I have a roll of the 400 and a roll of HP5 that I bought just for purposes of comparison. Once I get around to shooting them, I'll post what happens. Anything in particular anyone wants me to shoot? I plan on shooting a Macbeth Color Checker, without filters, and then with whatever filters I can find. I will have some extra frames, so I will probably shoot a grey card bracketed as well. I think the Orbiculight (or "Oh, Bitchin' Light", as we like to call it) in the school studio where I used to go (and now tutor) will be an OK light source. It uses daylight-balanced fluorescents. I would like to do the tests outdoors, but I do not want to introduce the variable of sun position when comparing two emulsions.
Kentmere film "?" Maybe Mr. Galley will know.
-
A
- Thread starter JMC1969
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Kowa Six with 110mm macro lens.
- Started by campy51
-
Sold Heliopan 112mm red filter
- Started by Steve Goldstein
-
For Sale FS: Plaubel Supra 10x15 cm Back + Plate Holders
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Sinar Norma 8x10 - 4x5 Reducing Adapter
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Photo Paper
- Started by Peter Schrager
Forum statistics
2F/2F,
This post actually came as a secondary thought to a test I was doing between developers and HP5+ was the other film used. If it would help in this thread I will post side by side if you like.
Link: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Actually. quickly,
Same exposure,same camera, same developer, etc....
Kentmere 400
Ilford HP5+
Based on those scans we can rule out that HP5+ and Kentmere 400 are the same film.
The Kentmere film seems to have less green sensitivity.
The Kentmere film seems to have less green sensitivity.
The Kentmere 400 film also appears to have been developed to a lower contrast, or exhibits a distinct characteristic curve compared to HP5 Plus.
Tom.
Tom.
While I doubt they're the same film - I also doubt we can say they aren't the same film just because of those 2 scans. Match the general exposure indexes of both of them and then let's compare.
I'm not 100% on what you mean by general exposure indexes, but I will take a stab that you would like to see the CHARACTERISTIC CURVES/density curves of each side by side. The Kentmere data sheet I have does not include this curve, however I feel based on the testing I did that these are certainly two different films. Both the Kentmere and the Ilford were processed at the same time, in the same tank, but give different results.
I will post the two contact scans side/side here:
As well, Ilford gives these two films much different development times. The Kentmere 400 data sheet gives:
Microphen Stock metered @ 400 8mins @ 68°F/20°C
D-76 Stock " 9½mins@ "
HP5+ Data Sheet:
Microphen Stock metered @ 400 6½mins "
D-76 " " 7½mins "
Hope this helps.
I think they are more likely to be repackaged Ilford 100 and Ilford 400, rather than FP4+ and HP5+, aren't they?
I'd better re-phrase that, since Simon Galley has already said they are not repackaged Ilford films! based on Ilford 100 and 400, rather than FP4+ and HP5+, maybe?
I can't get either film for comparison. Although they are all manufactured just up the road from me, 100 and 400 are very difficult to track down in the UK and I don't think Kentmere film has emerged at all, yet!
Last edited by a moderator:
If you go back to near the beginning of the thread (there was a url link here which no longer exists)
Ian
Ian
Welp, since it was the same tank, and assuming the light was nearly constant for the time you were shooting, then they are different emulsions for sure. I think we all just want to know *exactly how* they are different.
The test only does one thing: It shows that they are different emulsions. What it does not show is each one developed to roughly the same contrast. According to manufacturer's published times, the Kentmere has been underdeveloped by over 20%, which is a significant amount. We'd need to see them at the same general contrast to compare them aesthetically.
The test only does one thing: It shows that they are different emulsions. What it does not show is each one developed to roughly the same contrast. According to manufacturer's published times, the Kentmere has been underdeveloped by over 20%, which is a significant amount. We'd need to see them at the same general contrast to compare them aesthetically.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why let a little detail like that ruin a good conspiracy theory?
I for one plan on loudly standing by the assertion that it's rebadged HP5+ until I see some concrete proof to the contrary. And by concrete I mean it has to have been delivered to me personally by a Roswell alien. Nothing less than that will be adequate.
We get it
Each time Kodak moved Plus-X and Tri-X to a new coating line (last done in 2003, I think) they considered the films to be new emulsions - even if they were not reformulated. Kodak went so far as to make announcements that the old films were discontinued causing absolute panic for those who weren't familiar with the practice.
