Nelsonfoto Forums
June 19, 2013, 10:52:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Established 2005
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Fomapan and Tri-X sheets in Diafine?  (Read 779 times)
wlewisiii
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 1477


View Profile Email
« on: September 16, 2005, 08:18:49 PM »

Been haveing ill luck with google, so it's time to ask.

I am reasonably new to 4x5 and have rebranded Fomapan 100 (aka Arista.edu Ultra) and Tri-X P headed my way. I prefer, by far due to my circumstances, to use Diafine for developing. Anyone here with real world experiance using them? What EI did you use?

By way of comparison, I've had really good results with FP4+ and absoulute garbage results with Tmax 400.

Thanks, in advance,

William
Logged

Heck, just give me a Tessar on any camera :cloud9:
"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..." Green Day
ImageMaker
B&W Geek
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 5990


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2005, 08:53:29 PM »

I've shot 9x12 cm Fomapan 100 and souped in Diafine -- after testing, I rated it at EI 160 and really like the results, but you could probably get away with 200.  TXT, TXP, and 320TXP all rate as EI 1000 in Diafine, according to the Diafine box, but I haven't tried them in it; given the discount most put on Diafine's claims, you'd probably want to test from 640.  If you want/need more than that from your 320TXP, ask me about Super Soup -- EI 3200 (or so) and normal contrast?  Beats me how, but that's what I got with it, and good shadow detail, too.

For your T-max 400, try it rated at 400 and developed in HC-110 Dilution G (1:119), nineteen minutes at 68 F, continuous agitation the first minute, then five gentle inversions (in 10-15 seconds) on minutes 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16.  If you do your sheets in tray, please disregard, you can't do TMY well in trays (IMO).  But if you want to convert, I can tell you how to make cheap, simple daylight tubes for 4x5; first one costs about $18 (parts and glue), after that they're about $4 each.
Logged

Never let yourself spend 25 years away from the darkroom...
wlewisiii
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 1477


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2005, 09:35:23 PM »

Daylight tubes? Do tell... I've only seen stuff about tube systems that need some darkness.

(Your numbers are very reasonable and I should start at 640, but I know me so I'll probably try bracketing around 1000. I should know better given how expensive sheet is but... )

William
Logged

Heck, just give me a Tessar on any camera :cloud9:
"I beg to dream and differ from the hollow lies..." Green Day
KirkT
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 2688


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2005, 02:12:11 AM »

I've shot Tri-X at 1000 and souped in Diafine.  Works great!  I tray processed it.
Logged

ImageMaker
B&W Geek
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 5990


View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2005, 08:53:16 AM »

Always remember there are TWO films labeled as Tri-X, apparently intended to confuse the market (and BOTH are available in 120!).  Small-format Tri-X, aka Tri-X Pan, TX, or 400TX, is ISO 400 and Diafine lists it at EI 1600; a lot of users prefer to rate it at 1000 to 1250 for Diafine in order to gain shadow detail.  Large-format Tri-X, aka Tri-X Professional, TXT, TXP, or 320TXP, is ISO 320, listed at EI 1000 on the Diafine box, and while I haven't tried it in Diafine, is likely to garner a similar discount with the shadow detail fanatics.

My daylight tubes are pretty simple, really.  For 4x5, I use a five inch length of 1 1/2 inch black ABS drain pipe (though you could probably use gray PVC, white PVC is too translucent and will surely fog the film).  I cut the pipe in a miter box with a handsaw, but a plastic pipe cutter, power miter saw, or bandsaw with miter gauge will do nicely as well; you want the cut as square as possible, and once cut, you'll want to smooth the cut end, chamfer and deburr the inside on both ends with a small sharp knife (just skive off a little shaving all the way around to chamfer and deburr, after sanding or trimming any irregularities).  On one end is a plain cap of the same material; I don't glue it, just friction fit it in place (for easier cleaning).  On the other end is the light tight filler cap.

The filler cap is another black ABS cap -- this one must be the type with a sort of "chamber", that is, a cap deeper than the gluing socket by about a half inch, since you'll need the extra depth to install the light baffle.  The baffle can be made from another cap, if you're only making a few tubes, but I made mine from 1/8" black ABS sheet, textured on one side (the 3/32" didn't seem opaque enough).  The sheet is cut to a square with diagonal the same as the outside of the pipe, then the corners trimmed until it will enter the chamber of the cap past the gluing socket -- but don't glue it in yet.

Drill a centered hole in the cap and ream or scrape to a close fit on a piece of 1/2" gray PVC (can't get ABS that small) about 2 inches long.  Glue the PVC into the hole in the cap with "transition cement", made specifically for gluing PVC pipe to ABS pipe -- put the inner end of the PVC flush with the inside of the ABS cap.  Now install the light baffle (I put the textured side toward the filler, to reduce specular reflections) and fix it in place with drops of regular ABS pipe cement.  Use a PVC pipe cap on the filler tube as an inversion cap.

Load by curling the film, emulsion side in, and slipping into the tube; the stiffness of the film base will hold it open so chemicals can get to it.  You will often find the antihalation dye doesn't completely wash out of the base where it contacts the tube wall, but a couple minutes in hypo clearing agent or a solution of 2% sodium sulfite with 1 tsp per quart of sodium carbonate will remove the remaining dye; I just routinely soak in this solution after fixing and before washing the film, as alkalizing the gelatin also speeds washing.  Scratching isn't a problem -- I have negatives with scratches, but they're all parallel to the long side, from sliding the film in and out of film sheaths, not across the long dimension from sliding in and out of the tubes.

Do test your construction, but my tubes are light tight in full sunlight, at least 10-15 minutes exposure with ISO 100 film and the sun shining directly into the fill tube -- no fogging at all (I did have one sheet fog recently, developed to EI 3200 or 4000, but that one may have been hit by afterglow from a fluorescent lamp in the bathroom I use as a darkroom; others at that EI were unaffected).  The baffle has enough open space around it to fill and drain rapidly, and if I need to I can use a second piece of tube and a union to double the capacity of the tube -- I have three of these, with two tube sections each, and can thus load six sheets at once.  For 4x5, each tube wants about 8 ounces of liquid; for 9x12 cm, the sheet can be curled with the long way around the tube instead of short way, and thus can be as little as 3 1/2 inches long; this needs only about 6 ounces of liquid.

Sorry, I keep forgetting to take picures -- perhaps I'll get the digital and do that today.

Oh, yeah -- because I fill the tubes completely with developer, I can use intermittent agitation and "small tank" times, same as when I develop roll film in stainless or plastic tanks with spiral reels, which also means I can use agitation to control contrast as I do with smaller formats.  I use very dilute developer; I'd recommend that, because these tanks aren't very efficient relative to the film area.  If developer economy is a major issue, you could make up a PVC core that could be glued to the inside of the non-filler cap that would pretty easily reduce the capacity of the tank by 50%.  With HC-110 Dilution G, you need a minimum of three ounces of liquid per 4x5 sheet anyway, so there's little point in trying for a closer fit of core in tank; I haven't bothered (developer is cheap enough, and I don't shoot a huge volume of large format).
Logged

Never let yourself spend 25 years away from the darkroom...
Mike Kovacs
Knutty butt nice
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 7208


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2005, 10:12:41 AM »

Donald, is that you?  Been trying to figure out who "Imagemaker" is for a little while now!
Logged

ImageMaker
B&W Geek
Prolific Poster
*****
Posts: 5990


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2005, 01:29:49 PM »

Yep, that's me, Mike.  Smiley
Logged

Never let yourself spend 25 years away from the darkroom...
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!