something is fishy here - this is not a normal Tri-X/ Diafine result. (actually, this looks more like Neopan 1600/Diafine - bah)
BUT I've had one roll turning out similar to yours in the past - extremely grainy with a limited range of tones... I still don't know what happened - every roll after (and before) turned out to be fine.
I use plain NYC tap water and don't watch the temperature religiously with Diafine...
soooo, the only difference I can think of is agitation - temperature within spec shouldn't be an issue
I've also had the occasional result like that. For me though i'm pretty sure it was underexposure. I still believe that with Tri-X (the old one anyway), you really only get about 1-1.5 stops extra. With Diafine, I never worry about the type of water or the temperature and i'm very approximate with the time for each bath! It doesn't seem to matter at all. If anyone else out there knows of a film that shoots well at ISO1600 in Diafine, I'd certainly like to hear about it.
Dave, Here's one of my Diafine disasters http://www.pbase.com/image/49015506 I really like it though! It's not a look i think i could get with digital. I remember just about everything on that roll was underexposed. Usually when i shoot film i guess the exposure and then forget about it unless it changes markedly.
I should say that the shot above is a crop - say half the image on the left is gone (good riddance).
Anyway - I may try it again but with a pure test roll that has nothing on it I care about and I'll make a note of the exposures etc.
I'm guessing that it is a change in the emulsion since you used it last. Because I had good results with it in the past (several years ago) with TMY I think.
5 comments:
something is fishy here - this is not a normal Tri-X/
Diafine result. (actually, this looks more like Neopan
1600/Diafine - bah)
BUT I've had one roll turning out similar to yours in
the past - extremely grainy with a limited range of
tones...
I still don't know what happened - every roll after
(and before) turned out to be fine.
I use plain NYC tap water and don't watch the
temperature religiously with Diafine...
soooo, the only difference I can think of is agitation -
temperature within spec shouldn't be an issue
I've also had the occasional result like
that. For me though i'm pretty sure it
was underexposure. I still believe that
with Tri-X (the old one anyway), you
really only get about 1-1.5 stops extra.
With Diafine, I never worry about the
type of water or the temperature and i'm
very approximate with the time for each
bath! It doesn't seem to matter at all.
If anyone else out there knows of a film
that shoots well at ISO1600 in Diafine,
I'd certainly like to hear about it.
Paul
http://stormbikes.blogspot.com
Dave,
Here's one of my Diafine disasters
http://www.pbase.com/image/49015506
I really like it though! It's not
a look i think i could get with digital.
I remember just about everything on that
roll was underexposed. Usually when i
shoot film i guess the exposure and then
forget about it unless it changes markedly.
I should say that the shot above is a crop - say half the image on the left is gone (good riddance).
Anyway - I may try it again but with a pure test roll that has nothing on it I care about and I'll make a note of the exposures etc.
I'm guessing that it is a change in the emulsion since you used it last. Because I had good results with it in the past (several years ago) with TMY I think.
You know the more i see the shot above
the more i like it. Can't put my finger
on why though!
Post a Comment