Perhaps Ilford applies the same standard to Pan 100 and Pan 400?
That would enable Simon to adhere to the letter of his pronouncement - if not the spirit.
This project started out as a test of three different developers. I had times for the HP5+ in all 3 developers which is why I only included the results for that film in the thread dealing with the chemicals. I have been unable to find actual times for Kentmere films using any of the three developers tested. You state they are 20% under, is that because you have the actual times for these developers? Or, just experience and you can see is visually judging? I would love to have you share them if you do, it could make my life easier.
Thanks
Thing is, it must cost a manufacturer a lot of time and expense to design, test and produce a new emulsion. If they wanted a budget film, far easier to take something already developed and tweak it a bit, surely?
Ilford 100 and 400 were films which sold particularly in hot countries, I believe, and the gelatine was hardened to stand higher processing temperatures. Maybe the new films are close to these films, but not hardened?
Pure guesswork of course, but the best conspiracy theories are based on nothing else
Ilford 100 and 400 were films which sold particularly in hot countries, I believe, and the gelatine was hardened to stand higher processing temperatures. Maybe the new films are close to these films, but not hardened?
Pure guesswork of course, but the best conspiracy theories are based on nothing else
Hardening of emulsions has substantial influence on silver-cluster forming. Nothing to just switch on or off.
But nevertheless an interesting theory.
Thing is, it must cost a manufacturer a lot of time and expense to design, test and produce a new emulsion. If they wanted a budget film, far easier to take something already developed and tweak it a bit, surely?
Ilford 100 and 400 were films which sold particularly in hot countries, I believe, and the gelatine was hardened to stand higher processing temperatures. Maybe the new films are close to these films, but not hardened?
Pure guesswork of course, but the best conspiracy theories are based on nothing else
Could also be a mostly recycled emulsion, take something like FP3 or HP4 and tweak it a little, for modern manufacturing and technically you have a new emulsion without the cost.
It's unlikely there are any employees at Ilford who actually worked with FP3 and HP4 emulsions for regular 35mm, 120 & LF films, they were never made at Mobberley 
Ian
Ian
From the ILFORD tour in 2007 I seem to recall they moved the manufacturing facility to Mobberley in or around 1982.
Tom
Tom
I last used FP3 around 1969/70
Ian
Ian
I'm still surprised that Harman thought it made sense to develop a new film / emulsion without image quality benefits for a small segment of the market.
Unless someone at Ilford gives us some more technical information, we'll be in the dark. In the fact sheets there's isn't even a reciprocity chart, much less RMS or charts to give any idea how it responds to developers. Anyway I ordered a few rolls to see what I think about it, both 100 and 400.
Heheh, the reciprocity chart for ilford films seems generic to me. In fact, it's the same for many films. The same must be true for Kodak films. At least, TX and PX have exactly the same chart.
RMS granularity isn't provided by Ilford for their films anyway, so it's not strange that it's missing.
Yes, they could have provided some charts (characteristic curves etc), but they don't offer that much of information for their mainstream films either. In any case, if their films are good, people will buy them, regardless of the spartan data sheets.
RMS granularity isn't provided by Ilford for their films anyway, so it's not strange that it's missing.
Yes, they could have provided some charts (characteristic curves etc), but they don't offer that much of information for their mainstream films either. In any case, if their films are good, people will buy them, regardless of the spartan data sheets.
It's unlikely there are any employees at Ilford who actually worked with FP3 and HP4 emulsions for regular 35mm, 120 & LF films, they were never made at Mobberley
Ian
Doesn't mean they don't have the formulae around somewhere, tweak it a little differently from FP4/HP5 and you have a new emulsion.
Yep, HP5 and FP4 before the 'plus' upgrade makes more sense...
For FP3 ans HP4 you are going way back. I have a lot of negs on these films, some of which I have printed recently. They are way more grainy than the modern films, quite noticeably so... I don't think we are looking at a HP4.
This is fun, but maybe time for the quizmaster to give us the next clue?
Amen to that! If it's good, people will buy it, no matter what the data sheet says. Let's just hope it's good, now that I've bought some.
I'll try some Xtol and some R09 once I get some rolls through the F2.| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |