Yes Andy, I'm sure you would be able to wring the good and the bad out of the film. So far I see a lot of good in it and very little bad. It does have a slightly darker base color/fog to it. At least it's darker in D76 1+1. I'm scanning some right now and it's a dream to scan since it has very little curl to it. I'm going to try Pyrocat-HDC next, but D761+1 for 11:30 @ 68f works fantastic with this film. With the two cameras I used I just did the "Sunny 16" thing on a bright sunny day with a few clouds. I used ISO 100 as my setting and things look to be very good. Next roll or two will be with my spotmeter.I need to start playing around with that film...
Yes Andy, I'm sure you would be able to wring the good and the bad out of the film. So far I see a lot of good in it and very little bad. It does have a slightly darker base color/fog to it. At least it's darker in D76 1+1. I'm scanning some right now and it's a dream to scan since it has very little curl to it. I'm going to try Pyrocat-HDC next, but D761+1 for 11:30 @ 68f works fantastic with this film. With the two cameras I used I just did the "Sunny 16" thing on a bright sunny day with a few clouds. I used ISO 100 as my setting and things look to be very good. Next roll or two will be with my spotmeter.
I just ordered some Kentmere 400 from Freestyle and see that the Kentmere 100 in 120 is out-of-stock. I haven't shot the 400 yet, but I'd say it is more than likely the very same base. I did notice that I have a couple of "cresent" marks on my negatives from some ornery reels.I wonder if its on the same base as the 400 version? It too has a darker base colour and higher base fog. Maybe I'll take a couple of rolls over to Japan with me...
I bought a few rolls of the 35mm 400 version a while ago and finally got around to using some of them. As others have mentioned, the film dries flat which makes for easy scanning. But pulling it out of the cassette in the changing bag the exposed film has a significant curl. It was bad enough that a couple of times I kinked it starting it onto the Hewes reel. I can't remember any of my other 35mm film stocks being this bad. Regardless, I liked the results well enough to buy a 100' roll. I hope that, not being spooled as tightly as in a 35mm cassette, it will be easier to handle. We'll see.
Here are some examples:
This is Kentmere 100 35mm in my Zorki 4 with Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.5/35mm:
Kentmere 400 120 in my Pentacon Six TL with Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/50mm:
Here are some examples:
This is Kentmere 100 35mm in my Zorki 4 with Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.5/35mm:
Kentmere 400 120 in my Pentacon Six TL with Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/50mm:
Here are a couple of shots from the 4th of July at the lake. The first two were taken with a 1915 Kodak folding No.1 with a Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Cooke f6.3 lens in an Optimo shutter. The last three are with my Minolta Autocord TLR. No meter, just Sunny 16 at either f8 or some at f11. That old Kodak with the Cooke triplet lens did a fine job for a 108 year old camera. I do have to set the focus stop a little different since the Kodak front focuses slightly. I should add that these were scanned on my Nikon LS8000 and are straight scans with no processing or sharpening.
This was just a quick look-see as to how the film performed. No metering also has probably made a big difference. I just loaded another roll into my Zeiss Super Ikonta C and will do all my metering at box speed. I'm going to wait for my order of Kentmere 400 120 to get here before I do any formal testing of either. I have heard some folks say that the old Ultrafine Extreme film from the Warehouse was Kentmere 100 and 400, but I don't know about that. I don't remember that Ultrafine Extreme had this dark of a base+fog?I've exposed about two hundred feet each of Kentmere 100 & 400 in 35mm and both perform admirably at box speed. It doesn't push as quite as well as their premium films, with +2 being the practical limit.
It sounds like you'd be better served by the 400 speed in the lighting conditions you described.
Yes, I thought it was directed at me. Thanks for clarifying that for me.@John Wiegerink there's a good chance @Bronson Dugnutt 's reply was not directed at you, but was a response to a post I deleted. Just FYI.
Yes, I thought it was directed at me. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
Nice ones.
I would expect it to be more likely the spectral sensitivity of the film or the mismatch of your filters to each other. But could be a combination of all of the above.I opted for 400 today to help offset the filter factor. My Pentax 645N overexposes the blue channel by at least one stop... I wonder if all of them do that.
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?