One film, many uses

[teleparallel]

Hello again.

I am quite new in developing, and I have only one method, for my Kentmere 400. And i'm quite impressed, so far. But I'm not here to talk about the results. What I want to know is how far I can stretch the results with only one emulsion by changing the developer. I bulk-roll my film, to make it cheap. I cook my developer and fixer for the same reason. To avoid buying different emulsions, and I want to make my kentmere(or HP5 since I've recently got a 30,5 roll) a slower emulsion. Can I get hight resolution fine grain like slower films at the cost of speed? How far would one says I can stretch the emulsion capability? Wich developer? Perceptol seems good, is there the formula or a substitution? Thanks

 

[miha]

I don't know about Kentmere, but HP5 is quite malleable - noticeable finer grain in Perceptol compared to say ID11 wheras developed in DD-X the grain is particularly coarse.

 

[John51]

Haven't tried it yet but fwir, 2 bath developing gives you a lot of flexibility wrt film speed. It's not that fussy on temps and times. Cheap as chips too.

http://www.barrythornton.com/

Look under ->Developer ->Two Bath

Uses Sodium Sulphite, Metol and Sodium Metaborate.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The character of a film is mostly determined by the manufacturer of the film. Can you make a ISO 400 speed film look like a ISO 50 speed film, NO. While modest changes can be made with the choice of different developers there is a limit to what can be done. Since you are new to analog photography I would suggest becoming completely familiar with one film/developer combination. Learn how it will react in different lighting situations. Once you have done this you can begin varying how you process a film, different developers, etc. Then you can expand to another film and repeat the process.

 

[David Lyga]

You know, Tele, your 'naive' comment might not be so naive.

"Fast" films can provide both a remarkable grain structure and a high level of acutance ... if you overexpose and underdevelop. By overexposing a stop or two, you raise the level of data further up the characteristic curve and by underdeveloping by 10 or 20 per cent you prevent that curve from going through the roof. You end up with the same, normal contrast. In common parlance that means that you increase the contrast a bit with the overexposure and prevent that increase from getting out of control by underdevloping. So, in sum, a '400' film can do the work of both a '400' and a '100' ... to an extent.

Surely, if you want the finest image available, you would use either Delta 100 or T Max 100 or Ilford's excellent Pan F +. But, doing what I said with the faster film will get you almost there to a remarkable degree. Of course, in the process you negate the speed advantage of that fast film. - David Lyga

 

[JW PHOTO]

Yes, this isn't that crazy of a question at all. Here's something to think about also................I can buy HP5+ locally for $4.29 a 120 roll while FP4+ at the same store is $5.75 per 120 roll. I've been using Xtol replenished for a 400 - 800 ISO rating and homebrewed Perceptol 1+2 for an ISO rating of 160 - 200 and have been more than happy. Some bright or high contrast scenes I use WD2H+ Pyro, but not very often. Yes, I could get by with HP5+ as my one film just fine if I had to, but I don't have to so a roll of PanF, GP3 or Foma once in a while is nice also.

 

[danfogel]

I liked Kentmere 400 at 200 or 250. At 400, I found the grain too large and distracting (like Fomapan 400). Kentmere 100 is a much nicer, but you didn't ask about that. I have shot HP5 at 800 and it looked like 400 to my eyes with Diafine. Experiment, that's the best way. Roll some 12 roll shots and play a bit.

 

[teleparallel]

Is kentmere 100 really nice? I could bulk-roll it. I actually like the 400. It's 2/3 the Hp5+, and I push it to 800. Nice gradation.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You can put lipstick on a pig but you can't get lamb chops.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Is kentmere 100 really nice? I could bulk-roll it. I actually like the 400. It's 2/3 the Hp5+, and I push it to 800. Nice gradation.

Yes, it is.
I only use K100 and F100 in the Summer as in the rest of the year it is K400 and/or F400.

Here is a picture in K100:
18630011 by Ricardo Miranda, on Flickr

 

[michaelorr]

+1 Perceptol 1+2. Maybe JW will share with you his formula but go to the website posted earlier and look up two-bath. You may like Barry Thornton's book "Edge Of Darkness" if you can find a copy. I have taken away more from this resource than any other. It addresses just about every aspect of taking a photograph and developing the film, enlarging and printing, including the aesthetics. Two chapters are devoted to film speed, grain and developing for acutance and all the trade decisions you need to make - your very question here. Barry points out that one needs to be practical about fine grain or no grain on two points: 1. For the film size, and the enlargement size, grain only needs to be mitigated so the print looks like you want at the size you are printing at. Evaluating "grain" of a film/developer combination at 4 times the enlargement you will print is just nutty. 2. No grain means, roughly speaking, no acutance. So if the grain is not a distracting element of the print at the desired enlargement, one would like to retain or produce as much grain as possible to achieve the acutance needed to make the print sharp. Barry also makes a good argument for the 120 film size being capable of producing every bit as good a print as large format at the practical sizes often worked with. Unless you are making murals, you can achieve exhibit quality results with 120. As an exercise in grain, acutance and resolution, I have an APUG album "Freedom Rising" that has an 8x10 photograph scanned, 5 crops made to be at approx. 35mm and just added "crop6" to be approx. 6x6 frame size. Taken on HP5+ developed Perceptol 1+2. The exercise settles no issues, but was fun to take up and until I have time to do multiple developers, dilutions, variations and film combinations, I am sticking to something I can characterize with curves to make exposure decisions reliably, and spend my time shooting.

 

[Neal]

Dear teleparallel,

Kentmere 100 will be a fine addition to your toolbox. A bulk roll is inexpensive and even if it doesn't meet your hopes, it will not go to waste.

Good luck,

Neal Wydra

 

[David Lyga]

Can anyone state, definitively, who makes Kentmere film? Harman? - David Lyga

 

[Wallendo]

"Made in England" and "Harman Technology" are plainly printed on the boxes.

Or, you can visit their website:

http://www.kentmere.co.uk/Webfiles/20091291713401332.pdf

http://www.kentmere.co.uk/home.asp

 

[David Lyga]

Thank you Wall: I had never tried this film but was aware of the good pricing. - David Lyga

 

[Sirius Glass]

My go to films are:

Black & white

Tri-X 400 135 & 120
Ilford HP5+ 4"x5"
Ilford Delta 3200 for wildlife with the 500mm lens
​

Color negative

Kodak Portra 400
Kodak Portra 800 for wildlife with the 500mm lens
Kodak Ultra Color 400 for US southwest red rock
Kodak Vivid Color 160 for saturated colors
​

 

[JW PHOTO]

Whoops! I haven't check this thread lately. Yes, I'll give you my homebrew Perceptol recipe. I use 6.5 grams of Metol, 90 grams of Sodium Sulfite, 30 grams of pickling salt per liter for 1+2. I'm now mixing this with 5 milligrams of Potassium Iodide per liter, but the jury is still out as to whether this has a positive effect or not. I would probably not use the Potassiun Iodide with slower films at all. John W

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Concerning potassium iodide PE mentioned in another thread awhile back that it is not necessary. Modern films already contain iodine ions and adding a few milligrams more to the developer has no real effect. Once development begins iodide is being added to the developer.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Concerning potassium iodide PE mentioned in another thread awhile back that it is not necessary. Modern films already contain iodine ions and adding a few milligrams more to the developer has no real effect. Once development begins iodide is being added to the developer.

Thanks Gerald,
That's probably why I can't tell any difference in negatives with or without it. Of course I should really try it with 35mm and do at least a 16"x20" enlargement. Maybe then I might see something?