I've heard that Diafine (and its clones) _does_ give effective film
speed increase. I have never tested it myself, and the samples I've
seen on the web weren't terribly impressive. But judging on the web is
hardly meaningful, at least IMO. For me, the proof is in the print.
Maybe some day I'll try it. One other attraction is claimed to be the
ability to process all films (at Diafine's suggested speed) at the same
processing times.
Earl
Andrew Dacey wrote:
>On 7/12/05, Earl Dunbar <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Well, it's better to be a geek, uncool, or whatever, and get the shot
>>captured/processed well than to be at the bleeding edge. I am used to
>>Tri-X @ 200 in HC-110 in my sleep, with great results; I never believed
>>in the "effective film speed depends on developer" school Zone III
>>detail is Zone III detail, and if you ain't got it, it's an exposure
>>issue, not a developer issue, IM. Now that Tri-X has changed, it's
>>apparently a true 400, I don't have a workflow for it. I have one or
>>two rolls exposed at 400, and I'll probably soup one in Rodinal 1:50 and
>>one in DD-X 1:4 and see what it looks like.
>>
>>
>
>Personally, I've been shooting new Tri-X at 320 and have been happy
>with the density of the negs.
>
>As for effective film speed, I have some Diafine in the basement that
>I'm meaning to mix up. It's a 2 bath developer that gives a speed
>increase with many films. EV for old Tri-X is listed as 1000-1250. I'm
>going to try some new Tri-X with it at speeds of 800 and up and see
>how they look.
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|