Kentmere 400 times in Xtol 1:1?

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 11, 2020

I just developed my first roll of Kentmere 400 in Xtol 1:1 for 12 minutes with three inversions every 30 seconds for agitation. The 12 minutes I got from the Massive Dev Chart.

The negatives came out a bit denser than I expected. I don’t think I’ve lost important highlight detail on this occasion, but I’m wondering if others have already pinned down a good regime for Kentmere 400 in Xtol before I develop my next roll.

I’ve got too many variables here: I was a bit casual with the temperature because I was in a rush, and I’m not 100% confident in my FM2n’s shutter.

The Kentmere 400 datasheet gives no clues about Xtol or the density I might expect from this film. I guess you pay for good documentation when you buy HP5 Plus or Delta 400 instead.

radiant · Feb 11, 2020

Samuel Dilworth said:
I just developed my first roll of Kentmere 400 in Xtol 1:1 for 12 minutes with three inversions every 30 seconds for agitation. The 12 minutes I got from the Massive Dev Chart.

Why every 30 seconds? I have always thought digitaltruth times are for agitations every 1 minutes, if not otherwise indicated.

Edit: their FAQ says "Agitation: Wherever possible times have been listed which rely on the standard technique of 30-60 seconds continuous agitation after immersion, followed by 5-10 seconds (three inversions) per minute thereafter." https://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?doc=faq

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 11, 2020

Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn’t realised the Massive Dev Chart times were for agitation every minute. I was using Kodak’s 30-second intervals as I normally do. That probably did increase the density/contrast a bit.

pentaxuser · Feb 11, 2020

Samuel Dilworth said:
I just developed my first roll of Kentmere 400 in Xtol 1:1 for 12 minutes with three inversions every 30 seconds for agitation. The 12 minutes I got from the Massive Dev Chart.

The negatives came out a bit denser than I expected. .

Interesting result, Samuel. In my little black processing book I have written down 13 minutes for Xtol 1+1 @ 20C and with Xtol I always use the Kodak agitation regime. I can't now recall if I have developed any Kentmere 400 at this time but I must have looked at what others on Photrio have said in other threads as well as the MDC and based on this decided that 13 mins is about right

What would help us to both comment on your 12 mins and your results would be a digital photo of the negs. It would look as if I may need to decrease my development time especially if a minute less at 12 mins is still too dense but your pics of your negs would help

You have said if you optically print or scan and print but if it is optical and you do optically print then a scan of the print would be helpful as well. If the negs are denser than you had expected then I'd expect that the best grade for the prints is likely to be less than 3 or even 2.5

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser · Feb 11, 2020

Just did a bit of searching on Photrio and there was an earlier thread back in 2010. In summary the times seem to centre around 12 mins but one member used 11mins but none of the contributors showed pics of the negatives or scans of optical prints.

At the time( nearly 10 years ago) there may have been little on MDC about Kentmere and Xtol but one members said that Rollei RPX 400 was Kentmere and the RPX time for Xtol 1+1 was 12 mins. It may have been that time that has established Kentmere and Xtol 1+1 at 12 mins

pentaxuser

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 11, 2020

pentaxuser said:
What would help us to both comment on your 12 mins and your results would be a digital photo of the negs. It would look as if I may need to decrease my development time especially if a minute less at 12 mins is still too dense but your pics of your negs would help

Easier said than done. I’m currently shooting and developing but not yet scanning or printing (by any method). I’m getting back into this after too long in the digital doldrums and have not yet decided on a scanning route, the options being fairly bewildering these days and expensive as ever. No darkroom.

I do have an Olympus E-M10 Mark II and 30 mm f/3.5 macro lens, but how would I hold the negative flat and light it from behind with household objects? I could rig something very crudely if you think that would help.

Don’t go changing your dev time just yet. My temperature might have been off. I started with the developer at 21°C because my kitchen is cold at this time of year, but then I feared the sink was cooling the steel tank too quickly between agitation cycles and held its bum in a hot-water bath from time to time. I was too rushed to set up a ~20°C bath as I prefer. For these reasons I’m not making any proclamations but asking what to do with my next roll of Kentmere 400.

Or maybe the negs are fine for this film. Hard to tell by eyeball when the datasheet gives no density clues anyway.

Thanks for your comments, pentaxuser.

pentaxuser · Feb 11, 2020

Samuel Dilworth said:
I do have an Olympus E-M10 Mark II and 30 mm f/3.5 macro lens, but how would I hold the negative flat and light it from behind with household objects? I could rig something very crudely if you think that would help.

