# Anyone using Diafine?



## ColRay (Feb 3, 2013)

The last batch I mixed June last year has given a fantastic run .

Still going strong and the results are looking great now it's aged.

9 x 35mm
1 x127
2x 120
51x 4x5
+ the odd test roll I didn't log


----------



## ann (Feb 3, 2013)

years ago, but not lately.


----------



## Helen B (Feb 3, 2013)

Yes, it's amazing stuff. I only use it with Tri-X. I used to use Barry Thornton's DiLuxol Vitesse, which is very similar, and a version of Diafine with glycin added. Diafine is a good starting point for modification.

You can keep it going indefinitely by topping up with fresh developer when the volume gets too low to cover a film.


----------



## ColRay (Feb 3, 2013)

" it's amazing stuff " 

Sure is over the year I have used  two part developers but I'm finding none are as good as this brew.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2013)

I would love to use it but its not easy to get hold of in UK


----------



## Helen B (Feb 3, 2013)

ColRay said:


> " it's amazing stuff "
> 
> Sure is over the year I have used  two part developers but I'm finding none are as good as this brew.



Did you ever try DiLuxol Vitesse?


----------



## ColRay (Feb 3, 2013)

The speed wonder!!

Not personally  but I know of a couple of press photographer who may have used it.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2013)

I'm glad i visited this tread Barry Thornton's fine print photographers workshop with DiXactol developer
getting some of these developers


----------



## Helen B (Feb 3, 2013)

Unfortunately that site is only there for archive purposes, following Barry Thornton's untimely death. You can get some of his developers from Peter Hogan monochromephotography.com in the UK or from the Photoformulary in the USA.


----------



## gsgary (Feb 3, 2013)

Helen B said:


> Unfortunately that site is only there for archive purposes, following Barry Thornton's untimely death. You can get some of his developers from Peter Hogan monochromephotography.com in the UK or from the Photoformulary in the USA.



brilliant thanks


----------



## timor (Feb 4, 2013)

ColRay said:


> The last batch I mixed June last year has given a fantastic run .
> 
> Still going strong and the results are looking great now it's aged.
> 
> ...


Out of curiosity; what size was this Diafine batch ?


----------



## ColRay (Feb 4, 2013)

About 3 3/4 lts


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 14, 2013)

I've never used Diafine before, but I'm going to buy some tomorrow...  One question, on the datasheet, it lists films with what I'm assuming are ... dev times?  Acros 100, rated at 200, 5+5 - for example.  It never really says anywhere, but I'm assuming that 5+5 means 5 minutes in A and 5 minutes in B.  Is that correct?


Also, it says that an acid stop bath is not recommended.  Any reason why?  My fixer will last longer with it, but if it's going to mess my film up I'll skip it (I never used stop bath with Efke films).


----------



## compur (Nov 14, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> ... I'm assuming that 5+5 means 5 minutes in A and 5 minutes in B.  Is that correct?



Yes.



> Also, it says that an acid stop bath is not recommended.  Any reason why?



Diafine developes to completion so there is no real need for an acid stop.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2013)

compur said:


> Diafine developes to completion so there is no real need for an acid stop.


I guess that makes sense.

I'm kind of excited to try it.  From what I've been reading, temperature and time don't really matter (as long as it's at least 3 minutes), and it lasts forever.  I thought it was kind of expensive for just a gallon, but I guess if it really does last as long as everyone says it's probably not really much per roll.


----------



## timor (Nov 15, 2013)

compur said:


> Diafine developes to completion so there is no real need for an acid stop.


This applies to every two bath developer. But still to save the fix short mild acid bath could be used or two bath fix is good to.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2013)

I ordered some from Freestyle this morning.  $42 for a developer kit to make one gallon - that's the most I've ever paid for developer before.

Also got some other odds & ends - bag of Xtol, a couple 1 gallon bottles for the Diafine, 10 rolls of Rollei Retro 400S (120), bottle of LFN, etc...  I always spend way too much at Freestyle...lol.


----------



## compur (Nov 15, 2013)

timor said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > Diafine developes to completion so there is no real need for an acid stop.
> ...



Or, better still, use a water bath stop and an alkaline fixer like the ones from Photographer's Formulary.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2013)

timor said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > Diafine developes to completion so there is no real need for an acid stop.
> ...


I get that it isn't necessary to use stop bath, but will it hurt anything if I do?  Like you said, fixer lasts much longer with stop bath...

Before Efke films were discontinued, I shot a lot of it and never used stop bath - it DOES mess up Efke films.  That made a very noticeable difference in the life of my fixer.

I use Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, not sure if that is considered strong or weak...


