My experiement of TMX in Diafine

[tonghang_zhou]

I've been experimenting with TMX (the new version) in Diafine.

So far I'm very puzzled. Perhaps the more knowledgeable folks

here could enlighten me.

<p>

At the recommended EI 160, my negatives are all

too dense, no useful exposures at all. So I tried the next roll at EI

320.

But now they get very high contrast, in addition to being too dense.

The shadow values seem to

get greatly separated, such that the tones that should be

quite close show up very different such that one is always

blocked out when I try to get the other one normal. I don't make

prints, just scan

the negatives.

<p>

Interestingly enough though, in the same EI 320 roll, I got

two negatives that are just fine, normal density through out.

One was a backlit scense and had no dark shadows. The other

was an indoor scense with both back lighting and side lighting.

<p>

This is all too puzzling to me, because I do not see

how to reliably make exposures to suit Diafine (I don't

have a studio or anything like that to do controlled lighting.)

This is a shame really, because

the TMX film gives me really fine resolution and good skin tones

when it works.

I also tried it in Rodinal (1+25) and it's brilliant, the skin

tone is creamy, almost surreal. No grain what so ever. Except

high contrast is a problem in many cases.

<p>

I don't know how to continue this experiment. I could

use some ideas.

 

<p>

Thanks,

[art_haykin]

For one thing, have your meter checked for accuracy.

[tim obrien]

Dump out your diafine and fill the bottle with Rodinal. You have gotten halfway to the finish point, so continue on.

 

Try diluting Rodinal 1+100, shoot your film at 80 E.I. and develop for 20 minutes. Should take care of blocked up highlights and high contrast while keeping the brilliance you like in it.

 

tim in san jose

[lex_jenkins]

I think Tim was joking. At least I hope so. Diafine is difficult to get in some parts of the world and rather expensive.

 

Diafine and TMX are not a good combination. Save it for use with more traditional emulsions like Ilford FP4+ (EI 250), Tri-X (EI 1200-1250), Agfa APX 100 (EI 250), etc.

 

BTW, I just recently tried APX 100 at EI 250 in Diafine in my Agfa Isolette V 6x6 folder. Really nice results - good shadow detail, smooth midtones, well controlled highlights without looking compressed and fine grain on top of it all. While I prefer APX in other more conventional developers at EI 100 for my fine art work I'm pleased with these results. I plan to try it for night photography next full moon.

 

For newer style emulsions like T-Max films and Ilford's Delta 100 and 400, stick with other developers.

 

One exception is Delta 3200 - I get excellent results with it at EI 1600 in Diafine.

 

Like you, my experiments with TMX in Diafine were totally unsatisfactory. If the lighting was flat the negatives were lifeless; if the lighting was contrasty it was impossible to hold shadow and highlight detail; midtones suffered from poor gradation; grain was abominable. All the worst traits of Diafine without the benefit of any significant speed boost.

 

Stick with Rodinal for TMX if it's already been giving you satisfactory results.

[gene crumpler]

Sounds like exposure problems. I shoot 120 TMX @ 50 and develop to get beautiful negatives and prints. Here is a print done with TMX and Diafine at an EI of 50.

 

http://home.att.net/~nikonguy/html/hawaii/sanctuary_big_island.html

 

This was taken a few days after I attended a John Sexton work shop and John recommended that I decrease my EI to 50 with Diafine.

 

Check your meter and or shoot some TMX using the Sunny 16 rule. I'm quite sure that you will like the results.

[gene crumpler]

I've tried Rodinal twice in the past and did not like the results. I'm currently using Delta 100 with Ilfosol and this is also a great combo.

 

Lex-I've found out how to deal with the short life of Ilfosol-X. I just stopped by my local photo shop (about 2 miles from the House) and find they are stocking Ilfosol-x in quantities. I have not been in the shop every since they screwed me on a Hasselblad repair about 2 1/2 years ago. I'll go in every three months and get a small bottle of Ilfosol-x and nothing else.

[garry1]

One other thread speculated that the new emulsions might be TOO THIN to "hold enough" Part A of two bath developers. Hence the trouble some people where having with development.

 

Also the Diafine inventor, in one of his newsletters in the 70's, said the proper way to meter was to , "after setting his recommended ASA, read the darkest detailed shadow" [zone III] and shoot with those settings.

[lex_jenkins]

Gene, I'll admit I haven't tried going as low as EI 50 with TMX for development in Diafine. Might give it another go.

 

Garry, that's interesting. Wouldn't that put the effective EI of Tri-X, supposedly 1600 in Diafine, at...hey, waaaittt a minute! 400? Whaaa!?

 

Pretty funny if so.

 

Still, I'm pleased with the results I get from Tri-X in Diafine metering normally, using either the camera's averaging reading or an incident reading.

 

Wish I could see some of those old newsletters. Anyone got copies?

