developing Kentmere 400 in Rodinal

[krisb1981]

I have shot a roll of a leftover Kentmere 400 at ISO 200. I want to process it in Rodinal as this is what I have at this moment. What would be a good way to do it? The chart lists K400 at 1/25 for 17 minutes, but does not say anything about 200.

 

[Tom1956]

You know it's going to be super grainy, don't you?

 

[erikg]

Scenes of average contrast? Cut the development time by 30% or so. Rodinal 1:50. As Tom said: there will be grain. K400 is pretty grainy anyway.

 

[krisb1981]

Yeah I realise that it will be grainy, but it was the last roll I had and I didnt want to throw it out. Scenes are of average contrast. I Will try your method. Thanks

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Agree, 30% pullback in development time. And yes, here comes the GRAIN.

 

[Tom1956]

Could just about develop normally in Microdol or Perceptol !:3 and have pretty pictures. Then keep the Perceptol for everything from now on.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I would develop it normal. If the light was of average contrast, you end up making low contrast negatives if you under-develop 30%. Is that what you want?

All you grain peepers out there - there's more to a film developer than its graininess, haven't you heard?

 

[MDR]

I agree with Thomas and what is it with the anti grain movement that seems to have reached APUG. Grain is our friend it gives the photo a human touch and organic feel as opposed to a overly perfect look without soul.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

My answer was based in experience with this film, shooting it at about 200-320 and developing in Rodinal. And if he plans to scan the negs at all he definitely wants to pull back on development time. Just my opinion based on my experience.

 

[TheToadMen]

Hi Krisb,
Could you post some images here, when developed? I would like to see how it looks.
Grain can be beautiful.
Her you'll find some tips/examples: http://filmdev.org/recipe/search?search=kentmere+400+rodinal
Thanks,
Bert

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I agree with Thomas and what is it with the anti grain movement that seems to have reached APUG. Grain is our friend it gives the photo a human touch and organic feel as opposed to a overly perfect look without soul.

I'm not against grain but that film, overexposed, and in that developer is gonna get a whole buncha' very evident grain.

 

[Tom1956]

You don't have to be a "pixel peeper" to see the grain from Rodinal. That stuff makes a grainy mess of everything. I hate to think of what it will do to the OP's film. It'll ruin it.

 

[krisb1981]

I mostly shoot Acros 100 and Rodinal seems to work good for that.

 

[baachitraka]

I was developing Fomapan 400 with Rodinal 1+50 for 15 mins, 3 inversions @every 5th minute. Grain is unique and beautiful.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

You don't have to be a "pixel peeper" to see the grain from Rodinal. That stuff makes a grainy mess of everything. I hate to think of what it will do to the OP's film. It'll ruin it.

You are just determined to force your wildly misguiding information on everybody that wants to use Rodinal, aren't you?!

Ralph Gibson might not agree with you, for example.

Grain is not everything.

 

[MartinP]

I use Rodinal at 1:50 with APX100 and it doesn't produce rough grain at all, in fact it is barely visible even in 135 on a 40cm print. The developer changes it's behaviour markedly with dilution, agitation and temperature giving useful flexibility in changing the results from any specific film. Clearly some films are heavier in grain structure than others, but you can still modify your results using this developer in different ways.

When I've used Ilford Pan400 (only a five roll pack, but I'm making a wild guess that it is similar to the Kentmere) the development has been in ID11 at 1:1. The grain and contrast reminded me strongly of TriX in the same developer. Many people like the effect of Rodinal with that film - it can be a pleasing result. Don't agitate as hard as you would with ID11 and do let us know how it turns out. Remember too that a darkroom print usually does not look as rough as a scan might do.

 

[Tom1956]

You are just determined to force your wildly misguiding information on everybody that wants to use Rodinal, aren't you?!

Ralph Gibson might not agree with you, for example.

Grain is not everything.

Sorry if I annoyed. I guess some things in this world totally escape me as to how they managed to become so popular. Rodinal is one, and the sushi craze totally defies the mind. It's RAW fish, for pete's sake--full of parasites, worms, and an almost certain night of making a home of the toilet bowl. Yet, people eat it. It's just crazy. I like beef and I like it cooked, with a little Microdol sauce, maybe.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Sorry if I annoyed. I guess some things in this world totally escape me as to how they managed to become so popular. Rodinal is one, and the sushi craze totally defies the mind. It's RAW fish, for pete's sake--full of parasites, worms, and an almost certain night of making a home of the toilet bowl. Yet, people eat it. It's just crazy. I like beef and I like it cooked, with a little Microdol sauce, maybe.

