This is a quick post in between my first- on March 20 -and my next “official” in a trilogy which will be on scanning and basic contrast adjustment for these Diafine processed negatives which will be out next week.
First, I’d like to thank Eye Of Wally on Flickr for a suggestion he made in a post on the Diafine User Group of adding a pre-wet to the process of TX and Diafine (the box says NO but I now say YES!) I had never personally experienced any issues with uneven development with Diafine but the pre-wet when coupled with the agitation cycle listed below produced some brilliant negs with really open, white, detailed highlights, fantastic contrast and killer shadows. In the past when I was processing with my Jobo (waaaaay back when I had one) I had always used a pre-wet…so I guess everything old is new.
I have also attached two quick sample pics I shot around my house today (at a reader’s request) that can be downloaded to see the quality of this combo first-hand. The files are around 4MB compressed JPEG (the original scan was around 85MB oil-mount on our Imacon so I had to downsize just a bit for the internet (a lot!) but never fear the image opens to a 6.?? ” x 10″, 8 Bit grey scale at 360 dpi so it should be sufficient for our needs/ discussion here (just make sure your internet connection is fast enough for the download!) The full-res scans looks fantastic as prints…stop by if you’re in Vermont to have a peek! Please note that the attached images are Copyright Stephen M. Schaub and are for personal use only.
Image made on a Leica M7 with a 90mm Elmarit F2.8 on TX with an EI of 1250. Exposure was 1/60 at F2.8 hand held.
Image made on a Leica M7 with a 90mm Elmarit F2.8 on TX with an EI of 1250. Exposure was 1/250 at F2.8 hand held.
Processing Technique (Please watch the first video/ post for a more detailed explanation on how to use Diafine developer and proper agitation techniques…then supplement that knowledge with this NEW exciting info!)
Film: Kodak TX 400…EI 1250-1600 (35mm)
1. Pre-wet 2 minutes. Agitate two gentle inversions every minute. Water temp should be around the same as your developer temp…you can add a drop of LFN if you like to your pre-wet…I always do.
2. Dump after the 2 minutes and continue to fill and dump until the water is clear (no purple water (anti-halation layer)), on TX this is perfect at the 2 minutes plus one or two fill and dump.)
3. Pour in Diafine Solution A and agitate like this (Total time in solution A is 4 minutes, temp 70-75F):
-
2 gentle inversions at the start of time
-
2 gentle inversions at 1.5 minutes
-
2 gentle inversions at 3 minutes
-
Dump at 4 minutes back into Solution A storage bottle for future use.
4. Pour in Diafine Solution B and agitate the same as solution A. (same time, 4 minutes, temp 70-75, when finished dump back into Solution B storage bottle for future use.)
5. Wash using water stop for at least 1 minute (I do closer to 1.5 minutes with intermittent agitation, temp 65-75 F).
6. Fix (your standard fixer and time)….I used Kodak Rapid Fix for 5 minutes.
7. Wash for at least 1 minute using intermittent agitation (temp 65-75 F).
8. Heico Perma Wash 1 Minute constant agitation.
9. Wash film for 5-10 minutes (temp 65-75 F).
10. LFN or Photoflo and hang to dry.
That’s it…what could be easier?!! The scans from these negatives were so easy…more on that next week!
Also note that this is just one technique for processing film (TX) using Diafine and there are many, many opinions on the proper technique- mine just happens to be right.
What about the idea of “over” developing black and white film to utilise the whole range of the scanner’s capabilites, especially for low contrast scenes? I mean we use to develop for the paper which had limits. At what point would grain be an obstacle? ~m
Michael- the obstacle as I see it is not really grain as there are ways to control it (too a degree) but the limits would be your scanners dynamic range. Most high end scanners like an Imacon and beyond can scan “just” about anything but everything else below this threshold would have issues. The beauty of Diafine is that it increases your midtone range and in the process opens the shadows and highlights which makes it easier to scan a good negative on almost any scanner. Of course this then requires a bit of contrast contol in PS to correct or alter this curve increase but it is easier to decrease what you have (expanded midtones and beautifull highlights) than try to inflate a compressed tonal range.
