Diafine: Tri-x @ 1000-1600. Is this a joke?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Film & Processing : One Thread

So, I've done some exposure tests from 400-1600, developed them for 3, 4 and 5 minutes each and if shadow detail tells the story of film speed then I'd say 400 looks pretty good. What I can say about 1000-1600 is that high values don't block up at 3min and grain is still tight and sharp; 4 and 5 look over-develeped. I must be missing something. I sure would like to find something that would goose Tri-x a couple stops with shadow detail.

-- Fred Rosenberg (fdr@netidea.com), May 05, 2002

Answers

There is no developer that will increase shadow detail significantly. In the most technical sense, you can't push film- it's a myth! Sure, we all do it (well, most of us) but the result is underexposure of the shadows. With the right subject, it can look just fine- you let the shadows go dark and concentrate on faces and lighter objects. Tri- X and Acufine is probably as good a combo as anything. T-Max developer is also designed for pushing, though I haven't used it for that.

-- Conrad Hoffman (choffman@rpa.net), May 05, 2002.

Acufine, T-Max, Microphen etc will give a maximum of about 2/3 stop "real" speed for normal development; anything more than that is simply pushing. The only way (other than maybe peroxide fuming) to get EI 1600 with normal shadow density is to shoot TMZ or Delta 3200. It's not going to happen with TX.

-- John Hicks (jhicks31@bellsouth.net), May 06, 2002.

conrad's right. pushing is basically a myth. if you don't have enough light when metering at iso 400, what good does it do to underexpose 3 more stops by metering with an iso 1600. for every film there is a minimum amount of exposure needed before density starts to build up on the negative. if the exposure is not enough in the low values (print values II and III) there is little you can do to significantly build up the image.

-- r (ricardospanks1@yahoo.com), May 06, 2002.

Back in 1975, this whole thing was also a mystery to me. Then I subscribed to the newsletter of the inventor of Acufine and Diafine and UFG. His exposure technique was to set the ASA to 1600 and meter the darkess detail shadow(zone 3 for you zonies) and make the exposure.I then thought, isn't that the same as setting the meter for ASA 400, metering for a zone 3, and underexposing 2 stops? I came to the insight that it was all in the metering technique. Technique that was only available through the newsletter or trial and error.

yours recalling old memories,

Garry D. Lewis

-- Garry D. Lewis (glewis@ftw.nrcs.usda.gov), May 06, 2002.


I have achieved at least one full stop, that brought up the shadows by using intensifacation, my film is litho, I have not done any tests on pan film, this method does work. a VERY LOW INTENSITY green light for 20 min, post exposure, ans then dev normally,the light should be at least 5 feet away,I used 2 polarizers and a green filter. I crossed the polarizers for a method of control, use no more than 15 watts. there is an increase in fog, every thing else remains of good photo quality. yours merrick,

-- gerald merrick (merrick@wayfarer1.com), May 06, 2002.


Garry, thanks for the insight on Diafine. It's a great developer, but takes a lot of hands-on experience to really make it work.

-- Bill (bmitch@comcast.net), May 06, 2002.

Fred:

Tri-X at 1200 ASA in Diafine for 3 minutes is no joke, it works and its capacity seems to go forever. Forget the optimistic 1600 ASA rating on the Diafine label, its an honest 1200 ASA with Tri-X. I have shot over 100 rolls in the past few months using this combination -- the 16X20's sing.

The next step is TMZ at 3200 ASA, developed per the T-Max developer instructions for that rating, its really the only other high speed option I've used and it works really well in low contrast light.

Carpe luminum.

MH

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), May 06, 2002.


Thank you all for your informed opinions. Michael, I'd like to see the results of your Diafine and Tri-x mix, the kind of light you worked in, the shadow detail (what chance on a computer screen...) Was your Tunnel Project done this way? The results from that were certainly second to none.

-- Fred Rosenberg (fdr@netidea.com), May 06, 2002.

Fred, Ilford Delta 3200 @ 3200. Ilfotec DDX (1:4) for 9 min. @ 68F. Speed, shadow detail, sharpness.

-- Walter Massa (WFMassa@webtv.net), May 06, 2002.

Diafine is a good choice. Have been shootin Tri-x @ 800, which has produced very nice results in 35mm. This was in a fairly well-lit restaurant. Shot Delta 3200 in my Rollei tlr in a very dim nite club. Processed in Diafine, quite acceptable, all things considered. Plan to stay with Diafine for a while, see what it can do under as many different lighting conditions as i can find. jim

-- Jim Meisenbach (pacifica011@insightbb.com), May 08, 2002.


Fred...

Did you get the e-mail and the photo I sent?

Tap back to confirm.

MH

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), May 11, 2002.


Hi Michael, (I might have just sent half a reply off into cyber-space...) I got your photo. Looks good to me. I'll have an opportunity to use this combination at a local town hall meeting this Wednesday. I usually shoot at 1/8 or 1/4 in this place, an old movie theatre. I'd say it was the equivalent of your tunnel but without the potential for sudden death at any moment. I'll let you know what I think of the results. Have you tried TMZ? I haven't, and at the price I would have to pay ($7 vs $2.50 bulk Tri-x), I don't suppose I will. I'm land locked to Tri-x; have never up-graded my lenses, either. Thanks again for the photo... and your web site is solid.

Fred

-- Fred Rosenberg (fdr@netidea.com), May 12, 2002.


Fred;

Yes, I have used lots of TMZ and I really love the film. The problem for me shooting the tunnel project has been moving from daylight to dark to really dark areas then back to daylight all during the same working day. I experimented with a spare M6 body with TMZ in it and swapped lenses when I needed the speed. It became clear to me that it wasn't working so I simply started using Diafine, rating Tri-X at 1200 in my two prime bodies. For a time it worked well. Its not a replacement for TMZ but it got me closer exposure wise and without a lot of equipment juggling. I am back to TMZ in a spare body...long story.

Good luck.

MH

-- Michael Hintlian (michael@hintlian.com), May 13, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