Have you ever considered that maybe you are the crazy one? Have you seen how long people live in Japan? I'm joking, but they live a lot longer than Americans.

I try not to get personal, but if you want to give someone advice that is useful, focus on the question they want answered, instead of pushing your personal distaste for something on them. If you want credibility.
What does Rodinal do besides being slightly grainier than D76? Tonality, shadow detail, curve shape? What happens when you change agitation? Etc etc etc. that is useful information.

In the case of developing negatives, the goal must be to make negatives of contrast and tones that make a good print, no?
So, if normal contrast is recorded normal developing time should be used.
If the neg turns put a little grainy, so what?! A low contrast neg has to be bumped in contrast anyway, and there's your grain again.

That's why I recommend normal development for normal contrast, irrespective of how the film was exposed (not including push processing).
Low contrast lighting benefits from less exposure and more development, and high contrast lighting benefits from more exposure and a bit less development.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thomas,
I couldn't agree more! I have used some really good fine-grain developers to try to make large prints from Tri-X and found, as good as Tri-X was, it just didn't cut it. Now if I used HC110 dil. B, ID11 and didn't over-agitate I had prints I liked much better. Not grain free, but not mush either. I even went on a bender with Edwals FG7 for about a year or so. You could make your stock with just water or add 15% sulfite to it for "so called" fine grain. As many times as I tried I could never get prints I really liked with the 15% sulfite addition. Back then I never used Rodinal, much for the same reason Tom1956 talks about. Of course I never tried it then and only went by hearsay. Now, I love the stuff and it's one of my favorites with Acros 120 and even Tmax 100. The nicest thing about Rodinal is it is VERSATILE and the next best thing is that it lasts forever. I think if a person played with agitation, time and dilution you could develop almost any film to your liking. I used to be a grain sniffer, but not anymore. Of course I don't shoot much 35mm and that makes a lot of difference as far as noticeable grain goes. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

In July I hung three prints in a small local group show. They were 8x18" prints from 35mm Tri-X negatives, developed in Rodinal. Cropped negs, even. Rodinal 1+25.

Quite a few people attended the show, and one of them was Sid Kaplan, who printed stuff for Weegee, Cartier-Bresson, and others. He told me that the prints looked really good, we had a great conversation, and he did stop by them for a pretty long time. I thought that was a nice compliment from one of the best printers to walk the earth.

Do you think he mentioned grain? If you stare yourself too blind on grain, you miss all the good stuff. In the end it doesn't even matter much, and mostly it's just paranoid photographers that care.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Right on the money Thomas! Sometimes we worry about things that really don't need to be worried about. Nice picture of you two. I didn't think you were that old? Oh, you're the big, tall Scandinavian on the right. Ha! Ha! good job and a good reward for hard work.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I had no idea much of anybody read much of anything I post on here. Guess it goes to show be careful what you post, because people do read it. I try to keep my posts constructive, but sometimes we all slip. In conclusion, Microdol X was a fine developer. I'm sorry Kodak dropped it. It was practically grainless and sharp as a tack. And so forgiving on the shoulder end of the curve. Good stuff. Regards.

MicrodolX was good stuff just like Perceptol is, but when I used a fast film I usually was using it for speed. Microdol/Perceptol were speed cutters with Tri-X. At least it was that way for me. Now I use Perceptol 1:3 and find that with TMY2 and Acros I can get pretty close to box speed, but developing times are rather long. JohnW

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I had no idea much of anybody read much of anything I post on here. Guess it goes to show be careful what you post, because people do read it. I try to keep my posts constructive, but sometimes we all slip. In conclusion, Microdol X was a fine developer. I'm sorry Kodak dropped it. It was practically grainless and sharp as a tack. And so forgiving on the shoulder end of the curve. Good stuff. Regards.

You can still buy it from Freestyle. See here.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/749710-LegacyPro-Mic-X-Film-Developer-to-Make-1-Gallon

Same stuff. I use their Eco Pro, which is Xtol and it's the same for all practical purposes.

People do read your posts, Tom. And they are never erased. They are searchable by future Internet users. I was told once to write Internet posts as if they were letters to my boss. While I don't comply with that, I do think a bit about what future readers will see.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Right on the money Thomas! Sometimes we worry about things that really don't need to be worried about. Nice picture of you two. I didn't think you were that old? Oh, you're the big, tall Scandinavian on the right. Ha! Ha! good job and a good reward for hard work.

Yeah, I look very old for age 41.

 

[hdeyong]

Congratulations, Thomas.
I agree, my motto is "I'd rather have a decent negative of a good image than a good negative of a decent image."
Of course, you do your best at the time, but it's the image that counts.