Andy, always look forward to your videos. I tend to develop everything in XTOL stock, kinda boring.
I use the infernal Jobo machines that agitate the daylights out of things.
I wonder if your classical approach to agitation doesn't have a great effect?
The way you agitate without all the inversions or the constant rolling, has to make a huge impact.
I grew up learning from my father, the side to side figure 8 pattern was how we did it. No inversions at all. Always got good results.
Best Regards Mike
Thank you for continuing to make great videos. I liked Pyrocat HDC the most of the scans and FX39 the most of the wet prints.
I thought that Xtol's excellent preservation of shadow detail was actually a drawback here artistically, because it made the tree too bright and less dramatic. Of course, all of this can be adjusted with optical printing contrast or digital curves, which makes the developer's contrast curve less significant to me. With this in mind I'd tend to go with the option that preserves a good amount of fine detail - but all of these options seem capable enough of that, realistically.
Dev times determined by extrapolating and experience. Yes, densitometre was used. Dmax/min and DR written on the negatives starting at 0:33 in the video.
Hello Mike,
The reason I mentioned ID11 was because it's the developer that Ilford base their ISO/ ASA ratings rather than a criticism of D23.
Therefore I think ID11 or D-76 would have been a good yardstick to compare the other developers with. The dilution of 1+1 seems to be the most common way of using D-76/ID11.
All the developers tried have their merits and Andrew has been kind enough to share his findings.
Thanks; I missed that. I probably also missed why the HD measurement on the Pyrocat negatives was missing. I think it's relevant to note that there are considerable differences in the total length of the tonal scale (>0.3logD between the extremes), which I think needs to be kept in mind when interpreting the results. I think differences like those in practice are pretty much inevitable if you run this kind of text, so don't take this as criticism.
Density data left out for Pyrocat, as my densitometre cannot measure the stain, sadly.
Tests like this are worthless unless all the negatives are developed to the same contrast level. The differences can be attributed to differences in dilution, etc.Here's the video I promised. Hey, I even set up my old Fujimoto enlarger and contact printed the negatives!
@retina_restoration I have to agree with you. I find that TMX / TMY in D-23 1:1 out perform Kentmere by a wide margin. Of course there is a large price difference. As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for. I think I will just use the rest mine for testing for light leaks and such tasks.
You cannot put Kentmere films in the same league as Tmax, Delta films... Regardless, the Kentmere's (especially the 400), can readily stand on their own.
Oh, I agree with you, Andy — it wasn't my intention to compare K-pan with TMY/TMX or any other film. They are their own animals.
But I did want to express my findings. It can do a decent job, but it depends on what you need from your film work. For me, it was inadequate due to its lack of tonal separation and underperformance in the sharpness department. I'm used to working with the Tmax and Delta films, and so the K-pan just doesn't do what I need it to do.
It's a perfectly acceptable film for casual/student work when budget trumps other concerns. But I won't be buying it again. It's just not for me.
A second frame, post-processing. What struck me was how much more I had to finesse the image to extract some tonal definition from the image, much mores than any other film I use. But as you can see, it is possible to get a respectable image from K-pan 200.
Far enough... The Tmax films are stellar. I still use them (roll, and 4x5), but only sparingly (not so sparingly with the Ilford films, though) May I ask what EI you used for the Kentmere 200? I get pretty nice tonal separation at EI 125. EI 250 for the 400. I also find the 400 to deliver excellent tonal separation, and good sharpness (sharper than the 200, which I found odd).
Yup. The price model is very different up here. We do not have an official distributor for Kodak films. Hence the higher price. I asked a local shop if they could bring in some TMY 120, and they told me that they get it at retail (from shops like B&H can you believe it!), then slap on their profit. I was told this a few years ago. I was just in the shop earlier in the week, and they do have some colour rolls, but the only B&W on the shelf was Tri-X 35 and 120. Heaps of Ilford, and a few other films. This probably explains why I started hoarding film about 5 years ago...and the hoarding has not stopped!
Until this year, I always chose Ilford films over Kodak, simply because of the price: for the longest time, a 120 roll of Delta 100 was about $8 here, whereas Tmax 100 was about $12. This year, the prices switched, and now it's the Ilford films that are $11.50 and $12.50, where the Kodak equivalents are between $8 and $9 per roll.
I really like the Ilford Delta films, so the only reason I'm not leaning into Tmax is the price.
As for hoarding film, I no longer cache 120 film beyond what I expect to use within 2 years (basically riding the expiration date wave), because I have seen too much of the "wrapper offset" problem to ever want that experience again. If a 120 roll has been in the fridge since the day I got it, then I will sometimes let it go 6 months past its date before I use it, but I really try to avoid that.
Sheet films, on the other hand, I maintain a cache of as much as I can afford. Sheet films don't expire like 120 roll films. I've used FP4 that was 12 years past its stale date (twas a gift) and it had no issues at all, aside from a very slight increase in base fog.
[As the old saying goes, you get what you pay for.
Yup. The price model is very different up here. We do not have an official distributor for Kodak films. Hence the higher price. I asked a local shop if they could bring in some TMY 120, and they told me that they get it at retail (from shops like B&H can you believe it!), then slap on their profit.
Until this year, I always chose Ilford films over Kodak, simply because of the price: for the longest time, a 120 roll of Delta 100 was about $8 here, whereas Tmax 100 was about $12. This year, the prices switched, and now it's the Ilford films that are $11.50 and $12.50, where the Kodak equivalents are between $8 and $9 per roll.
I really like the Ilford Delta films, so the only reason I'm not leaning into Tmax is the price.
As for hoarding film, I no longer cache 120 film beyond what I expect to use within 2 years (basically riding the expiration date wave), because I have seen too much of the "wrapper offset" problem to ever want that experience again. If a 120 roll has been in the fridge since the day I got it, then I will sometimes let it go 6 months past its date before I use it, but I really try to avoid that.
Sheet films, on the other hand, I maintain a cache of as much as I can afford. Sheet films don't expire like 120 roll films. I've used FP4 that was 12 years past its stale date (twas a gift) and it had no issues at all, aside from a very slight increase in base fog.
Must be down to tariffs on Ilford films.
If Kentmere (or Fomapan or Lucky, etc) represents a bargain to you, that's fine. But it is often very true that when you pay more for a certain product, you are getting a better product, hence "YGWYPF". Sometimes the cheaper product involves accepting certain compromises, and not everyone is willing to work within those parameters.I've always hated that phrase. It denies the existence of bargains and good deals, or conversely, it denies the existence of overpriced crap.
Trying to stay on topic, at least where I live Kentmere films are priced cheaper than Fomapan. I have never heard anyone claim that Kentmere is technically inferior to Fomapan.
Now I need to take a closer look at Kentmere 100 and Fomapan 100... Thanks a lot @retina_restoration
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?