Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'm going to have to give this film a try. I like the grainy look a lot.
Rangefinderfreak
Well-known
I have been shooting a lot of Maco RPX-400 that is rebranded kentmere 400. My favorite developer is for one litre: 15cc HC-110 and 15cc Rodinal concentrates combined 1:1. development time about 10 minutes with once a minute tipping over and turning the metal Kindermann reels in a steel tank. If I want more contrast the time will be 12 minutes. I try to post some images.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/page2/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/page2/
j.scooter
Veteran
Lovely shots in this thread!!! Thanks for posting.
How is the physical handling of this film? Is it overly curly like some of the other bargain films?
How is the physical handling of this film? Is it overly curly like some of the other bargain films?
alexnotalex
Well-known
No, dries flat and straight. No complaints on that.
Tone's good, range is good, flexibility is good.
Got to like the grain though, there's always grain.
this shot is Tri-X looking grainy. Quite different.
Tone's good, range is good, flexibility is good.
Got to like the grain though, there's always grain.
this shot is Tri-X looking grainy. Quite different.
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
The base feels relatively thin but the stuff dries flatter than almost anything I've used. Very surprising and nice for scanning.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
Bill Clark
Veteran
Sounds good.
I've got a few bulk rolls of the 100 ASA film. Will be trying some soon!
I've got a few bulk rolls of the 100 ASA film. Will be trying some soon!
Filzkoeter
stray animal
That's K400 @ 400-600 in xtol 1+2 for 14,30min.
Slowly getting some hang of this film... and I'm liking it more and more.
I think it will be my next bulk roll purchase (and it's so damn cheap too!)
(it surely doesn't like excessive sharpening in PP, this pronounces the grain too much)
Slowly getting some hang of this film... and I'm liking it more and more.
I think it will be my next bulk roll purchase (and it's so damn cheap too!)
(it surely doesn't like excessive sharpening in PP, this pronounces the grain too much)
Filzkoeter
stray animal
More K400 in xtol 1+2
zwarte_kat
Well-known
I don't know much about film, but those are some tasty looking shots here! Great work and lovely BW tones!
Arvay
Obscurant
For me it has very low contrast that can be used when printing or PS manipulations
Filzkoeter
stray animal
I find it more contrasty than HP5+ (it needs more developing time though)
K400 got more of that rough 70s/80s fast 400 film look. Maybe quite similar to HP5 (without +) or even old tri-x pan.
Me gusta
K400 got more of that rough 70s/80s fast 400 film look. Maybe quite similar to HP5 (without +) or even old tri-x pan.
Me gusta
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
Got my first two rolls of this to dev, looking at some of these shots it seems the grain can be pronounced or not so pronounced - with my meagre dev skills it will be beach ball size no doubt.
However, the price on this stuff is well worth a little extra grain. I'll add a scan or two to this thread once I've souped it.
However, the price on this stuff is well worth a little extra grain. I'll add a scan or two to this thread once I've souped it.
Penny Lane
Hopelessly Citrophile
I've finally had a go at Kentmere 400 (35mm), which I had lying around for way too long. First two rolls at box speed came out flat as anything in Rodinal, with all info in the left 1/3rd of the histogram (indoor shots) and post processing it to tolerable contrast made the grain pop so much I wanted to stretch that histogram.
Third roll was metered incident @ 200 after doing a test strip, and I kept the time & dilution the same as given for 400 (1:50, 20C, 20min.) which worked out to far more useable negs (for scanning anyway). Keeping the agitation down helps keeping the grain somewhat in check, but that's a region where I'd want to look for further improvement - though as it is, it seems like a useable look for when some grain is called for, and it'll most likely never be really fine. It's improved over previous attempts anyway.
