Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film

Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film Discuss Image processing -- traditional darkoom or digital lightroom here. Notice there are subcategories to narrow down subject matter. .

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 06-08-2005   #81
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Ouch, 12.05 Euros for a Quart? (~ Litre) I get a Gallon kit for about $13 US. No need to pay for shipping. I guess it's about the same if I factor in the gasoline cost to drive over there (about 5 miles)

Back on topic -- agitation is to be found like Zen...like The Force, with your eyes closed first, and then your eyes open.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-08-2005   #82
T_om
Registered User
 
T_om's Avatar
 
T_om is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdos2
When I do that, I get bromide streamers obvious in low contrast areas (skys). I'm still working out a routine to even out development.

jdos2,

Were you referring to my post? The two inversion one?

If so, also keep in mind that agitation is influenced GREATLY by the type tank and reels you are using. I use Stainless tanks and reels. I believe that stainless gives a bit more "bang for the buck" during agitation than plastic. The reels are thinner and occupy less of the tank volume. I think stainless has quite a free 'flow pattern', if that makes sense.

At any rate, try one inversion upon filling, then one per minute and see if that works for you.

I can't even remember the last time I had streaking.

Tom
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2005   #83
jdos2
Registered User
 
jdos2's Avatar
 
jdos2 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Shaker Heights, Ohio USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,188
I'll stir the plastic more, and thanks for sharing that. I came back from Portugal with LOTS of B&W (and NO time to develop it!). I have two reels, one stainless (and just threw another away, I bought it BENT- D'oh!) and one plastic. The film (Pan F) developed in the plastic spool is indeed the one with the streamers, the other film looks fine.

I'll double up on the agitation- two inversions to the stainless's one. Also, I don't fill the stainless tank as much- giving an air bubble that the plastic tank doesn't get, so that too might affect things.

Heck, I just got used to stainless steel reels to the point that I could tell one was bent!
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2005   #84
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,054
I've recently bought several used Kindermann stainless tanks and a bunch of reels... One of the reels was bent enough to notice, but it was easy to straighten. The bend was such that the span between the two wire coils was closer on one side of the circle than the other. With a straight ruler, I determined at what points around the circumference it was worst, and applied a little muscle bending it back to true. I then checked all the other reels and found one more with a slight (1mm) bend and fixed it too. As long as I don't drop them, I hope and expect these reels will remain serviceable!
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2005   #85
T_om
Registered User
 
T_om's Avatar
 
T_om is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug
I've recently bought several used Kindermann stainless tanks and a bunch of reels... One of the reels was bent enough to notice, but it was easy to straighten. The bend was such that the span between the two wire coils was closer on one side of the circle than the other. With a straight ruler, I determined at what points around the circumference it was worst, and applied a little muscle bending it back to true. I then checked all the other reels and found one more with a slight (1mm) bend and fixed it too. As long as I don't drop them, I hope and expect these reels will remain serviceable!

In my opinion, you will find it hard to beat Kindermann reels. I believe Nikkor-Honeywell and Kindermann are the best quality stainless going.

I will have to admit though (I'm so ashamed ) that I also have some Adorama generics that work fine too. (Please don't tell Miss K that I cheated on her).

I have to get rid of some of my reels, I must have 30 or so laying about.

Tom
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-09-2005   #86
jdos2
Registered User
 
jdos2's Avatar
 
jdos2 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Shaker Heights, Ohio USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,188
The reel that I noticed was bent wasn't so in an extremely obvious way, it was simply impossible to load. A generic, the spirals might even not have been well aligned, but when I figured out it was impossible (after dozens of attempts) to load it in daylight without at least peaking, and the other didn't require such attention, it simply went into the trash.

If you need to get rid of some 135 /120(220) reels, please lemme know!!! :-)
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-10-2005   #87
XAos
Registered User
 
XAos's Avatar
 
XAos is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 501
Diafine sitting on my doorstep at home. And I'm stuck here at the office. This is worse than waiting for the truck to show up, knowing its already there.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2005   #88
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Kevin is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by rover
I hung them to dry for a few hours then rolled them in reverse of their curl to flatten them out. Gene had mentioned this in another thread. It worked well, they should lay nice and flat when I scan them.
I also have the film curvature problem when developing TRI-X in diafine. The negatives are not flat after drying and archiving and scanning them properly is impossible. Newton rings facing down, out-of-focus scans when facing up. Are you really sure this technique works well?

Another question. I have a large quantity of Delta 3200 films shot at that speed. Would it be advisable to develop them in diafine? If not, what developer should I choose that has a long shelf life?

Best,
Kevin
__________________
Canonet QL17+QL19 Casio EX-P700 Contax G2+645AF Epson R-D1 Fuji GSW690+Natura Konica Hexar AF Leica M6+CM+Minilux Minolta CLE Mamiya 6+RZ67 Olympus E-410 Nikon D70 Sigma DP1 Voigtländer Bessa II Yashica Electro GSN

Leica 35mm 1.4 Summilux Aspherical + ASPH, 90mm 2.8 Tele-Elmarit VC 15mm 4.5 Heliar Asph, 28mm 1.9 Ultron Asph, 35mm 1.2 Nokton Asph, 40mm 1.4 Nokton SC, 50mm Nokton 1.5 Asph, 75mm 2.5 Heliar Contax G2 28mm 2.8 Biogon, 45mm 2.0 Planar, 90mm 2.8 Sonnar Minolta 40mm 2.0 Rokkor
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2005   #89
Justin Low
J for Justin
 
Justin Low's Avatar
 
Justin Low is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
I also have the film curvature problem when developing TRI-X in diafine. The negatives are not flat after drying and archiving and scanning them properly is impossible. Newton rings facing down, out-of-focus scans when facing up. Are you really sure this technique works well?

Another question. I have a large quantity of Delta 3200 films shot at that speed. Would it be advisable to develop them in diafine? If not, what developer should I choose that has a long shelf life?

Best,
Kevin
I've never had this problem. My Tri-X ends up very slightly curved, but once in the film holder, they lie flat enough for a good scan.

Try weighting the film down when you hang it up to dry. I have a set of clips with weights in them for this purpose. You could hook a fishing weight onto the bottom; that'd work too.

If this doesn't flatten your film, put them under a set of heavy books for a few days.
__________________
Justin

I design websites!
http://justinlow.com/
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2005   #90
rover
Moderator
 
rover's Avatar
 
rover is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Connecticut
Age: 53
Posts: 13,923
I have taken to putting the negs in the pages under a bunch of books for a week prior to scanning. Before I get the last strip into the holder, the curl is back. They are resilient little *******s.
__________________
Dad with a Camera

Millennium M6TTL with Voigtlander 35/1.2 Nokton

rover's world at flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2005   #91
Justin Low
J for Justin
 
Justin Low's Avatar
 
Justin Low is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 450
I believe the curve that comes from film drying is due to the relative humidity. In Singapore, our humidity is extremely high (on average above 80%); that could be one reason why I don't experience such problematic curling.

What one could do then, is to raise the humidity of the air around the film during drying, perhaps by running a hot shower prior to hanging the film up to dry.
__________________
Justin

I design websites!
http://justinlow.com/
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2005   #92
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
 
Gabriel M.A.'s Avatar
 
Gabriel M.A. is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Paris, Frons
Posts: 9,992
Oh, I have the same curling problem. You have to dry the negative in a place that's draft-free; it helps. If you're hanging it one way, check in about 10 minutes later and rotate it. Put another clip on the other end too, to serve as a weight. This always helps me; it's not foolproof, but it helps a lot. Curling is kept to a minimum.

Then when I sleeve the negatives, I also curl the sleeve (with the negative in there) the opposite way and leave it curled that way for a while. Try it. Your mileage may vary.
__________________
Big wig wisdom: "Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" --Harry Warner, of Warner Bros., 1927

Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).


My Flickr | (one of) My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-18-2005   #93
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,054
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.