Presoaking with Diafine seems to be a bit of a controversy too.  The directions say not to, but some people say they get better results after washing off the AH layer.

One point that was brought up in a discussion I was reading about it in the Diafine Flickr group is that if you do presoak, you will slowly be diluting part A - about 10mL per roll is what the guy claimed.  If that's the case, I'll probably skip the presoak.  Normally, I always presoak/wash 120 film to get rid of the AH dyes.  Also that presoaking may inhibit the absorption of part A into the film, so you would have to develop longer than normal.


edit
I use Kodafix, BTW.


----------



## compur (Nov 15, 2013)

I suggest just following the Diafine instructions.


----------



## timor (Nov 15, 2013)

Compur is right, if you use alkaline fixer short stop could be skipped altogether. I personally never use stop just two bath fixer (regular). The supposition is, that for flat grain films drastic changes in pH might cause dislocation of the grain in emulsion reducing the sharpness. The same with temperature, which should be constant through the whole process and the contact with water should be also short etc.
Presoaking with two bath developer seems to be of not that much importance since the first bath is a constant agitation. In theory AH layer should have no influence on development, but you never know, if some of it didn't stain the emulsion, even a little. It may have an influence on contrast. Then, if 120 is not prewashed this dye will stay in part A of Diafine forever and build up with every new roll. What that will do, I don't know. I am using two bath development system every day, but in totally different way, so no experience here.
Kodak stop indicator is rather aggressive, try very light concentration to bring the emulsion to neutrality rather, than to acidity so fixer doesn't have much to use up it's buffer.
What films are you shooting ? Remember, tabular emulsion is thin, absorbs less, 5 min in part B might be an overkill. How long part B of Diafine should last ?


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2013)

timor said:


> In theory AH layer should have no influence on development, but you never know, if some of it didn't stain the emulsion, even a little. It may have an influence on contrast. Then, if 120 is not prewashed this dye will stay in part A of Diafine forever and build up with every new roll. What that will do, I don't know.


From what I've read, the dye should have no effect remaining in the developer.  I have sometimes had issues with certain films that had a TON of dye in them (I want to say that Rollei Retro 400S was one of them) - clouding the developer, preventing it from contacting the film, I assume.  That's when I started doing a prewash, as a general rule.  Those issues went away as soon as I started doing that.




timor said:


> What films are you shooting ?


Fuji Acros, Rollei Retro 400S, Kentemere 400, Ilford Pan F+, and Ilford Delta 3200.  Those are my "main" films.  Acros and K400 make up the bulk of it so far though.


----------



## timor (Nov 15, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Those issues went away as soon as I started doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2013)

timor said:


> looks like they really have a death wish.


Don't they?

I thought I had heard that Xtol was discontinued (Freestyle sells a LegacyPro copy - it's also not that hard to make on your own, from what I understand), but they had it in stock, so I got some.  Used to use it a lot, but I haven't used it in a couple years.  Great developer for pushing.

They sure seem to be pushing everyone towards Ilford...  Ilford certainly seems to be the only one with their heart still in it.  I might have to start migrating away from Kodak chemicals, just so it won't be such a shock when they aren't available one day.


Really, I have already given up on Kodak films, lol.  I still use a lot of Kodak chemicals though.

Fuji was just always so much better than Kodak with color film, and in B&W, I just haven't seen anything 'special' from them.  They don't really seem to have a film that is just better than anything else of the same format/speed...  IMO, of course.


----------



## timor (Nov 15, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> They (Kodak) don't really seem to have a film that is just better than anything else of the same format/speed...  IMO, of course.


 Yes... it is a matter of opinion and this is shaped, as I experienced it. by personal "relationship" with given material. For most situations I prefer Tmax, I just know it very well. It will be too bad for me to loose it. But I heard that some Brits took control over Kodak film division. The question is if they are willing to loose half a billion bucks to eliminate Ilford competition. :=)) Anyway, looks like Hollywood still wants film.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 15, 2013)

timor said:


> Anyway, looks like Hollywood still wants film.


Let's hope that is more than some hipster fad or whatever...

I am starting to despise Hollywood, but if they can keep film going strong a little longer, I can bite my tongue, for now.  They don't use the emulsions I use though, so even that may be a wasted thought.

"The arts" are in peril.  This anti-intellectual trend worries me...


----------



## timor (Nov 15, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> "The arts" are in peril.  This anti-intellectual trend worries me...


Me to, remember "Idocracy" ? Is just too many of us, history took revers course.


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 24, 2013)

Just developed my first roll in Diafine (a roll of Fuji Acros) - it's still drying, but so far it looks pretty good.

The one stop push is nice too - I've found Acros terrible for pushing in other developers.


