Diafine (alternative) first time results.

[Cluster]

Recently, I've been developing my Fomapan 100 and a few Kentmere Pan100 film (35mm) in Rodinal. The full bottle of Rodinal had been in my garage for more than ten years, seems to work very well.

As I have a few cameras which may not provide properly exposed frames (fixed shutter/aperture and a few vintage cameras with dubious shutter timing), I have not really made great efforts to "tune" my development process. I am now getting round to working with one or two 35mm cameras for my meaningful work, but still have a collection of old cameras/reusable toys.
I had bought some of the Bellini Duo Step (a replacement for Diafine) to try on the cams that might provide erratically exposed frames. Duo Step (Diafine) is reputed to be able to push film without regard to the development time. So, on the basis that it might work for a film that has a many underexposed frames, it seems to be ideal. I've had it for a while, but only today, had a go with it.

On a day with "stay indoors" weather, I set up a test scene indoors and loaded my Cosina CLR SLR with twenty-odd frames of Fomapan 100 and took a series of exposures.
I metered my scene and chose a sequence of: one stop overexposure, correct exposure, one, then two, then finally three stops underexposed. This series of five frames was repeated to the film end, giving around 4 sets of the sequence. The sequence had the film speed set to 100, at f1:5.6 with shutter speeds from 1/8 to 1/125 (on a tripod, using cable release).
The film was separated into two lengths and developed separately, the first piece in Rodinal 1:50 for 8 mins @20c, the second in DuoStep parts A & B for 4 mins each also at 20c. A set of five consecutive frames was taken from each and scanned. The results weren't as expected:

On my Epson flatbed scanner, a scan of the neg strips (both in the same pass) gave this: (I should add that with the scanner software in "pro mode", no auto compensation is made to the scan).

DuoStep is the top row.
As regards general negative density, there is very little difference, if any. Not what I had hoped for.
I wonder if my choice of film does not work well with DuoStep?

 

[Cluster]

The images from the correctly exposed frames (for my process/taste) look the same, these scans from the auto mode of the scanner software, without any other level changes.
Rodinal at the left.

 

[Cluster]

Images from the frames that were 2 stops under exposed: (as output by the scanner software, no changes other than resizing).
Rodinal on the left:

 

[Cluster]

Here is a crop of the +1 frames from each (+1 stop pushed) at scan scale 1200x1800 (all subject to the limitations of my scanner. Rodinal top.

 

[Harlequin565]

Interesting to see the results of your testing there Dave.

I posted my results here. The result was that in P3200 the results were pretty dire, but really good for Double X, so it may be that film does matter.

I can barely see a difference in those two scans which is surprising indeed. I may undertake my own tests. I'm due to bulk roll some Foma 400 shortly, and a couple of short cans might be in order.

I tend to keep Diafine for films I'm not sure about (pushed double-x, Maco Eagle IR, Kodak and Konica IR) or in the unlikely event I need to develop multiple rolls of different films in the same tank.

 

[Cluster]

Interesting to see the results of your testing there Dave.

I posted my results here. The result was that in P3200 the results were pretty dire, but really good for Double X, so it may be that film does matter.

I can barely see a difference in those two scans which is surprising indeed. I may undertake my own tests. I'm due to bulk roll some Foma 400 shortly, and a couple of short cans might be in order.

I tend to keep Diafine for films I'm not sure about (pushed double-x, Maco Eagle IR, Kodak and Konica IR) or in the unlikely event I need to develop multiple rolls of different films in the same tank.

It was your post that helped me to decide to try it.... thanks for your work!
I didn't noticed until I re-read it just now, that you say you used it undiluted. The fact/instruction sheet from Nik n Trick shows equal parts dilution... I wonder if that made a difference?

But, the good part is that it gave results very similar to my old bottle of Rodinal, which is a good place to start, and in an everlasting, non temp/time critical developer.
I have some Kentmere Pan100 and Pan400 and also a bulk roll of Fomapan 200 (which I understand to be a tabular type of film?), I can try them, maybe not as a direct comparison test.

 

[FruitFlakes]

I used to run Tri-X and Acros through Diafine and the results were excellent: Tri-X was great anywhere between 400 - 1250 and Acros was usually rated at 200. I also ran lots of Neopan 1600 with it as well. The negs scanned nicely and they also print very easily now that I use a darkroom for most of my film work. Personally I never really liked the Foma 400 I shot, it wasn't as good as HP5 and I actually prefer Tri-X over HP5. The 100 film might be different though, I have a few boxes of it in 8x10 that I'm going to be using when I get time.