But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.

Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-19-2005   #94
Kevin
Rainbow Bridge
 
Kevin's Avatar
 
Kevin is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.

But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.

Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions.

Thanks Doug, I will try another developer then for the delta 3200.

I always used weighted clips at the bottom of hanging negative strips but the curl is from side-to-side, not top-to-bottom. Perhaps the fixer I use is the problem? Humidity in Germany is not a problem. And I have also tried putting books on top of the archival pages for several days but they curl back within minutes. Very aggrevating believe me.

Best,
Kevin
__________________
Canonet QL17+QL19 Casio EX-P700 Contax G2+645AF Epson R-D1 Fuji GSW690+Natura Konica Hexar AF Leica M6+CM+Minilux Minolta CLE Mamiya 6+RZ67 Olympus E-410 Nikon D70 Sigma DP1 Voigtländer Bessa II Yashica Electro GSN

Leica 35mm 1.4 Summilux Aspherical + ASPH, 90mm 2.8 Tele-Elmarit VC 15mm 4.5 Heliar Asph, 28mm 1.9 Ultron Asph, 35mm 1.2 Nokton Asph, 40mm 1.4 Nokton SC, 50mm Nokton 1.5 Asph, 75mm 2.5 Heliar Contax G2 28mm 2.8 Biogon, 45mm 2.0 Planar, 90mm 2.8 Sonnar Minolta 40mm 2.0 Rokkor
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2005   #95
XAos
Registered User
 
XAos's Avatar
 
XAos is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 501
Ok, I tortured enough apx400 in diafine. Now shooting Tri-X and I intend to stay with it for a long time. (That's the plan anyway). First Tri-X looks good, a hair thinner than I've been used to seeing out of diafine but I was shooting the apx at 500 and the tri-x at 1250 - gonna drop it down to 1000 like everyone else. (Hey, it said 1250, so I figured I'd do it that way first). I get a lot of curl too, with everything - not just tri-x and I dont really see that weight helps it. It helps with lengthwise curl but not cross curl - you'd have to have tension on all 4 corners during drying to help that. Keep thinking it'd be a cinch to knock out my own drying cabinet but I'm not sure where I'd put it.

Whats the dark crap floating at the bottom of the B jug anyway? antihalation precip? Do I need to filter it out or just get opaque jugs as was suggested for the white precip (undissolved B powder IIRC).
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-25-2005   #96
T_om
Registered User
 
T_om's Avatar
 
T_om is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by XAos
...Whats the dark crap floating at the bottom of the B jug anyway? antihalation precip? Do I need to filter it out or just get opaque jugs as was suggested for the white precip (undissolved B powder IIRC).

Get darker jugs.

Tom

PS: The stuff floating around in Diafine is disturbing to many but in all the years I have used it, it has NEVER had an effect on the film. It does not stick to it nor does it effect development.

PPS: Some people just *cannot* stand it though, it drives them crazy. So if it causes you sleepless nights and days filled with anxiety, care and woe... filter it out with paper coffee filters.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2005   #97
XAos
Registered User
 
XAos's Avatar
 
XAos is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 501
First pics from the GSN - and a Diafine success too - been trying to cope with glass bead reflective striping and flash photography. The darn stuff may actually fluoresce - I know it seems to be very active with blue light. An LED or Xenon (both bluer than normal lighting) flash light will light the stuff up light its got its own power source even with a couple kilowatts of Halogens on scene. I've tried yellow, 85b, UV filters on the flash, and only the UV seemed to do much without killing everything else. This is straight out of the GSN with my little pro-master <barf> flash off the first roll, Tri-X at 1000 (highest the meter will go), stopped down to f/16 because of the distance.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2005   #98
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,054
Looks pretty good, XAos! Diafine seemed to keep those beads from blowing out, for the most part...
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-29-2005   #99
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
 
titrisol's Avatar
 
titrisol is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: RDU / Quito / LaLa Land
Age: 48
Posts: 1,318
I did some tests of Ilford D3200 in Diafine a while ago thanks to David Carper who sent me some D3200.
The speed Diafine could squeeza out of it was between 1200 and 1600. I personally preferred the 1200 results.

