Kentmere 100 : which developer

AOCo · Feb 12, 2013

I have recently bought some bulk Kentmere 100, mostly because Acros 100 is no longer available as bulk.

I would like to know which developer would get me fine grain similar to Acros 100 on this film. I was using
LC29 1+19 with great results, I wonder if anyone has experience with this film and could recommend a
specific soup.

Matthew Wagg · Feb 12, 2013

You won't go wrong with D76

pasltd · Feb 12, 2013

I just recently did a test with 2 different developers - Ilford Ilfosol 3 (results are a little bit grainy) and Arista Liquid dev (from freestylephoto = Clayton F60) with much better results. I am going to try HC110 as well.

BMbikerider · Feb 12, 2013

I have processed it in Rodinal, but for the Kentmere 100 the processing times given in Digital Truth is only if the film is rated at 50 ISO. Having said that I did use some at 50 and the results are superb with finer than expected grain.

For the 400 there are times for the full speed.

ntenny · Feb 12, 2013

I didn't like it much in HC-110 using the times in the MDC. The negatives seemed sort of in-between; kind of grainy but without a really "characterful" grain, not especially sharp in appearance, tonal scale just sort of ordinary-looking. Of course those are all the same complaints people often have about HC-110 itself, so it might be most accurate to say that the film didn't flatter the developer, rather than the other way round. I did get some images I liked---it's not like it ruined my photos, but it didn't make me say "I really like how this combination renders Property X", no matter what "property X" of the film/image I looked at.

I don't shoot much 35mm any more and never went back to Kentmere after that initial trial, but I would expect it to be at its best if you picked a "direction" to go with it: use Rodinal for the acutance and accept the grain, or use a fine-grain developer for smoothness and accept the loss of acutance, but don't try to do a balancing act between different characteristics. All IMHO, of course, and based on very limited experience.

-NT

AOCo · Feb 12, 2013

Thanks for the insights. My main worry as I do 35mm black and white (as opposed to larger formats), is to get
decent scans. Coarse grain at ISO400 yields very noisy scans few greys, whereas scanning Acros produces very detailed and subtle nuances. So I guess acutance is not so important.

Born2Late · Feb 12, 2013

I haven't tried Kentmere 100 yet but have some and will be trying it soon.

I've recently started using Photographers Formulary Divided D76 on a number of films and have been very pleased with the results. It seems very forgiving with very consistant results. You might want to give it a try.

jim appleyard · Feb 12, 2013

2nd D-76. Works well 1+1

subsole · Feb 13, 2013

There is no way to get the fine grain of the Fuji acros with the Kentmere 100.
Try Kodak T-max 100 or Ilford Delta 100 or Rollei Retro 80s.

Meanwhile try ID-11/D-76 stock solution for 9 minutes.

AOCo · Feb 13, 2013

I can very well imagine that Kentmere does not match Acros. In fact, all I need is good enough to get a decent scans.
I will definitely try D76. Thanks for your feedback !

AOCo · Feb 18, 2013

I just scanned my first two rolls, developed with what I had at hand (Ilfosol LC29).

I hadd one roll exposed at ISO100 and developed roughly (not taking too much care about time and temperature), and the second exposed at ISO 50 and carefully developed.

I can definitely see a difference in grain, and the latter shows rather fine grain, although still noticeable on a 2800 ppi scan. With a little bit of post-treatment in Lightroom,
however, this is very manageable. I am therefore rather pleased with this film. I will still try to reduce grain, but at least I have a workable solution currently.

wblynch · Feb 19, 2013

Embrace the grain. It is what makes film so special.

Jerevan · Feb 20, 2013

Xtol 1+1 - works a treat. I love the film but there is too little light for handheld, available-light photography around here most of the time. And you know, "the grain is supposed to be there".

ntenny · Feb 20, 2013

wblynch said:
Embrace the grain. It is what makes film so special.

You must have hated the late lamented Efke 25...

Seriously, there's a lot more to film than grain, or we'd all be seeking coarse grain preferentially. 35mm is a mighty small negative, and a level of grain that might be just great in medium format or invisible on a nice big sheet could be Just Plain Too Much in what the Germans very accurately call Kleinbildformat.

-NT

wblynch · Feb 20, 2013

ntenny said:
You must have hated the late lamented Efke 25...

Seriously, there's a lot more to film than grain, or we'd all be seeking coarse grain preferentially. 35mm is a mighty small negative, and a level of grain that might be just great in medium format or invisible on a nice big sheet could be Just Plain Too Much in what the Germans very accurately call Kleinbildformat.

-NT

No, it's just been too much about trying to eliminate grain. Grain is not the enemy. Without it film would not even work.

ntenny · Feb 20, 2013

wblynch said:
No, it's just been too much about trying to eliminate grain. Grain is not the enemy. Without it film would not even work.

Well, the OP did ask for fine grain like Acros, and with a film that isn't "natively" especially fine-grained that's going to mean seeking a development regime that minimizes the grain. I agree with you in the abstract, but if somebody says "I want to develop for fine grain", they probably won't be satisfied with the answer "don't do that". (And in the case of the Kentmere films my favorite answer, "shoot a larger format", doesn't apply either.)

Perceptol seems like a natural developer to try---I've seen people post nice-looking results with Kentmere 100 in it, and Ilford provides times on the data sheet.

-NT

AOCo · Feb 23, 2013

I don't mind a bit of grain, but sometimes, and especially in small format (35mm), when scanned with my tools, I prefer it fine, rather than coarse. Photography is about how the result looks, isn't it ?

Ko.Fe. · Mar 7, 2016

Jerevan said:
Xtol 1+1 - works a treat. I love the film but there is too little light for handheld, available-light photography around here most of the time. And you know, "the grain is supposed to be there".

I liked it in XTOL as well, but I don't like XTOL. It works OK in HC-110 B for me.

And, yes, if someone scan, grain will be here. But I prefer to print and on prints I didn't see grain of this film to be an issue.

It is neutral on prints. Not as lifeless as Ilford 100 Delta, not so "digital" as TMAX 100. But less pronunciation as it comes from HP4+.
I just ordered another 100ft for summer time. The light is coming!

jeffreythree · Mar 7, 2016

Old thread, but 510-pyro is giving me good, fine grained results with this film.

Xmas · Mar 7, 2016

jeffreythree said:
Old thread, but 510-pyro is giving me good, fine grained results with this film.

Yes '13 was not yesterday.
acros is (was) comparable with delta 100 in technology.
Developer does not make any significant difference.
OP picked the wrong film.
And he is a hybrid person.
Two strikes.

Jon Buffington · Mar 8, 2016

I am having great results with hc110, dil h, 13.5 minutes at 68 deg with light agitation first 30 sec and then every 2 minutes afterward.

Ko.Fe. · Mar 8, 2016

Thank you, Jon! Just in time for me.

Aleksej6 · Mar 8, 2016

I developer it once in D76 1+1. Honestly I don't like that film.

Jon Buffington · Mar 12, 2016

Ko.Fe. said:
Thank you, Jon! Just in time for me.

No problem. Here are a few examples with the above combo.

Of course these were scanned from the negs but you get the idea.

Ko.Fe. · Mar 13, 2016

Thank you, Jon!
Great negatives with this film good tonality range.

Kentmere 100 : which developer

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency