Pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 using Cinestill DF96 Monobath

[Moose22]

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.

Two points.

1. Shooting film is kind of pointless. So what?

2. What are the indoor shot of the dog or the shot of the surfboard in the deep shade if not tests of low light performance? Am I missing something here?

 

[Moose22]

We have no idea about the actual light levels of in those situations. They don't look particularly murky though.
And most indoor well lit scenes and deep shade outdoor scenes can easily be handled with 400 or 800.

Shooting film is not pointless. There is no good technical reason to push film to 1600 in daylight. You'll be forced to max out shutter and aperture for no good reason. And still get more grain than needed.
With a slow, long lens, there would one some point. But here? No, not really.

Well, if you don't like these conditions, you could very easily contribute to the shared knowledge of how Kentmere performs by setting up your own scientific comparison that meets your personal criteria and then share those data with the rest of us. That would be great.

Huss has gone out and done something, shared it with us, and I think he should be appreciated for doing so. If you want more information, you're quite free to go out and experiment however you wish.

And if you don't understand my statement that film is pointless, you're completely missing my point.

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

There is no good technical reason to push film to 1600 in daylight. You'll be forced to max out shutter and aperture for no good reason. And still get more grain than needed.

Doesn't it allow the possibility, in some situations, of using filters (e.g. deep red) and hand-held shooting without compromising on DoF?

 

[Huss]

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.

Why is it pointless if my intention is to test the film? And I did on the same roll by shooting it in very bright conditions and very dim conditions.
It was very full of point!

 

[Helge]

Your comments are bizarre. It's been done hundreds of times before on the web etc?
Why do YOU do anything? I'm sure other people have done it already, right? So why do YOU do it?

I haven't looked into the web and read up about other people's experiences doing this because I wanted to do it for myself, using monobath with this film.

As for claiming that WE do not know what the lighting conditions were.. Yes WE do! Very bright f16/f22 @1/1000 in the outdoor shots to extremely dim indoor shots - the dog pics and me in the mirror were at 1/30 sec @ 1.2
The surfboard was taken in a dark garage with just weak fluorescent lighting. That one also was 1/30 @ 1.2.

And that was the whole point of this, by pushing this film to 1600 I wanted to see how versatile it could be for all types of shooting. I also was expecting big grain which surprisingly to me did not happen.

The link you provided is not relevant here because the whole point of this exercise is to see how Kentmere is pushed using DF96 monobath. So you provide a link to pushing it with a different developer? You completely fail to understand the point of this thread - how Kentmere reacts when pushed with DF96!

The rest of your comments are frankly an attempt to be patronizing. How about for once adding to the conversation and remembering to stick to the topic. Or start your own thread about what you want to discuss? But why would you, because I'm sure you could just watch someone else on youtube do it for you.

Huss, you are essentially right.
I can see how my comment can very well be taken thus.
I’ll delete it.
I’m sorry. Carry on.

 

[Huss]

Huss, you are essentially right.
I can see how my comment can very well be taken thus.
I’ll delete it.
I’m sorry. Carry on.

Deleted mine.

One day when I have space for a darkroom again (and just more space!) I'll be using traditional developers, wet printing etc.

 

[M Carter]

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.

Well, it matters when you say "it's always been a hybrid process" - I'm currently doing 50" without any hybrid/digitial negs stuff, just a really big tray and an alignable vertical easel. When I worked in labs we did murals from negs using big process equipment, before there was anything like a digital neg available.

 

[Helge]

Well, it matters when you say "it's always been a hybrid process" - I'm currently doing 50" without any hybrid/digitial negs stuff, just a really big tray and an alignable vertical easel. When I worked in labs we did murals from negs using big process equipment, before there was anything like a digital neg available.

You can do it of course. You can do anything to varying degrees depending on size and cost.
The question is price, availability and convenience.
If you want a big wall or window size photographic sign for a museum a shop or for plain decoration a photostat was/is one way.
Printing with plates, offset or mimeograph type printing is another.
All of which can have a digital master.
Do you want more than one?
Might you in the future?