ILFOTEC DDX or CLAYTON F76+ would give you the best results with D3200 IMHO


Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug
The curling can be affected by humidity effects, as mentioned... I'm in a low humidity area and do get some curl, but not much. It also helps to dry the film with a weighted clip at the bottom, positioned to apply an even pull over the full width... if the film is hung from one corner, and the lower weight is on the opposite corner, that will encourage more curl! I think that the type of fixer with/without hardener might also have an effect on curl.

But the particular developer used has nothing to do with curl, as far as I know.

Delta 3200 is best shot at 1600 for development in Diafine, so if you use that developer the negs will be on the thin side. You need a bit of a push to get Delta 3200 up to 3200 speed, so some other developer would be better... perhaps one suggested in the Ilford film instructions.
__________________
When I think back of all the crappy pictures I've taken, it's a wonder I can see at all......
APX It gives us the nicer grays/It gives the cleanes whites/Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah/I got a nikon camera/I love to take a photograph
MAMA DON'T TAKE MY APX AWAY........
Sorry Paul Simon


My gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-04-2005   #100
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,054
I was poking through my old photo data and noted that about 55 out of 80 rolls of Tri-X shot in 1967-68 were developed in Diafine diluted 1:1

How I came up with the idea to do that, the notes do not reveal. But perhaps it was a way to run Tri-X in Diafine when shot at EI 400, since the notes say that's what I did! In the years after that I mostly used Edwal FG-7 for Tri-X. I recall frustration with Diafine that I think now was due to over-agitation, so that may explain the switch to FG-7.

Has anyone else tried diluting Diafine's A-bath and running a lower EI? I may have to give that a try once again...
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2005   #101
taffer
void
 
taffer is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: BCN
Age: 43
Posts: 3,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdos2
When I do that, I get bromide streamers obvious in low contrast areas (skys). I'm still working out a routine to even out development.
JD I remember having the same problem when I tried leaving it 'sitting there' with maybe only an inversion. It may be just a matter of different tanks and reels, but to get rid of that I noticed I have to 'shake' it a bit more

And Doug... a 1:1 dilution of Diafine... never thought about that...
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2005   #102
Nick R.
Still here
 
Nick R.'s Avatar
 
Nick R. is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Carlstadt, NJ
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug
I was poking through my old photo data and noted that about 55 out of 80 rolls of Tri-X shot in 1967-68 were developed in Diafine diluted 1:1

How I came up with the idea to do that, the notes do not reveal. But perhaps it was a way to run Tri-X in Diafine when shot at EI 400, since the notes say that's what I did! In the years after that I mostly used Edwal FG-7 for Tri-X. I recall frustration with Diafine that I think now was due to over-agitation, so that may explain the switch to FG-7.

Has anyone else tried diluting Diafine's A-bath and running a lower EI? I may have to give that a try once again...
I would guess this really limits developer available for absorbtion into highlight areas. Since diafine already prevents highlights from blocking up at normal strength, this dilution must be awful in flat lighting. Maybe it's useful with flash exposure?
__________________
I'll come running to tie your shoe
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2005   #103
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
 
titrisol's Avatar
 
titrisol is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: RDU / Quito / LaLa Land
Age: 48
Posts: 1,318
IIRC you dilute bath B 1:1 to decrease contrast even more, and get a further compensation.
look into APUG for the diafine threads about this.
__________________
When I think back of all the crappy pictures I've taken, it's a wonder I can see at all......
APX It gives us the nicer grays/It gives the cleanes whites/Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah/I got a nikon camera/I love to take a photograph
MAMA DON'T TAKE MY APX AWAY........
Sorry Paul Simon


My gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-05-2005   #104
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,054
I think diluting Bath B only decreases the concentration of development activator, making it harder to get the developer that was absorbed in Bath A to get started. I don't know that we'd see any effect until dilution got pretty low, except... Dilution should mean greater necessity for agitation to bring the activator to the developer, but more agitation also washes the developer out of the film and lowers density... So I think diluting Bath B puts you into a bind.