Fairly mild de-noising will make it look smoother in what I think is not an overly 'shopped' way. This is a shot with only the levels tightened around the histogram and no further processing but for a resize:
Wood/Grain by bimmer1502, on Flickr
It's a wee bit unevenly developed which is likely due to my juice levels being on the, er, economical side. This problem doesn't show up when midtones prevail in the top side of the neg (such as grass etc.), that's how little it is. But at least it shows how little experience I have in film development - so please take my word with a grain of salt
All that said, trying to find ways of doing something that probably shouldn't be done is a lot of fun! I'll just have to see how repeatable this result is going to be and then it's on to see where I can improve upon it.
And now for the experts to shoot holes in my reasoning & result...
Cheers,
Derk
Third roll was metered incident @ 200 after doing a test strip, and I kept the time & dilution the same as given for 400 (1:50, 20C, 20min.) which worked out to far more useable negs (for scanning anyway). Keeping the agitation down helps keeping the grain somewhat in check, but that's a region where I'd want to look for further improvement - though as it is, it seems like a useable look for when some grain is called for, and it'll most likely never be really fine. It's improved over previous attempts anyway.
Fairly mild de-noising will make it look smoother in what I think is not an overly 'shopped' way. This is a shot with only the levels tightened around the histogram and no further processing but for a resize:
Wood/Grain by bimmer1502, on Flickr
It's a wee bit unevenly developed which is likely due to my juice levels being on the, er, economical side. This problem doesn't show up when midtones prevail in the top side of the neg (such as grass etc.), that's how little it is. But at least it shows how little experience I have in film development - so please take my word with a grain of salt
All that said, trying to find ways of doing something that probably shouldn't be done is a lot of fun! I'll just have to see how repeatable this result is going to be and then it's on to see where I can improve upon it.
And now for the experts to shoot holes in my reasoning & result...
Cheers,
Derk
Peter_S
Peter_S
Syrian refugees in Armenia (http://cargocollective.com/peter_s/Refugees-in-Armenia)
Kentmere 400 (N+1) in DD-X.
Leica M7, Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50 and B+W yellow filter and Hasselblad X1 scan.
Kentmere 400 (N+1) in DD-X.
Leica M7, Zeiss ZM Sonnar 1.5/50 and B+W yellow filter and Hasselblad X1 scan.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
K400 at 400 in Rodinal 1+25 for 9 minutes. Leica IIIf with Jupiter-12
I'm failing to see that "excessive and ugly grain" many people say Kentmere400 has
I'm failing to see that "excessive and ugly grain" many people say Kentmere400 has
Alpsman
Well-known
I dont feel, that K400 is more grainy than HP5. Dryes flat like a board & so is very good for scanning. Also very cheap stuff too.
Filzkoeter
stray animal
Same setup as the picture above... only developed for 7:30 minutes this time:
I developed a roll of HP5 (6 min. Rodinal 1+25) along this roll; the grain is absolutely comparable.
I developed a roll of HP5 (6 min. Rodinal 1+25) along this roll; the grain is absolutely comparable.
Maiku
Maiku
Peter S. this photo is great. I love the grain. I have not bought a roll of the film yet. I think I will have to get a roll or two after reading various development techniques. Once again this photo is simple amazing.
Maiku
Maiku
I finally shot a roll of Kentmere 400. I rate the film at 400ISO. I developed the film in Illford ID-11 at 9 minutes at 21C. I agitated 6 times for 30 seconds. The film is supposed to be developed at 9 minutes 30 seconds at 20C. However, the temperature in Japan is about 35C plus humidity, so keeping the temperature constant is difficult.
My roll looks under-exposed. Either my camera`s meter is off (not likely) or I under-developed (most likely). I thnk another minute of development or over-exposing one stop would have been a good idea. There is little to no contrast. I only have a few worthwhile photos.
BTW Grain is fine with me and more experimentation needed.
Here they are!
My roll looks under-exposed. Either my camera`s meter is off (not likely) or I under-developed (most likely). I thnk another minute of development or over-exposing one stop would have been a good idea. There is little to no contrast. I only have a few worthwhile photos.
BTW Grain is fine with me and more experimentation needed.
Here they are!