[tonghang_zhou]

I've also tried Diafine with FP4+ and Tri-X (new version.) The FP4+ case appears to be somewhat "flat" (not contrasty enough) but very fine grain. Tri-X is the most interesting. I set ASA to 1600 till half roll, and then remembered this forum's recommendation of 1250, so I changed to that, but later realized that I mistakenly set to ASA 1000. Interesting thing is that I couldn't tell the negatives apart, although the difference was 2/3 of a stop. Don't know why. The outdoor exposures don't look pushed, but the indoor night scences still look pushed, similar to what I get with HP5+ in Microphen at 1600 although not as dicey. In the Microphen case, the exposure was rather critical. Perhaps I ought to post pics for the discussion, I hesitate to do that because they are people photos.

[tim obrien]

I were kidding about dumping the diafine, but not about using a different dilution of Rodinal to tame the contrast.

 

As far as the read zone III stuff, I hope it meant put zone three where it should be in relationship to the reading, not make zone II into zone V. That would say you are not metering at 1600 but like Lex says, 400, a two stop pull. Duh.

 

 

What I mean is, decide what level of detail you wish to be zone III and meter on that point. Add two stops to the reading to get an expose value. i.e. 1/60@ f11 read at zone III would become 1/250 @ f11. Comprehend? It doesn't make sense any other way.

 

tim in san jose

[jorge_oliveira2]

My experience with TMX in Diafine has been lousy, also.

[garry1]

Yes-

as Lex and I calculated-

 

Zone III at 1600 is the same as Zone V at 400. That struck me way back when I first read it. But it doesn't take into account variables of individuals seeing and equipment.

I do have a full set of newsletters, which I have been hunting for ,thru packed boxes, the past 3 weeks. If I ever find them I let you know. If not, then I won't mention it again.

[lex_jenkins]

Too late, Garry. I have your name now. You're on my list. I'll be pestering you for years about those newsletters. ;>

[andrew_hull]

I took about 45 rolls of 100TMX in Portugal. I find the combination to be rather contrasty, but I think it prints beautifully at 160. While some shots appear dense, they print to grade 2, which is fine by me. Further, they enlarge quite well and have a good amount of sharpness even to 16x20. It is much more finicky than Tri-X in Diafine, but has a very fine grained look that I haven't found elsewhere. I have yet to find a film that DOESN'T work in Diafine, just films that you don't receive much of a speed boost from. 125PX get a huge boost as does Tri-X. But FP4+, HP5+, APX100, and even Acros 100 (at 80) are very nice in Diafine. The only film I didn't like in Diafine was Fortepan 400. Simply too soft. I guess it depends on what you want.

[john_fleetwood]

I like TMX at 160 in diafine, and I also like fortepan 400 at 400 in diafine. Go figure.

[barry_kenstler]

Well, now that nothing is starting to jibe,it's about time for me to add some more contradiction to the pot.

 

I have not been particularly happy with the results from any Ilford film in Diafine with the exception of PanF+. Most of the Ilford films come out too flat for my taste, though FP4+ isn't that far off the mark. The softness of these films could be a plus for scanning.

 

On the AGFA front, I have been very pleased with APX 100 in Diafine. It prints and scans well for me,but unlike Tri-x, I get my best results just above box speed.

 

I think Tri-X(400)looks pretty darned good in Diafine, and any misgivings I may have about the gradation are quickly allayed by the realization that this combo has a real speed of 1000 or more. Tri-x(320) is nice too, though a tad soft and a bit grainy.

 

Both Efke 50 and Efke 100 look really good in Diafine. The grain may not be as fine as in some other developers, but the look is "classic".

 

I thought Acros 100 was too contrasty and without any real speed (shadow density) increase. I prefer other developers for this film.

Neopan 1600 worked in Diafine. My speed results were a bit better than with XTOL. It's a bit softer than Tri-X 400 with about the same speed, somewhat larger grain, and a bit lower sharpness.

 

Based on peoples' comments, I'll have to revisit some of these films. I've never run PLUS-X or Neopan 400 through Diafine. I have a roll of each waiting in the wings. Forte or Foma 400 sound interesting too.

 

I'm sorry that I didn't answer the original question, but I'm not a big TMX user. It's a great film with smooth, fine grain. I just can't get the look I like out of it and have not even attempted to make it work in Diafine.

[lex_jenkins]

I think Diafine is the elephant and we the blind men.

[greg_newberry]

My negatives are not too dense at 160. As someone mentioned, are you sure the exposure is correct? Light meter ok? How long are you processing for? How do you agitate the solutions?

 

I also found TMX to be flat in Diafine, however, I was shooting at 160 as well, and I'll try 50 and see what that does. EI 25 with my yellow filter... I like denser negatives so I usually shoot at the rated speed and it works well. TXP at 320 gives me beautiful negatives that print very well. TX400 at 400 does just as good for outside work. FP4+ and HP5 do very well for me in Diafine, it's a different look, but good. I probably do this different than most people, I only use Diafine and change the film when I want a certain look. My processing is always the same.

 

Greg

[andrew_hull]

Plus-X is very good at 400. I really like the 100TMX at 160, I did some more printing last night. I didn't think that the negatives were that dense (but I have some REALLY dense negatives from the past). Lex- I didn't like PanF50 in Diafine at all either. Being able to shoot Plus-X at 400 is very nice.