Lowering the concentration of Bath A means less developing agent in the film available to be activated in Bath B. Increasing exposure means more work for the developer to do, more potential density. Whatever our fevered minds can imagine happening in the neg as a result, I did get quite a lot of good pics this way! :-) Even though I was burdened at the time with habitual over-agitation in Bath B and this leads to thin negs (some of which got a bath in Chromium Intensifier).

I think I'll give it a shot with a 24-exp roll of outdated Tri-X and see what happens. If it works well now that I'm aware of the agitation issue, it will be handy for the several rolls of 220 Tri-X that are inconveniently fast (in regular Diafine) for the Bronica's leaf shutter.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #105
onnovisser
Registered User
 
onnovisser is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Holland, Leiden
Age: 40
Posts: 62
Hmm, I think I have a problem here...

I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast... You don't have a choice in aperture or shuttertime.. It's 1/1000 at f16 or the likes. So I have to choose to use another film that is slower in diafine, or develope my tri-x in something else.. It's so tempting to go for the ease of diafine... What film looks a bit like tri-x but stays slow (i.e 50-250 asa range).?

Cheers,

Onno
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #106
GeneW
Registered User
 
GeneW's Avatar
 
GeneW is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Port Credit, Ontario
Age: 74
Posts: 3,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by onnovisser
I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast...
A strong ND filter might work for you if you can find one to fit. You could use it in bright daylight and take it off for low-light shooting.

Gene
__________________
genewilburn.com
Gone digital: Olympus E-P7, Sony RX-100 II
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #107
onnovisser
Registered User
 
onnovisser is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Holland, Leiden
Age: 40
Posts: 62
hmmm, I'll give it a thougth. But buying a set of those migth be costly too
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #108
Justin Low
J for Justin
 
Justin Low's Avatar
 
Justin Low is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 450
Quote:
Originally Posted by onnovisser
Hmm, I think I have a problem here...

I love Tri-x but I would love to use diafine (and will).. but I shoot during the daytime often, and 1250 is just to fast... You don't have a choice in aperture or shuttertime.. It's 1/1000 at f16 or the likes. So I have to choose to use another film that is slower in diafine, or develope my tri-x in something else.. It's so tempting to go for the ease of diafine... What film looks a bit like tri-x but stays slow (i.e 50-250 asa range).?

Cheers,

Onno
Onno, consider using FP4+; the Diafine box recommends exposing it at EI250, and I have tried that and have obtained decent results.

Also, TMAX100 responds well to Diafine (in my opinion) when it's exposed at around EI250 as well, rather than the recommended 160.
__________________
Justin

I design websites!
http://justinlow.com/
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #109
onnovisser
Registered User
 
onnovisser is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Holland, Leiden
Age: 40
Posts: 62
thanks for the tips Justin, but since I really like tri-x and it has an ei of 1250 I don't think i'll try fp4+, I don't really like Tmax either.. I'm more into the oldfashioned film look.anyone use Apx-25 ? it has an ei of 50 in diafine apparently. Delta 100 goes 80, Pan F plus is 100. All nice speeds for sunny days. Any experience/photo's?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #110
T_om
Registered User
 
T_om's Avatar
 
T_om is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by onnovisser
thanks for the tips Justin, but since I really like tri-x and it has an ei of 1250 I don't think i'll try fp4+, I don't really like Tmax either.. I'm more into the oldfashioned film look.anyone use Apx-25 ? it has an ei of 50 in diafine apparently. Delta 100 goes 80, Pan F plus is 100. All nice speeds for sunny days. Any experience/photo's?

I think you mis-read Justin's post...

FP4+ shoots at 250 in Diafine. From your post above I think you read Justin's notation "EI250" as 1250. But I may be wrong.

