Pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 using Cinestill DF96 Monobath

[Helge]

@grain elevator I was simply pointing out that Juan's comment about difficulty judging film+developer properties via scans shared online is utter luddite nonsense. Yes, quality monitors and sensors far exceed the dynamic range of paper. But let's not derail the perfectly good film+developer thread into yet another scanning conversation. @MattKing will come with an aerial bombing campaign any moment now

@koraks agreed, you're making a good point, I don't see any contradictions here. And yes, looks like Helge replied without reading

Back to the original topic: judging strictly by what's posted here and elsewhere on Photrio, DF96 does not appear to be a general purpose developer like D76/ID-11/Xtol/HC because it delivers a very opinionated "look". This is great when you want this appearance, but not great if you don't. I prefer doing "creative chopping" after the scanning stage, not chemically.

Was replying to the bolded part.

 

[MattKing]

But let's not derail the perfectly good film+developer thread into yet another scanning conversation. @MattKing will come with an aerial bombing campaign any moment now

We can't imbed gifs into posts any more, or I'd be looking for a gif "bombing run" as we speak.

Scanning/digitizing is sort of like optical printing - whatever method you choose will impart characteristics to your results. There is no method available - in either universe - that is without influence on issues like the "appearance" of grain.

So if you want to specify your workflow when you discuss things like appearance of grain, go for it - it will help others understand better your observations Just remember that that appearance may have as much to do with that workflow as with the film and developer combination. And a conclusion reached by someone about the appearance of grain may differ depending on whether they are:
1) printing optically with a diffusion enlarger;
2) printing optically with a condensor enlarger;
3) printing optically with a point source enlarger;
4) scanning using a flat bed scanner a glass platen and using led light sources;
5) scanning using a flat bed scanner without a glass platen and a more focused incandescent light source;
6) scanning using a Flextight scanner;
7) scanning using a drum scanner;
7) camera scanning using diffused led backlight illumination;
8) camera scanning using directional electronic flash backlight illumination;
9) making use of various lens options respecting all of the above.

 

[McDiesel]

Matt, despite your best efforts, you managed to skip two more significant variables:

• DPI of a monitor. On "retina" displays grain at 100% looks more tightly packed and pleasant vs more typical 100DPI monitors.
• JPEG compression artifacts, especially when additional compression happens on the sharing platform, just like Photrio after the recent update.

There could be more!

 

[MattKing]

There could be more!

I should have added "and many more", including many that overlap both universes - such as the good old "Mark 1 eyeball".
But they all lead back to the fact that comparisons are fraught with uncontrolled variables.
And they also lead back to the rule here on Photrio - no digital vs. analogue discussions!

 

[McDiesel]

the rule here on Photrio - no digital vs. analogue discussions!

It's a nasty rule, for all the reasons you just listed. We're using digital devices in a digital universe to discuss film photography. Everything you see is a scan, therefore everything is "hybrid". Analog purists shouldn't be on the internet. They have their own communication tools: the good old postal service. I was one of "Internet pioneers", their computers run my code, yet they insist on the "100% analog" nonsense. This behavior offends me. Don't we pay attention to the offended now?

 

[MattKing]

It's a nasty rule, for all the reasons you just listed. We're using digital devices in a digital universe to discuss film photography. Everything you see is a scan, therefore everything is "hybrid". Analog purists shouldn't be on the internet. They have their own communication tools: the good old postal service. I was one of "Internet pioneers", their computers run my code, yet they insist on the "100% analog" nonsense. This behavior offends me. Don't we pay attention to the offended now?

You miss the important word - "vs."
There is lots of room on the site to have all sorts of discussions about processes and procedures that involve one or both. But for the sections that aren't designed for that - that are process or procedure specific - we offer as a feature focused discussions in those sections.

 

[pentaxuser]

Frankly all I am interested in seeing on my screen when it comes to negative problems for analysis and solutions is a picture that resembles accurately said negative or "print" that does likewise and can be reproduced that way in a darkroom. If scanning can fulfil this then fine

So I had always thought that a scan of a darkroom print is likely to represent what a darkroom user can do more accurately than can a reversal of a negative but if I am wrong then so much the better as I can then be sure that prints that aren't in fact prints are OK as representations of what can be achieved in a darkroom. I have no problem per se with hybrid

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Verizzo]

100% Analog / Traditional ?
Mmmmmmmm...
I think Kentmere 400 (now Pan) is a very good film, and I've many times defended it here, even in Rodinal, and also in Microphen because unlike Foma and other cheap films, it can reach 1600 decently, but...
Young visitors can be led to confusion, as K400's tone is not showed here, but just a digital photograph from a K400 frame, and then a new digital tone is created, apart from the digital post edition.
Do we have any zone or subforum in Photrio where the 100% analog criteria remains respected?
By the way, Huss, of course your results would be interesting if they were wet prints scans, and now it would be cool to see some wet prints of yours from some of those frames...
I mean, to really talk about Kentmere400.
Thanks for sharing!

Kentmere is most definitely not Ilford Pan! Discussed a lot on many threads here.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Kentmere is most definitely not Ilford Pan! Discussed a lot on many threads here.

It seems you did not read well...
I've used both films for more than a decade.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

It seems you did not read well...
I've used both films for more than a decade.

It seems you did not read well...
I've used both films for more than a decade.

I read perfectly: "I think Kentmere 400 (now Pan) is a very good film." This says that Kentmere 400 is now (known as) Pan.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You're confused, Paul... I talked about two films: check the ilford pan 400 film thread...
But here, what I said was, the name of the kentmere one was changed to Pan400.

 

[kykr]

It's a nasty rule, for all the reasons you just listed. We're using digital devices in a digital universe to discuss film photography. Everything you see is a scan, therefore everything is "hybrid". Analog purists shouldn't be on the internet. They have their own communication tools: the good old postal service. I was one of "Internet pioneers", their computers run my code, yet they insist on the "100% analog" nonsense. This behavior offends me. Don't we pay attention to the offended now?

Interesting times, too many options and variations available to all of us - to some extent.

Personally, the analog-as-much-as-reasonable is appealing for less time in front of a computer. It’s cathartic, whether or not I get any good at it. I’ve shot a lot of film over the years, developed a handful of rolls and gave it all up after digital burned me out. I bought an F3 this spring and my goal is to make my first decent darkroom print by the end of the year. Cheap therapy, if nothing else.

But, I wouldn’t know much about it without the internet.

 

[Huss]

Shot another roll of Kentmere 400 @1600, dev in DF96

Leica M3, Summicron 50 DR

 

[Moose22]

Nice. Still find it hilarious (and great) that this works so well.

I am still excited to try pushing this Kentmere. I had plans, but this work week kicked my ass and I didn't have even one evening to burn off the film that's been in my F3 for weeks.

Killed it two hours ago, though, and Kentmere is in the bag to use tomorrow, along with the M3, which I've been jonesing to get back out into the world. Color me inspired to experiment.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

To forum members interested in Harman's Kentmere Pan400 @1600 for darkroom printing:
Today I developed a roll of KPan400 done by a friend of mine during an European trip five years ago. The roll was correctly exposed at 1600.
KPan400 is not officially recommended for EI1600, but only up to EI800.
Anyway it reaches 1600 very well IMO for wet printing.
To me it's great news this film remains so incredibly fine for several years even after such wild underexposure and after passing through many airports and then sitting for years inside a camera in a bedroom at 24C/75F.
Development was Microphen 1+1 22C, 18 minutes, no presoak, 3 inversions in the beginning and 3 inversions every third minute.
Grain is very small and sharp, and tone is great too.
Just as good as HP5+, and that's a lot to say for those of us who stay away from the digital world.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

You're confused, Paul... I talked about two films: check the ilford pan 400 film thread...
But here, what I said was, the name of the kentmere one was changed to Pan400.

That's how I read it. But the fact remains that Kentmere and Pan are two very different lines out of Ilford. Been discussed ad nauseum.

 

[M Carter]

Printing very large has always been a hybrid process,

I think you should specify what you mean by "very large" though - full-wall murals, billboards, or stuff in the 3' - 6' range?

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

That's how I read it. But the fact remains that Kentmere and Pan are two very different lines out of Ilford. Been discussed ad nauseum.

The facts are two:
Both films are named PAN400.
They're different films.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

The facts are two:
Both films are named PAN400.
They're different films.

Jeeezuz.......that's exactly what I've been saying. Both are PANchromatic ISO 400 films. Ilford PAN films are made for third world markets, apparently.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

OK, Paul.

 

[Huss]

To forum members interested in Harman's Kentmere Pan400 @1600 for darkroom printing:
Today I developed a roll of KPan400 done by a friend of mine during an European trip five years ago. The roll was correctly exposed at 1600.
KPan400 is not officially recommended for EI1600, but only up to EI800.
Anyway it reaches 1600 very well IMO for wet printing.
To me it's great news this film remains so incredibly fine for several years even after such wild underexposure and after passing through many airports and then sitting for years inside a camera in a bedroom at 24C/75F.
Development was Microphen 1+1 22C, 18 minutes, no presoak, 3 inversions in the beginning and 3 inversions every third minute.
Grain is very small and sharp, and tone is great too.
Just as good as HP5+, and that's a lot to say for those of us who stay away from the digital world.

Excellent! Please post some examples if you can.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I have not scanned in years...
My last scanner was bought in 2004.
But you can test materials.

 

[Helge]

Shot another roll of Kentmere 400 @1600, dev in DF96

Leica M3, Summicron 50 DR

Pushing to 1600 in those lighting conditions is kind of pointless. And it’s also completely different from pushing for low light performance.
Contrast and total light flux is completely different.

 

[Helge]

I think you should specify what you mean by "very large" though - full-wall murals, billboards, or stuff in the 3' - 6' range?

Does it matter? But yes, anything from where projecting onto a piece of photo paper is impractical due to common availability, physics and comparative price.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Pushing to 1600 in those lighting conditions is kind of pointless. And it’s also completely different from pushing for low light performance.
Contrast and total light flux is completely different.

Totally true.