Kentmere 400, latest samples

dourbalistar said:
This thread has been inactive for quite a while, but rather than start a brand new one, I thought I'd revive this one since I just started a bulk roll of Kentmere Pan 400. This is my first time trying the film. Some people think it's the same as Ultrafine eXtreme 400, but I wanted to compare for myself. More samples to come!
Click to expand...

If you want a really proper and valid comparison, you have to do it the following way:
Use
1. Exactly the same subject(s), with exactly the same lighting.
2. Exactly the same camera, with the same lens, same aperture, same shutter speed and the same focussing.
3. Exactly the same processing of both films together at the same time in the same developing tank.
4. Making the prints (or scans) exactly the same way.

I have often seen so called "film comparisons" of two films and then totally different subjects, with different lighting at different times with different cameras and lenses and different adjustments were made.
That are not comparisons at all. That is just a waste of time which tell you nothing.

Cheers, Jan
 
HHPhoto said:
If you want a really proper and valid comparison, you have to do it the following way:
Use
1. Exactly the same subject(s), with exactly the same lighting.
2. Exactly the same camera, with the same lens, same aperture, same shutter speed and the same focussing.
3. Exactly the same processing of both films together at the same time in the same developing tank.
4. Making the prints (or scans) exactly the same way.

I have often seen so called "film comparisons" of two films and then totally different subjects, with different lighting at different times with different cameras and lenses and different adjustments were made.
That are not comparisons at all. That is just a waste of time which tell you nothing.

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

Yes, I completely agree that should be the process if you want to make a truly valid comparison with definitive conclusions. However, I'll leave those kinds of comparisons for the true experts. ;)

Personally, with Ultrafine eXtreme 400 out of stock (and possibly discontinued), I'm just interested if Kentmere 400 is similar enough for me as a possible substitute replacement. My "tests" are just normal everyday shooting, in my own personal workflow. I don't have too much interest in test scenes and resolution charts. Maybe I should have caveated my initial post to say I'm just a hobbyist amateur making comparisons for myself, and the only conclusion I'll come to is whether or not I like the film. I do not claim to be a scientist or an artist. :D
 
dourbalistar said:
Too early for me to say, as I'm only one roll into 100-feet of Kentmere Pan 400. Never tried Kentmere before this, and it usually takes me about 4-5 rolls to get a feel for a new film and its results based on how I shoot and process. Here's another from that first roll. Maybe you can draw some of your own conclusions from the image samples. ;-)
Click to expand...

I can’t tell from the digital version. Too many variables.

The photos, as always, look very good though.

Marty
 
I also started shooting Kentmere 400 recently and I think it's a nice film. I love Tri-X but it is just too pricey. I need a film that responds well to pushing and develpment in HC-110. So far so good.
 
Freakscene said:
I can’t tell from the digital version. Too many variables.

The photos, as always, look very good though.

Marty
Click to expand...

Thank you, Marty.

lukx said:
I also started shooting Kentmere 400 recently and I think it's a nice film. I love Tri-X but it is just too pricey. I need a film that responds well to pushing and develpment in HC-110. So far so good.
Click to expand...

I see we're shooting the same film now, not just similar lenses? ;)
 
So far I like it very much, looks flexible with a rich greyscale and well defined grain. Quite frankly I have not shot much of it but it looks way better than the holy crap marketed as "Tri-X" Kodak Alaris now screw their customers with.
This one was shot just after sunset :

51142946828_a9403813d2_o.jpg


Rollei 35S - Kentmere 400 - D76 1+1
 
Dourbalistar I wonder about your development times, they are quite a bit shorter then the 8 minutes prescribed by Ilford for their HC developer, which from my understanding is the exact same as your preferred LegacyPro L110. Do you expose at 200 or do a lot of agitation? I have developed for 7:30 with okay results, maybe a bit low on contrast. Your images look well developed with good contrast so I'm curious about the process. Maybe it's that California water...
 
Results look great. But as others have pointed out, a side by side comparison would be more valuable than lots of (terrific) individual images. As Lukx has noted film developing times vary - water quality, agitation technique, thermometer calibration and even when you start and stop the clock will all contribute enough variation so that my times may be significantly different than yours. It doesn’t matter as long as you are consistent with yourself at every run. Again, nice work, makes me want to try some Kentmere.
 
lukx said:
Dourbalistar I wonder about your development times, they are quite a bit shorter then the 8 minutes prescribed by Ilford for their HC developer, which from my understanding is the exact same as your preferred LegacyPro L110. Do you expose at 200 or do a lot of agitation? I have developed for 7:30 with okay results, maybe a bit low on contrast. Your images look well developed with good contrast so I'm curious about the process. Maybe it's that California water...
Click to expand...

Thanks, lukx! LegacyPro L110 is a clone of Kodak HC-110, but I'm not sure either are exactly equivalent to Ilfotec HC. Ilford's data sheet for Kentmere 400 only lists D-76 times for non-Ilford developers, but if you look at the data sheet for HP5+, the suggested developing times for Kodak HC-110 and Ilfotec HC are different.

FWIW, the Massive Dev Chart (taken with the salt required) times for Ultrafine eXtreme 400 are 5 minutes for HC-110 and 8 minutes for Ilfotec HC. Personally, I'd settled at 5.5 minutes in LegacyPro L110 for UFX 400. Since people seemed to think the two film stocks are identical, I thought I'd at least try the same developing time with Kentmere 400 to start, and see if that bore out in my workflow and results. Still too early for me to say since I've only developed one roll so far, but I'll keep posting my Kentmere results here.

KenR said:
Results look great. But as others have pointed out, a side by side comparison would be more valuable than lots of (terrific) individual images. As Lukx has noted film developing times vary - water quality, agitation technique, thermometer calibration and even when you start and stop the clock will all contribute enough variation so that my times may be significantly different than yours. It doesn’t matter as long as you are consistent with yourself at every run. Again, nice work, makes me want to try some Kentmere.
Click to expand...

Thank you, KenR! I don't enjoy testing for testing's sake, so I haven't done any side-by-side tests. When trying new film stocks, I just shoot them as I normally would. I guess I'm less concerned with knowing for sure whether Ultrafine eXtreme 400 is identical to Kentmere 400, and more interested in whether or not I like Kentmere. If I like it, I'll keep using it! Considering that UFX 400 may be discontinued, that point may be moot.

Of course, like you said, there are lots of variables. I'm comparing my results in a workflow that I control, so at least there's a measure of internal consistency. That said, here's a side-by-side comparison that you might find interesting:
https://stephend.photo/kentmere-400-vs-ultrafine-extreme-400-10172019
 
Highway 61 said:
Quite frankly I have not shot much of it but it looks way better than the holy crap marketed as "Tri-X" Kodak Alaris now screw their customers with.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what makes you say so? Has something changed with Tri-x? I haven't shot any for a few years now.
 
p.giannakis said:
Out of curiosity, what makes you say so? Has something changed with Tri-x? I haven't shot any for a few years now.
Click to expand...

I won't speak for Highway 61, but Kodak reformulated Tri-X in 2007 and gave it a new designation, 400TX. So the current Tri-X available today is not the same Tri-X of yore. Some of our venerable and seasoned RFF members (I won't say old ;)) may prefer the prior formulation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top