At any rate, the FP films have always been one of my mainstays, along with Tri-X, one of the reasons being just as you posted... I sometimes want to shoot at less than the 1250 required by Tri-X.

Plus-x is also a winner in Diafine... shoot it at the recommended speed of 400 (or just a bit less) and it looks great.

One thing you should know however, is that you can over-expose Tri-X in flat light and it holds up VERY well. As a matter of fact, it is one of the tricks we used to use to overcome the flat contrast look Diafine sometimes produces in flat lighting.

Now that I process everything with high-resolution scanning and PhotoShop, the contrast issue is moot.

Tom
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #111
onnovisser
Registered User
 
onnovisser is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Holland, Leiden
Age: 40
Posts: 62
THanks, makes more sense now, I've been studying all day and I guess I'm a bit woozy..
I'll try some fp4+ then, and some plus x. I was thinking about APX 25 too for portaits, IE becomes 50. Any experience?
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #112
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 13,054
I too like Ilford FP-4 at EI=250 in Diafine, very nice combination.

Tri-X's high speed in Diafine can be useful, but it's decidedly awkward outdoors in bright light, particularly when the camera's top shutter speed is 1/500, say... Without filters then you're forced to f/22, not usually the sharpest aperture.

As mentioned earlier, I used to commonly dilute Diafine 1:1 and rate Tri-X at 400, but I don't remember why. I tried that again recently, and ran the film last night. It looks ok, somewhat on the thin side, but the shadow detail is decent. I also had an orange filter on the lens, sort of forgotten, and that affects the tonality too. Next time I'd be tempted to give it a bit more exposure... but then what's the point, with Ilford FP-4 doing so well at EI=250 in full-strength Diafine?

Perhaps more usefully, I also tried shooting Tri-X at EI=640 and developing in Diafine diluted 2:1... That is, I added 3 oz of water to 6 oz of stock Diafine for 9 oz total used in a one-reel Kindermann tank. This was shot with a different camera and lens, so direct exposure comparison is kinda shaky, but this turned out quite nicely, better looking. And EI=640 is a usefully fast speed without being so overwhelming in daylight.

I'll try these two experiments again some time with somewhat more control over the variables.

Besides these two rolls of Tri-X, I was kept up to 2:30, yawning, by also "Diafining" a roll of 220 Tri-X Pro at EI=1000 along with an ancient mystery roll of Plus-X "found film" from a Mamiya C220, and two rolls of Pan-F (bulk loaded in 1984) shot at EI=50 that look really nice.
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-10-2005   #113
jdos2
Registered User
 
jdos2's Avatar
 
jdos2 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Shaker Heights, Ohio USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,188
I did several days in Portugal a few weeks back (verging on a couple of months)

I shot Tri-X at 1250 (and a big ND filter- on a Noctilux!) and Pan f at 80 (Noctilux, ND filter, I was shooting wide open in the daylight) My negatives have come out of the Diafine very scan-able. I like both combos, though I did find the grain of Tri-X a bit greater than I thought it'd be- I think the new scanner is just getting detail out of the film that the older flatbed didn't, and I'm just noticing the grain.

JD
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2005   #114
wlewisiii
StayAtHome Dad & Photog
 
wlewisiii's Avatar
 
wlewisiii is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Age: 56
Posts: 5,259
I was going through my copy of "The Amateur Photographer's Handbook" by Aaron Sussman (8th edition, 1973 - 11th printing from 1983). In it is a table of suggested film and developer pairings. I was interested to notice that Diafine was included in the list. I was especially surprised to notice that it said 2 minutes rather than 3 per solution and gave ASA EI's of 2400 for Tri-X and 800 for Plus-X.

Is this rather large difference due to the change from ASA to ISO speed ratings or simply a reflection of the evolutionary changes in Kodak's emulsions?

Just a curiosity for me at this point. I'll happily continue following the directions on the box, but wanted to see what others here thought.

William
__________________
My Gallery
My Best Pictures

Playing and learning daily with: 4x5 Crown Graphic, Leica IIIf w/ 50/2 Summitar, Nikon F2 Photomic w/ 50/1.4 & Olympus E-PL1.