[lex_jenkins]

I firmly believe the application and available light are important factors to success with Diafine.

 

For nighttime photography, especially under moonlight, FP4+ in Diafine is gorgeous. The same combination for daylight use is just okay.

 

Conversely I love Tri-X in Diafine for bright stinking sunshine and other difficult lighting. And while the tonality is fine for nighttime use the grain is excessive and tends to spoil thin shadow areas.

 

Some of the best daylight results I've obtained from Pan F+ came with Diafine. Haven't tried this combination for night use. Pan F+ is, without a doubt, a quirky film with gorgeous midtones, well controlled highlights and damned difficult shadows no matter what the developer or light.

 

As I said before, Diafine is the elephant, my eyesight is not so good and I'm afraid I'm elbow deep in the beast's entrails.

[barry_kenstler]

Lex,

 

I'm still a bit confused by all of the conflicting Diafine experiences posted here.

 

I think you are onto something though with regard to different reactions to different scene types. Maybe it isn't all that crazy of an idea to have one developer and a variety of films for the different scenes/looks. Maybe we are all taking pictures of different kinds of scenes and as a result coming away with very different opinions of the same materials.

 

Actually, maybe it sort of makes sense. Diafine will allow you to get usable images over a broader exposure range than just about any developer out there. At the same time, the image's look does seem to change more with variation in exposure and brightness range than you would expect from standard developers. To some extent this is probably the result of the much observed characteristic of Diafine that the manufacturer describes as, "the property of limiting highlight development." In my experience, with some films this leads to early shouldering and hopelessly compressed highlights with even modest overexposure. If you underexpose that same film though, you might find that you get a thin negative, but surprisingly one that will register a huge brightness range and which will print quite nicely. Ilford 400 Delta fits that description. Other films don't seem to be much affected by the highlight limiting and can achieve a high DMax. Fuji Acros seems a good example of that genre. Some films look pretty much the same as they would in a d-76 type developer. Efke 100 has been that type of a film for me.

 

More comments, observations, or even attacks please. This is all very interesting to me. By the way, I too have experienced that pushed halation with grain look when using TRI-X in night scenes.

[bleck]

<i>"Diafine and TMX are not a good combination."</i><br><br>

 

I beg to differ, at least based on my own experience with that combo:<br><br>

<img src="http://www.grantheffernan.com/pics/sales/main/nationalcathedralarch.jpg"><br><br>

<img src="http://www.grantheffernan.com/pics/sales/main/paper.jpg"><br><br>

 

Just a few samples. I love TMX in Diafine, especially in bright contrast situations. It does a great job of taming the highlights. I did a little writeup here:<br>

<a href="http://www.grantheffernan.com/misc/diafine.html">Diafine Review</a>

[scott smitherman]

Barry, you indicate you are using Efke with Diafine, what EI's are you using? My use of efke 100 @ 160 seemed a bit overexposed, what has been your experieince? Have you tried Efke 25 or 50?

[barry_kenstler]

Richard,

 

I ran a speed test on Efke 100 in Diafine showing frames exposed from 32 to 640 and posted a scan of those negatives in this forum. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in that post, I pulled the Photoshop levels shadow slider in a bit too tightly which resulted in those negative images appearing to have somewhat less shadow detail than they actually had. People tentatively concluded from those images that 160 was about right. Clearly, bad information can be worse than none at all. I'm inclined to agree with your experience. A 160 rating gives a generously exposed negative, 200-250 is about right for most subjects, and 320 is fine for many longer scale scenes, but there will be a slight loss in shadow detail. Available light guys who like a pushed look might even prefer it at 400+, but that's too high for my tastes. At 100 the shadows are luminous, but I really think the negatives are too dense, and grain and sharpness are probably not at their best.

 

I have run Efke 50 through Diafine and it was also very good. As EFKE 50 is an inherently contrasty film, I was expecting it to come out too contrasty, but I was wrong. It looks pretty good from 50 to 200+. I'd give it a rating of 125 in Diafine and that is coming from someone who prefers a bit of a meaty negative. Grain is about the same, or perhaps slightly finer than with films like FP4+ and APX 100. Apparent sharpness is quite high. In Diafine, PANF+ has noticeably finer and smoother grain that Efke 50, however PANF+ doesn't really get much of speed boost and is still a 50 speed film. Efke 50 also has more snap than PANF+ which contributes to it's sense of sharpness.

 

I have only run EFKE 25 in Xtol and got a real speed with that combination below 25, maybe closer to 16.

 

I'd be curious to hear about your experiences as you work with the EFKE 100/Diafine combination. It really worked so well for me that I've become a bit of an evangelist for that pairing. I've also been quite vocal on my statisfaction with APX 100. But as this thread proves, what works for me could be total hell for you.

[justin low]

<p>I too beg to differ. I've had very good results shooting TMX at 400 and souping it in Diafine. I have posted some of my results at another forum. Here is the link:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.offstone.com/photo/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6908">http://www.offstone.com/photo/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6908</a></p>