><IMG SRC="http://www.intendeduse.com/files/cv35p/LRFSCN100_0023.jpg"></P>

 

<P><IMG SRC="http://www.intendeduse.com/files/cv35p/LRFSCN100_0026.jpg"></P>

[lex_jenkins]

Justin's examples look very much like what I get from Tri-X in Diafine: excellent, smooth midtones; slightly compressed highlights; not much shadow detail with a fairly abrupt transition from the highest shadow value to the lowest midrange value.

 

But that's what gives Tri-X in Diafine its characteristic look which I find appealing and useful for all kinds of lighting situations.