"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type. And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks

Last edited by wlewisiii : 07-14-2005 at 19:12. Reason: spelling... :(
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2005   #115
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,391
Hi, William. I'm liking the results I'm getting from following the current directions on the Diafine package. I'm thinking that that's what's most important.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-14-2005   #116
wlewisiii
StayAtHome Dad & Photog
 
wlewisiii's Avatar
 
wlewisiii is offline
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Age: 56
Posts: 5,259
Oh, trust me, I love the results from the box directions (except with Delta 400, but I've heard that elsewhere as well... bleah... Gotta only buy to Plus-X and Tri-X.) It just struck me as interesting in theory, so I thought I'd ask.

William
__________________
My Gallery
My Best Pictures

Playing and learning daily with: 4x5 Crown Graphic, Leica IIIf w/ 50/2 Summitar, Nikon F2 Photomic w/ 50/1.4 & Olympus E-PL1.

"Some people are 'the glass is half full' types. Some people are 'the glass is half empty' types. I'm a 'the glass is full of radioactive waste and I just drank half of it' type. And I'm still thirsty." -- Bill Mattocks
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2005   #117
titrisol
Bottom Feeder
 
titrisol's Avatar
 
titrisol is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: RDU / Quito / LaLa Land
Age: 48
Posts: 1,318
Use Plus-X instead
Great film, and Diafine brings it to 320 or so
Quote:
Originally Posted by onnovisser
hmmm, I'll give it a thougth. But buying a set of those migth be costly too
__________________
When I think back of all the crappy pictures I've taken, it's a wonder I can see at all......
APX It gives us the nicer grays/It gives the cleanes whites/Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah/I got a nikon camera/I love to take a photograph
MAMA DON'T TAKE MY APX AWAY........
Sorry Paul Simon


My gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 07-15-2005   #118
T_om
Registered User
 
T_om's Avatar
 
T_om is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: NE Florida
Posts: 701
Quote:
Originally Posted by wlewisiii
Is this rather large difference due to the change from ASA to ISO speed ratings or simply a reflection of the evolutionary changes in Kodak's emulsions?

And then again, it just might be an error on Sussman's part.

Diafine is so forgiving, it can be shot all over the place (EI wise) and still produce reasonable results. Recommendations from people used to their own workflow tend to be based on their total workflow results, not just some arbitrary numbers.

For example, I use the EI's that I use because I scan all my stuff and want to get the most from a SCANNED negative. Wet printers may use different EI's because with their particular workflow and paper preference combinations, it requires different exposure.

Experiment, experiment, experiment.

Practice makes the master.

Tom
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2005   #119
XAos
Registered User
 
XAos's Avatar
 
XAos is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 501
Quote:
Originally Posted by titrisol
Use Plus-X instead
Great film, and Diafine brings it to 320 or so
I just shot some Plus-X in 120 @400, but then bracketed down to about 3 stops slower. My negs came out very thin. I've been getting ok densities but not a lot of dynamic range with Tri-X (35mm and 120). It's possible that my flash calculations were wrong, it's possible that I over agitated, but I'm really beginning to wonder if Plus-X has the same speed in diafine at 120 as it does in 35mm. There were a few with differences enough to take note of.

3 stops is kinda hard to explain why it's so thin, as we're back down to 100.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-04-2005   #120
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 62
Posts: 19,391
It could very well be over-agitation. I gently rotate the film reels 180 degrees after the first minute in Diafine sol'n B, and again after 2 minutes. It is very minimal but I have not yet experienced uneven development due to bromide drag.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My Diafine arrived safely 2/too ijonas Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 1 04-14-2005 00:27
Diafine inside problems pukupi Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 3 03-16-2005 16:19
Diafine and Tri-X question. ddimaria Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 11 01-17-2005 18:53
Diafine ? taffer Image Processing: Darkroom / Lightroom / Film 53 09-09-2004 20:03



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 23:08.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.