Question about Diafine

[zachary]

I picked up some Arista Premium 100 from freestyle and was informed by wayne that the stuff is actually Kodak Plus-x, which is a 125 asa film. (Yes, I said ASA)

Now, on the Diafine box, it says "Kodak Plus-X 400"

Does that mean diafine pushes it to 400, so I should shoot it at 400? I dont want to mess up the exposure.

[wclavey]

Zachary, I shoot this film + Diafine combination extensively (...probably the only thing I shoot more is the Foma 100 + Diafine). The package says to shoot at 400 and you will certainly get usable negatives at 400, especially if you are printing analog. I scan all my negatives and prefer them a little denser, so I usually shoot Plus X at ISO 200. Sometimes, if it is overcast and there is not a lot of harsh light, I shoot it at 125 (box speed), but I would not recommend starting out that way.

ISO 200 or 400 should give you good results... shoot 1 role that way and then tune your exposure. If you like the Diafine process & results, then let me know - - there are some other variations that I use and like even better.

Good luck.

[venchka]

Shakes his head and mutters.............

In the real world, the difference between the Arista box saying 100 and the Kodak box saying 125 is inconsequential. My educated guess is that it's a house brand re-label lawyer thing.

[zachary]

Im loving the diafine, 3 minutes for each bath, fix, done. Simple, effective, and in my opinion, great tonal range and contrast. Its worlds apart from the UFG I was using.

I mixed up my chems into 1 gallon jugs like this one:



And I put my fixer in a mason jar. I just keep it in a dark closet so it keeps well.

[venchka]

If it works. If it meets your quality control standards. If it ain't broke. Don't fix it. Just do it.

[wclavey]

Zachary, Zeb, et al, if you like using Diafine, I have found that the Kodak T-grain films give even better tonal range with it than the older emulsions. I think my very favorite combination is Tmax 400 + Diafine, closely followed by Tmax 100 + Diafine. But, of course, the Tmax films cost more than the older emulsion films, which is why I shot more of the Foma 100 than Tmax 100... LOL!

[zachary]

Originally Posted by wclavey

Zachary, Zeb, et al, if you like using Diafine, I have found that the Kodak T-grain films give even better tonal range with it than the older emulsions. I think my very favorite combination is Tmax 400 + Diafine, closely followed by Tmax 100 + Diafine. But, of course, the Tmax films cost more than the older emulsion films, which is why I shot more of the Foma 100 than Tmax 100... LOL!

Never use your real name online. If I dont know it, how will "they"?

Thanks for the tip, ill try out tmax 400. But in the meantime I have alot of Arista to burn through.

[wclavey]

Originally Posted by zachary

But in the meantime I have alot of Arista to burn through.

I know what you mean! As soon as I get the cases of Christmas decorations hauled back to the storage unit, I'm going to put a freezer in the garage, and the entire top bin is for storing Arista film + expired C-41 120 & 620...

[venchka]

The Arista Premium 100/Kodak Plus-X could keep you amused for a career or two.

[zachary]

Westley, how do you agitate your diafine? I basically poured it in, tapped to make the bubbles, rise, and then watched TV for three minutes. They seemed to come out okay though.

[venchka]

While we wait for Westley...

According to Google...you've heard of Google?...a gentle inversion of each solution about midway in the process won't do any harm. Your 3 minutes seems a bit short compared to others.
I won't give away all of Wes' secrets. He will contradict everything you know about Diafine.

oh.........development in B is almost instantaneous.

[wclavey]

When I'm using full strength Diafine, I dump it in, rap the bottom, invert it 2-3 times each minute and then pour it out. I also used 4 minutes, instead of 3 minutes.

[zachary]

Originally Posted by wclavey

When I'm using full strength Diafine, I dump it in, rap the bottom, invert it 2-3 times each minute and then pour it out. I also used 4 minutes, instead of 3 minutes.

Good to know, I will try that next time I develop. Which will probably be this weekend.

And wayne, Let me google that for you

[TXAvi8tor]

When Acufine didn't provide enough of a push, I used Tri-X + Diafine in the 1960's to shoot available light high school basketball in dimly-lit gyms.

Supposed to allow one to shoot at ASA (ISO) 1600; we found that ASA 1000 gave better results. This is consistent with the recommendation to shoot Arista / Plus-X @ ISO 200-250. Venchka is correct that the difference between ISO 100 and 125 (or 200 and 250) is inconsequential - it'a a third of a stop.

Agitation should be 'as little as possible.' Diafine's two-bath methodology splits the developing agent (likely hydroquinone, in 'A') and activator (an alkakali of some type in 'B'). The developing agent saturates the emulsion in bath 'A.' When the film is immersed in 'B,' the fixed amount of agent works to exhaustion and effectively stops in the highlights (the densest portions of the negative). Because there is less silver to oxidize in shadow areas, the developing agent doesn't become exhausted. It continues to work, thereby helping to bring out shadow detail and cause an effective increase in film speed without blocking highlight areas.

When you 'push' film in a conventional developer (such as D-76) by extending the developing time, the highlight areas continue to gain density just like the shadows, compressing highlights onto the shoulder of the H&D curve. Shadow detail may increase, but highlights blow out.

Minimizing agitation (particularly in 'B') allows Diafine's self-limiting characteristic to work. A single gentle tank inversion (and back to upright) in 'B' at about the 90 second point helps keep gravity from dragging oxidized developer downward. This minimizes the possibility of lateral streaking from the highlight areas into shadows on the portion of the image that's toward the bottom of the tank, without overcoming the self-compensating effect of a two-bath film developer.

hth,

Larry

[zachary]

Originally Posted by TXAvi8tor

When Acufine didn't provide enough of a push, I used Tri-X + Diafine in the 1960's to shoot available light high school basketball in dimly-lit gyms.

Supposed to allow one to shoot at ASA (ISO) 1600; we found that ASA 1000 gave better results. This is consistent with the recommendation to shoot Arista / Plus-X @ ISO 200-250. Venchka is correct that the difference between ISO 100 and 125 (or 200 and 250) is inconsequential - it'a a third of a stop.

Agitation should be 'as little as possible.' Diafine's two-bath methodology splits the developing agent (likely hydroquinone, in 'A') and activator (an alkakali of some type in 'B'). The developing agent saturates the emulsion in bath 'A.' When the film is immersed in 'B,' the fixed amount of agent works to exhaustion and effectively stops in the highlights (the densest portions of the negative). Because there is less silver to oxidize in shadow areas, the developing agent doesn't become exhausted. It continues to work, thereby helping to bring out shadow detail and cause an effective increase in film speed without blocking highlight areas.

When you 'push' film in a conventional developer (such as D-76) by extending the developing time, the highlight areas continue to gain density just like the shadows, compressing highlights onto the shoulder of the H&D curve. Shadow detail may increase, but highlights blow out.

Minimizing agitation (particularly in 'B') allows Diafine's self-limiting characteristic to work. A single gentle tank inversion (and back to upright) in 'B' at about the 90 second point helps keep gravity from dragging oxidized developer downward. This minimizes the possibility of lateral streaking from the highlight areas into shadows on the portion of the image that's toward the bottom of the tank, without overcoming the self-compensating effect of a two-bath film developer.

hth,

Larry

Excellent advice. I know from reading the data sheet on Diafine, it said "as little agitation as possible" which is why I poured it in and let it do its thing.