Best-
Stephen
I did a test with my Epson 3200 flatbed. A garden variety reflective/film scanner from a couple of years ago. It pretty much straight lines up to 2.7 LogE before there is noticeable falloff (I think Epson claims 3.4 — wishful thinking — 3.0 maaayybe). Still, 2.7 that’s about double the density range required for a grade 2 paper. So the question becomes do we gain anything? Where is the point of diminishing returns. With a thin negative we certainly can lose because we have a limited selection of tones. But a thick or rather long negative? More room to play with tones? It begs the question what is “N” development for a scanner. Cheers. ~m
It is not a one to one relationship and it is difficult to exactly compare how a neg will print on traditional paper vs a digital scan and digital print as they are quite different and there are so many variables with regards to output. Just because it can be photographed and scanned does not mean that it can be printed…print size and printer resolution and PSR (print surface resolution (ps- there is an article on this site about PSR) matters a lot. I find that on our Imacon that I can fully capture negatives processed in a variety of different developers and for now Diafine and TX are my working solution due to the increased midtones and really nice open shadows and highlights…and yes I like the grain of TX. Remember that all photography (even full wet process) is all about controlled compression or loss from real world light to a final print- that is a heck of a lot of compression of tone. Digital printing (at least digital printing that is done on a calibrated system with a good linerization or correctly made icc can exceed traditional processes in terms of tonality and dynamic range and thus the utilization of negs with lots of tonality (Diafine and TX for example) and great scanning techniques really makes sense…but in the end it of course depends on your print material and its PSR.
Great conversation…Viva la Revolution!
Stephen
thanx for the info. i’m intrigued by your recommendation of prewetting as AFAICR it’s contrary to most recommedations i’ve read for divided development in general and acufine inc’s directions for diafine in particular, but your results are delightful.
can you explain how this step affects the development process?
have you tried with and without the pre-wetting? if so, what was the difference?
(i used to use diafine a lot but not much lately and only for very low light. you’ve got me thinking about trying it again in a general purpose way.)
thanx again.
oops. i missed some of your info on the pre-wet on my first pass through the article. will check out the post you linked to.
Ericf- I love diafine developer and use it every day! Is it the perfect developer (NO) but for scanning it is the best I’ve found and I like the look! I no longer do the prewet…tested both ways and had good luck with both but it seemed upon further reflection that overtime the water which would be in the film would dillute or corrupt part A…this would only happen after a lot of film but I’m really conservative when it comes to processing my film. For TX I would run 3+3 at 70F…the usable EI is from 400-1250 (1600 is just too thin for my likes)!
Enjoy-
Stephen Schaub
Will your techniques for 35mm Tri-X ISO 400 film processed in Diafine also work for 120 Tri-X ISO 400 film??..
I have read on photo.net that these two films seem to have different characteristics..
Have you processed any Tri-X 120 yet using this methodology??
Thanks,
Bruce
TXP is different than TX with regards to EI only. The TXP in Diafine is EI 400…TX in Diafine is 400-1250/ 1600.
Cheers-
Stephen
Enjoyed your posts, text, videos & supplied photos. Since I’m new to processing my own film, you said you use Kodak Rapid Fixer, so I went over to Adorama’s website and found two different Rapid ones, one is two part solution, A&B, and the other one, only A. I’m confused – I thought there was no A/B fixer but rather just a fixer. Help!!
No worries… Part B is a hardner that is optional… I don’t use it myself but some people do with film as it makes the negs more scratch resistant… with traditional wet darkroom prints don’t use it if you plan on toning the print. You can just buy the part A version.
Cheers-
Stephen
That’s a good news. Or it was, until I visited Adorama’s site again. They only sell solution A in 5-gallon (or to make a 5-gallon). My options are to buy the A&B and discard B (since this is cheaper and the quantity is sufficient) or buy some other Kodak, such as Kodak Professional Fixer with Hardener (powder). This seems to be very cost-effective. Would this work? However, how rapid is the Rapid fixer? In other words, what’s the time saving by using the Rapid fixer?
Thanks again.
Hi Stephen, Very interesting !!!! I just tried your method today but unfortunately its not work (the Pre-wet part). Its must be terribly wrong with my pre-wet. Im already follow your procedure for prewet, time and temperature. But i don’t even see any purple water (the water always looks clean after i dump the water). Plain water and distilled water makes no different in my case.
I got several question about Pre-wet :
1.What is LFN? how much important for adding it on your pre-wet? How much the ratio between LFN and water?
2.Did you ever try to pre-wet without LFN?
Until now, i never got good negative with Tri-X400 (EI-1000,1250 and 1600) yet, the negative always look very thin.
The only film that work for me with diafine is Lucky SHD 100 (EI 200). Very beautiful!!
Sorry if my english is not very good.
Thanks,
Davi Arzika
Hello- your english is just fine… depending on the film you are using there may be no purple cast to the water when you dump the pre wet… LFN is a wetting agent that you can use or not use… in most cases it is used to help film dry without spots but in the prewet it can also be used but again it is not necessary… I’d try this… fill the tank with the distilled water and then do standard agitation for 1 or 2 minutes and dump… no color no worries…. just be sure to dump all of the water as overtime extra water left in the tank will dilute the Part A… I have stopped using the prewet myself except for a few film which I find to be prone do bromide drag. Hope this helps.
Stephen
Great content which I found very useful – will surely come back again.
Here is another great option that I have used:
http://www.adorama.com/PYTF44L.html?searchinfo=TF+4
Just give T grain film around 5 minutes and your all set.
Cheers-
Stephen