----------



## timor (Nov 25, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Just developed my first roll in Diafine (a roll of Fuji Acros) - it's still drying, but so far it looks pretty good.
> 
> The one stop push is nice too - I've found Acros terrible for pushing in other developers.


With this pretty good wait 'til you start printing or scanning. With tabular emulsions pushing is not that "healthy". Let's wait and see how the grain and tonal separation will look in enlargement.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 14, 2013)

I think the "this is new" excitement has worn off...  Nothing I've tried so far looks better in Diafine.

The grain is just ... unpleasant to look at too...


Also, the necessitated one stop push seems to result in one stop underexposure in most films.  Pan F Plus and Kentmere 400 being the exceptions.



I honestly can't figure out why it's so popular...


----------



## timor (Dec 15, 2013)

Usually for classic two bath developer you have to exposed for regular speed. But, saying that, how many rolls did you do in this batch of Diafine ? Some developers need so called ripening, they start to work well after a few rolls. Some people add used D76 to freshly made one, classic example is panthermic 777 or Edwal 10, also glycin based developer.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 15, 2013)

I've probably developed 10 rolls in this batch so far.

The directions on the box say to rate the film 2/3 to 1 stop higher than normal.  On some films, I have found that to work fine.  On others, it just results in underexposure.  Pan F Plus is an example of one where it worked well - I can't tell the difference between shots exposed at 50 ISO and those exposed at 80 ISO.  T-Grain films just don't look right in it, lol.

There just doesn't seem to be anything that Diafine does better than other developers...  Except maybe ease/simplicity of use.  It's almost like C-41, in that you can develop different films exposed at different ISO in the same tank at the same time.  _That_ is nice, but it seems like the price you pay for that convenience is an overall mediocrity.  There just isn't anything that Diafine is _the best_ at, from what I've seen so far...

I really tried to like it, lol, as much as I paid for it.  I'm not going to dump it out - but I need to develop a few rolls in something else just to make sure I'm not losing my mind, lol!


----------



## timor (Dec 15, 2013)

I can taste your frustration. No idea what is in the diafine mix, but T-grain films need a bit different formulation, than films with cubic grain. Maybe for starters you should try to prolong bath A, but that may result in "mashed potato" grain and lose of sharpness. For T-grain bath A should have less sodium sulfite as too much will lower effective speed. And for bath B is should have stronger activator. Barry Thornton has good explanation for that:
barrythornton.com
Look into "2 Bath" article.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 15, 2013)

Cool site - thanks.





That's from the latest roll (Rollei Retro 400S) I developed in Diafine.  Not bad, I guess, but it was basically the only frame on that roll that I liked.  I believe that one was exposed at 800.  The density of the neg looks normal - the whole roll looked fine, actually, as far as density goes, it just did not want to scan well, lol!

I don't know...  I think I just like the way it looks in Rodinal better.





That's in Rodinal.


----------



## timor (Dec 15, 2013)

With Diafine you may have trouble to control contrast, Rodinal is more contrasty. But, the advantage of two bath is clear in high contrast situations. Two bath system is my primary developing system, but bath A is a regular HC110 or Tmax Dev., the second bath is borax for cubical grain or sodium metaborate for T-grain. A system, which let chose ISO. DXN I shoot at ISO between 125 and 500 and I can't tell the difference from the negative. In high contrast situations the amount of compensation film gets in 3 min is probably worth 1 hour in Rodinal and local contrast is controlled by duration of the bath A. System simple, cheap and flexible, without a commitment to one, expensive brew.


----------



## compur (Dec 15, 2013)

My opinion: 
Diafine is a specialty developer. Its wide temperature range and ease of use are its main attractions for me. There are very few commercially produced panthermic developers and Diafine is the easiest to find and use. I like to use it in the Summer months here in Southern California when I don't feel like messing with temp control.  I also like it with Pan F and that is the only film I have had good results with Diafine but I've only tried a few films with it. I suspect there are probably other films that would also work well with it.

Some developers work well with most any film and some have more specialized qualities that work best with only certain films. T-grain films are especially finicky about developers. These films are formulated especially for sharpness with little or no grain but at the expense of tonal range (my opinion). They work best with general purpose developers or developers made specially for them.


----------



## Josh66 (Dec 15, 2013)

compur said:


> Its wide temperature range and ease of use are its main attractions for me. There are very few commercially produced panthermic developers and Diafine is the easiest to find and use. I like to use it in the Summer months here in Southern California when I don't feel like messing with temp control.


Yeah, that's a good point.  Indoor summer temps here are nowhere near 'room temperature' - I probably will use it more in the summer.

It does seem to work well enough with Kentmere 400 too - I can expose that anywhere between 400 and 3200 and get usable negs.


----------

