Diafine Developer: How to develop film at home at room temperature - high contrast B&W
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- In this video I show how to develop black and white film at room temperature with acufine diafine developer, and kodak’s general purpose hardening fixer. I do also use photo-flo since I have hard water, but that step is optional. I did practice my infomercial voice in this video, but this isn’t a paid advertisement. Diafine and Neopan Acros 100 is my favorite film and developer combination, so I made this video to show how to do it and what the results look like.
Why I think diafine is the best developer:
Using these chemicals, you don’t need stop bath, and you don’t need to worry about bringing down the temperature, just use the chemicals at room temperature. Also, unlike most developers, this developer lasts a long long time. I don’t know exactly how long, but I have used mine for over a year and it still works great. And last but not least, this developer gives you high contrast negatives.
Developing film isn't that difficult, once you have done it a couple of times it becomes much less intimidating.
If you are shooting film:
Tag your film instagram photos with #oldcameranewfilm
Join my facebook group: / oldcameranewfilm
My personal Instagram account: / melodysdad
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
LOL I'm dying, I love your style bro you're not hung up on temperatures and colored containers and measuring photo flow or nothing LOL developing black and white I used to add jatate religiously on the 30 second mark and if the temperature was a micron off I would freak out but after a year I realized those minute differences don't really matter especially since you're going to tweak it in the editor anyway
I'm interested in using Diafine and am watching every RUclips video I can find. Several of the people mention that you should NOT pre-rinse your film when using Diafine because the water will soak into the emulation and not allow the developer to soak in. Have you developed both ways and compared the difference?
No, but you can safely assume that the maker of the 2-bath developer did so before strongly recommending against using a pre-wash. There is another reason to not use a 2-bath developer like Diafine which has not been mentioned above. These 2-bath systems were formulated when physically thick film emulsions were standard. Since then, film developments have resulted in much thinner emulsions, particularly the T-grain types. Today, there just is not the physical volume of emulsion to absorb the first bath, resulting in significantly less developing agent being used. So, T-Max 100 today is going to get about 1/3 less development than Tri-X did in 1964. In a 2-bath, there is nothing you can do to change that problem, except use a stronger first bath with more developing agent per ml. Then, there is the problem that Diafine is priced about four times what Divided D-76 sells for at Photographers Formulary, or 15 times as much if you mix the D-76 from bulk chems. And, divided D-76 is probably a better developer in terms of image quality. Bottom line: Diafine is for dopes, even though one or two regarded YT posters swear by it.
Hi, you mentioned that with a two bath developer one can't push.
Of course you can!
According to Ansel Adams (I proofed it as well), you simply repeat 2-bath development 2 or 3 times.
In between, you use an acid stop bath in order to neutralize the alkaline from bath B and do a washing thereafter before using bath A again.
Another repetiton of the two-bath will give you N+1 to N+1,5 of push. Two repetition N+2 to N+3, and so on.
Bath A -> Bath B -> Stop -> Wash -> Bath A -> Bath B -> Stop -> Wash -> Bath A - > Bath B->..............Stop-> FIX->Wash.
It's like charging/discharging a condensor....
I think that if you review your "Adams", you will find that his "2 bath" developer is a divided Stockler or similar of the time (1940s), which has a soft working developing agent (metol) in Bath A and a simple base accelerator in Bath B, and nothing else. Such developer is so mild and slow in its development action that you could repeat the A/B process to build up contrast without collateral problems when using 4x5 inch film. Diafine is a powerful, fast acting developer by comparison. It is only average sharp, and is grainy, and high contrast. If you use it as you propose, you will build up full potential film density in the highlights, leaving little tonal gradation, degrade sharpness and blow out your grain like gravel. Ansel would not approve. My comment is theoretical, so if you test your thinking, I'd very much like to read about your results.
See my comment below explaining why repeating the development cycle as you suggest is as bad idea. If you want to assert control over the extent of development of your film, use a conventional developer. If you review your Adams, I think you will find two distinctions: (1) Adams was using something like "split D-23" which is a low energy developer, slow acting, low contrast and not likely to generate visible unevenness in the negative, and (2) he was shooting large format film with little or no enlargement, where any adverse development density would be less visible. The idea of using a one-size (of development) fits all developer like Diafine is a total contradiction to the zone system Adams promoted.
No you can't push Diafine, which develops *to completion*.
You will want silver (not chromium) intensifier if you really want denser negatives. Most film is tablet grain now which is why not chromium intensifier, aside from maybe it's not the healthiest thing to keep around. Tri-X is plain old grain formulation though. Possibly, as an alternative, selenium toner.
You are probably right, I haven't tried it :)
I used Diafine for a short while when it first came out back in the 1960s. It has all of the virtues of non-critical time and temperature development presented in the video. It didn't take over the B&W developing world then because it yields average sharpness and rather large or punchy grain compared to many other developers. There is a major error in the video which you need to avoid if you choose to try Diafine. YOU DO NOT PRE-WASH your film before development. This process works by absorbing the first part of the developer into the film emulsion; no development occurs during this step. Adding the second part of the developer activates the development, which continues until all of the absorbed first part has been chemically exhausted. At that point, no more development occurs no matter how long you continue. When you pre-wash, the film first absorbs water only, which then inhibits the absorbion of the first developer. At least you may underdevelop for lack of developer in the film; at worst, you'll get uneven development. Originally, Diafine came with written instructions not to pre-wash the film. Probably it still does.
You're right, the instructions still say not to pre-wash. I have done both. I should take a closer look at the differences between developments. As you can see at the end of the video, the photos weren't too noticeably ruined by pre-washing. But, you are right.
@@oldcameranewfilm7775 Prewashing, *at worst,* might require an extra minute in Bath A to ensure it has time to displace the prewash water from the emulsion. Since it works for you as you're doing it, I'd say keep doing it (and I agree, I don't like green or blue solution, I prewash before using my replenished Xtol for the same reason).
@@SilntObsvr Extra time in Bath A (1st) will not guarantee that uneven or inadequate development will be avoided, because the water first in the emulsion may not interact to allow an even and complete infusion of the first bath into the emulsion unless you leave the film in the first bath for a very long time and agitate near continuously. The prebath is not being "displaced"; it is mixing with and diluting the first bath chemistry, which will have some impact on image formation in the 2nd bath, nothing good. The only reason to explore a prebath here, where no development occurs in the first bath, is to mitigate the negative emotional response of the user to coloring of the first bath with anti-halation dye. The dye is chemically neutral and has no effect on the development process, so all you are dealing with here is user emotion.This issue is not presented with regular types of developer because the 2-bath first developer is very strong and very little of it is actually used. This makes it far more subject to damage from dilution by a prewash.
Question: Have you ever tried rinsing the film between part A and part B to help keep part B from contamination? I was wondering if this is possible or would it ruin the process?
I just discovered this type of developer while reading people's comments on a different video and I find it difficult to find a place to purchase it onlinr. The only place selling it online was on Ebay. So I'm glad I checked out your video before deciding to purchase it. It looks extremely easy to use. Do you happen to have a video of you mixing the powders into what you're using? Thanks
Great video
I have some Diafine that's been stored for twelve years, and was two or three years old before that. I should test it -- it's probably still good. Might have to shoot a roll of Fomapan 100 through my RB67 just to see.
Let's see:
* Don't prewash/prewet Diafine, as mentioned -- the purpose of the first bath is to saturate the emulsion with developer solution, not with water
* First developer, the usual 30 sec agitation is fine
* Second developer, you don't want to "rinse out" the developer, so, less agitation is good, just make sure the film surface will get fresh solution periodically
* It doesn't matter how disgusting the developer looks; it will work fine, although you might filter it very occasionally (or if a very old bottle) to get any precipitate out of it
* I don't think it *ever* goes bad, on the scale of a few years at least
* Does not oxidize -- you will never see a Diafine A or B container "sucked in" from oxidation as you will with other developers
* Your film's masking dye will rinse out eventually, if you care (a slight tint to negs is not a big deal if printing in d/r, is zero big deal if scanning) ... it does take quite a while for some dye to diffuse out of film so you might let the film sit in water with a drop of detergent in it for a half hour, then rinse as normal (10-30 minutes gently flowing water) ...
* I use Ilford Rapid Fix with Diafine and Ilford dump wash (fill tank, invert 5 times, dump, fill, invert 10x, dump, fill, invert 20x, dump, all done, rinse more if you feel like it) -- I do not have problems with non-hardened negatives and I'm definitely not a gentle safekeeper of negatives
* Make the final rinse with distilled water only. Hang the film. Wet your clean fingers thoroughly with distilled water. Rather than use a squeegee (God no!), put the film between your index and middle fingers and "squeegee" it manually in one pass top to bottom. Remaining water is fine. It will dry nice and clean. To hell with Photo-Flo/detergent/etc.
IMO Diafine is the *very best* developer for scanning, particularly if you are using grainy film and want the grain (otherwise why aren't you shooting digital?).
Exceptions in cases where you must use some other developer for a special purpose, but generally, just use Diafine for your soup if you're shooting B+W film that's going to be scanned. Probably works OK on color (for B+W results) too ... resulting negs might be thin but still usable. I've accidentally processed a roll or two of color in Diafine and yes you get the usual B+W result.
I've developed at least 100 rolls of Neopan 1600 shot at 800-1000 in Diafine. My favorite grainy combination of all time. TMAX P3200 will work well also, at 1000-1250 -- no need for TMAX developer -- results will be grainy with sharp grain. You can always take the edge off in post if scanning. I would give TMAX a little extra time in both baths (maybe as much as 5-8 minutes apiece depending on temp and your results) but in reality many/most B+W films are tablet grain now.
You can underdevelop if everything is too cold. Either significantly lengthen development time (especially in part B where development occurs) or warm everything up to at least 70F.
Where to buy the developer in Italy
Those stainless tanks leak like a sieve.
Terry Wootton oh well lol
Stainless lids seem like a good idea and they are terrible in reality. The cheap plastic lids work well. You have to be aware that the difference between solution temp and ambient air temp can create a little pressure in the tanks that forces solution out. This only bothers me when I'm doing color as my B&W is always room temp. With the plastic lids you can squeeze a little air out when you put the lid on, so that there's a tiny bit of negative pressure at first, which will help.
Not all steel roll film tanks leak (much), but many do. When Nikor (one "k", not Nikon) in the US started making them in the early 1940s, the steel caps were custom fitted to the tank lid. These are tight enough to leave little or no leakage. (But that can make it a bitch to get the cap off if you slam it on there.) However, if you have several tanks, those caps are soon mixed up, and when mis-matched, the lids will leak. In the 1960s, competitors, mainly Japanese, used plastic lids, which completely avoid leakage problems. However, they also used smaller diameter wire to form the reels, which makes them much harder to load the film. There was a transition period where Nikor made their tanks with plastic lids. With come ebay effort, I assembled a set of SS tanks and reels where the tanks have plastic lids/caps, and the reels are NIkor from the 1950s. They load easily, and they do not leak at all.