I don't even own a digital camera so have never attempted this but as I understand it, placing the negs on a lightbox or against a window with some very thin white paper that allows sunlight through might do the job.

pentaxuser

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 11, 2020

No sunlight here at the moment. I balanced a neg strip on two glasses over my phone display and took a picture of a frame with typical density.

Any use whatsoever? Click for bigger.

MattKing · Feb 11, 2020

We don't need to see the negatives scanned. We just need to see how they look.
If you have a computer or cel phone just have it display a blank screen (blank.org is the web site I use) and either lay the negatives on it or hold them/tape them against it and take a lowish resolution photo. You don't have to ensure flatness.
The photo you showed is okay, but that is too complex a setup.
If that photo is accurate, I would say that your negatives are considerably over-developed.
Here is a link to an article on Assessing Negatives that isn't perfect, but is still helpful: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/assessing-negatives-4682

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 12, 2020

I tried laying the film on a screen before and got a strong pixel pattern in the photo, but okay. I’ll maybe try again later.

I remember waving an incident meter in the air for the photo above, so exposure should have been good … if my shutter was good.

I’m starting to think the average temperature of the developer must have been significantly over 20°C.

The roll wasn’t important except for being my first Kentmere 400, although there were some photos of me getting my hair cut in the living room that I would have preferred to be less dense.

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 12, 2020

Right, I tipped over my iMac and laid the negs on the screen at full brightness on a white page. This is the result:

The dark frames like the one I showed earlier were given full exposure, whether metered with an incident meter or my FM2n’s built-in TTL meter against an estimated mid-tone. Frames 29–32 were given one-third stop more exposure than an incident meter indicated.

The much thinner frames are mainly underexposed hand-held shots with not enough light. For example, frame 23 is some crane lights against a night sky, shot through a window. Frame 28 was exposed for the light through the slats of another window. Frame 33 was a hand-held street at night from above.

I guess I’ll try again with 12 minutes, agitation on the whole minute, and a strict 20°C before wasting much more effort on this.

Huub · Feb 12, 2020

They do look a bit on the contrasty side indeed. That might have many causes, like a not very accurate thermometer or a light meter not functioning properly and also agitation might add a bit. When you want substantially less contrast, you need to reduce at least 25% in your development time. Remember the data on the MDC are only suggestions, often from unknown and unverified sources. Developing your onw films should result in negatives that suit your individual needs. I would suggest in trying 9 or 10 min for the next film with this camera, using the same thermometer and trying to make sure the developing temperature is close to 20 C. as only reducing agitation won't reduce the contrast that much.

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 12, 2020

The thermometer is Paterson’s small (13–30°C) model. It has not given me cause for concern with other film.

I just downloaded an iOS app called Shutter-Speed that uses the phone’s microphone to record the sound of a camera shutter and then presents the waveform and a basic measurement tool. It shows that my FM2n shutter speeds are at most about 1/3 stop out, although this method doesn’t work for speeds shorter than about 1/125 s.

The Sekonic incident meter and my camera’s built-in meter agree with each other almost perfectly, so I doubt they’re off much either.

This leaves my own temperature control that I readily admit was sloppy on this occasion – maybe a lot sloppier than I imagined, based on these results.

I’ll report back after I develop a second roll of Kentmere 400, this time with careful temperature control.

btaylor · Feb 12, 2020

I second the idea of a much greater reduction in development time, like 25% to see a significant change.
But shouldn’t you check your shutter speed accuracy? I got a cheap shutter speed tester a few years ago and find it invaluable. I found errors up to 2 stops in shutters that look and sound just fine (one of the worst had just been sent in for a cla with a specific complaint of a slow shutter). As long as the errors are consistent and repeatable I make up a little cheat sheet for each one.

Samuel Dilworth · Feb 12, 2020

We may have cross-posted, btaylor. I checked the shutter with a smartphone app. The app doesn’t work at high speeds but improved my confidence that the shutter isn’t too far out, because it was the slow speeds that sounded wrong to me. Some of them are indeed slow, but by no more than one-third of a stop.

MattKing · Feb 12, 2020

The exposure looks decent, but the development looks to be too much.
Remember, within a fairly wide range, exposure controls how the shadows appear, while development controls the contrast and how the mid-tones and highlights appear.

Kentmere 400 times in Xtol 1:1?

Samuel Dilworth

radiant

Samuel Dilworth

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

Samuel Dilworth

pentaxuser

Samuel Dilworth

MattKing

Moderator

Samuel Dilworth

Samuel Dilworth

Huub

Samuel Dilworth

btaylor

Samuel Dilworth

MattKing

Moderator

Kentmere 400 times in Xtol 1:1?

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency