Kentmere 100

[koraks]

The negs came out heavy, much denser than my usual Tri-X, Double-X, FP 4 Plus

Sounds like a development error.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Maybe, but I don't think so. I've developed A LOT of 35mm film in D-76 over the last 60 years. I put some TX (also shot in the OM-2) through the same batch of developer about a week earlier and got normal results.



In any case, it was an experiment I had to try. I see that other folks have gotten better results that I did with this film/developer combo, so who knows?

 

[koraks]

I've developed A LOT of 35mm film in D-76 over the last 60 years

But not a lot of Kentmere 100. The dense negatives sound like either overexposure or overdevelopment, both of them quite significant. It's not an intrinsic property of the film to yield ridiculously dense negatives, so some form of user error has occurred.

 

[MattKing]

It isn't necessarily user error. It may be that the development time recommendation is poor. What source did you base your chosen development time on?
If it was the MDC, that would explain it.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Maybe I screwed up, but I don't think so. And I didn't say they were "ridiculously dense" negs, just surprisingly heavier than I'm used to getting.

The meter in my OM-2 is excellent, and I set it at ASA 100 and shot in Auto. Using Auto at box speed has yielded entire rolls of perfect negs with other film stocks. So I don't think I overexposed.

I consulted both the film's spec sheet and the Massive Dev Chart - both said 11:30 at 68 for D-76 1:1. I gave the film 12 minutes at 69 degrees with twice-a-minute agitation. Yes, that's an extra minute at that temp - because the D-76 stock solution was already a couple of months old (but okay, not yet turning brown). I always do this when the developer's not uber-fresh (I did it on that roll of TX too). Anyway, one added minute on a development time this long isn't enough to overdevelop with a traditional tech (not TMX-type) film. And the edge numbers look perfect, not dark or bleedy. So I don't think I overdeveloped.

Anyway, I'm not losing any sleep over this. I'm just not rushing to shoot the Kentmere again.

 

[koraks]

I understand the exposure/development thing and I agree that the 1 minute additional development time wouldn't account for really high density. My 'ridiculous' density is mostly based on how the scans look, which look much like what you get when trying to scan through really excessive density, with odd digital artefacts and banding. What kind of scanner was this, and have you tried actually wet printing these negatives? Perhaps they're better than you think?

 

[npl]

11:30 (or 12min) is indeed the time listed for D76 1:1 in all datasheets (kentmere, RPX, APX).

Most of your shots looks like they were in contrasty light. I got punchy negs before with this film in theses light condition using developement time that should've been OK, so my understanding is that K100 doesn't handle highlights that well and may need shorter developement times than listed if shot in contrasty situations.

 

[Brad Deputy]

D76 typically increases in strength as it ages.

I have had overdevelopment issues on batches just months old. (Fixed by filling smaller bottles instead of a gallon jug)

 

[albireo]

Attracted by its low price, I recently shot a test roll of Kentmere Pan 100 in my OM-2n. I developed in D-76 1:1, and I gotta say, I'm underwhelmed with the results.

The negs came out heavy, much denser than my usual Tri-X, Double-X, FP 4 Plus, etc., negs. And while the grain is indeed pretty fine, sharpness is lacking and contrast/gradation is muddy. I scanned the negs at 2400dpi (and yeah, I love the lack of curl) and despite postprocessing futzing, the images are kind of meh:

View attachment 344690 View attachment 344691 View attachment 344692 View attachment 344693 View attachment 344694

If I were a real film burner, I might consider using this film sometimes for "less critical" work. But I don't shoot much - maybe ten rolls of film a year - so I'm going to stick with my old standbys. Don't get me wrong: we NEED an emulsion that costs half of what Tri-X is going for now, and I can see how this film would be great for students and casual shooters. But I'll keep shooting my old faves.

Nothing personal at all, but these are sub-par scans of (very likely) extremely underexposed and over-developed negatives. Kentmere 100 is not at fault here. Also, I would personally be able to draw 0 conclusions from testing only 1 roll of a film. Try 10 times the amount, and take notes. Try different cameras and be consistent with your metering.

Also, most of the the MDC times are off.

You say 'I can see how this film would be great for students and casual shooters". Again, pretty strong conclusions to be drawn from one ill-fated roll.

 

[BMbikerider]

I'm beginning to really like this film. I bought 15 rolls of 120 the first chance I had and put it through D-76 1+1 with excellent results. It might have a lighter layer of anti-halation, but I find it works great in an old folding Kodak and my Minolta Autocord. I'll scan a few negatives when I can and post them here. Oh, and I like the price also!

I have never had a problem with this 'budget' priced film. I don't use D76, but it's English cousin ID11 diluted 1-1 and it works for me. 12x16 enlargements are no problem with minimal grain and with the camera used on a tripod to eliminate 'shake' do you really need anything else?
The post No 25 does not bear out my finding and while it does not have kudos of Ilford FP4 or Kodak TMax Unless you create really large prints you would be pushed to check the difference. We have a saying on this side of the pond- "A bad workman always blames his tools". Or we could put it down to it being his first roll and inexperience how to handle it.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I have no doubt that I could get good prints - much better than the scans - out of these negatives... If I were set up for darkroom printing, which alas, I'm not these days. (I have my parents trusty Omega D-3, but don't really have a good spot to set it up... And besides, I never show prints to anyone anymore, if I made a print, I'd immediately scan it, to get the JPG on the web/phone.)

Thanks to all of you for your input. Some great, valid comments, and I appreciate it.

For me, trying one roll of this film was enough. As I said above, I just wanted to try it out of curiosity. I don't shoot enough film these days (typically only eight or nine rolls annually) to really need to save a few bucks on film stock. I'll stick with my old standbys.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Well, not everyone likes broccoli either. I just wanted to try it (Kentmere 120) to see how it worked for me. I was pretty happy with my first try of the Kentmere 100. So much so that I bought more and also bought some Kentmere 400 to try. I have loaded two backs for my Hasselblad, one with ISO 100 and one with ISO 400. I also have a back loaded with Delta 400 and will shoot that alongside the Kentmere 400 just to compare. I got very good results with D76 1+1 for 11:30 @ 68F. and one minute agitation intervals, but will either use Xtol-R or Pyrocat HDC for this test. I just haven't decided which one yet. I'll post a comparison when I'm finished with the informal test.

 

[Tim Stapp]

Well, not everyone likes broccoli either. I just wanted to try it (Kentmere 120) to see how it worked for me. I was pretty happy with my first try of the Kentmere 100. So much so that I bought more and also bought some Kentmere 400 to try. I have loaded two backs for my Hasselblad, one with ISO 100 and one with ISO 400. I also have a back loaded with Delta 400 and will shoot that alongside the Kentmere 400 just to compare. I got very good results with D76 1+1 for 11:30 @ 68F. and one minute agitation intervals, but will either use Xtol-R or Pyrocat HDC for this test. I just haven't decided which one yet. I'll post a comparison when I'm finished with the informal test.

Since I'm just getting the DR set up after our move to Big Rapids, I may have to try some of the Kentmere films. I just wish that it was available in 4x5. I'd like to standardize across formats.

I've always used XTOL, but given the recent SINO Promise issues, I my have to go the route of home brew D76.

I still intend to use LPD for my prints. I pray that they don't go under.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Maybe I screwed up, but I don't think so. And I didn't say they were "ridiculously dense" negs, just surprisingly heavier than I'm used to getting.

I'm a lifelong Tri-X guy, who is shooting Kentmere 100 now. (Both in 120 roll film.) At some point, maybe 20 years ago, I thought I should give HP5 a try. The negatives looked thin and lacked the kind of kick or contrast I had come to expect with Tri-X. And I never shot HP5 again.

I don't think there was anything wrong with HP5. I think that over time you tune your process to your materials. And when you change your materials, your results will probably disappoint.

So I get your frustration with the film. But it's not the film's fault. It's a spectacular product. I am very happy shooting it. If you want to try it again, I would suggest trying to stand-process a roll in Rodinal. It is a great way to process Kentmere, and it will tend to even out variations in metering and exposure.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Since I'm just getting the DR set up after our move to Big Rapids, I may have to try some of the Kentmere films. I just wish that it was available in 4x5. I'd like to standardize across formats.

I've always used XTOL, but given the recent SINO Promise issues, I my have to go the route of home brew D76.

I still intend to use LPD for my prints. I pray that they don't go under.

Tim,
I actually fibbed a little when I said either Xtol-R or Pyrocat-HDC. It will be either Adox XT-3 or Pyrocat-HDC. I felt the same way about the recent "on again - off again" Xtol problem and when It came time for a new batch of Xtol-R I decided to give Adox XT-3 a go. I must say it is excellent and much, much easier to mix than Xtol. I'm using pretty much the same times and getting that Xtol quality to boot. I'd give it a try Tim and I think you'll like it.