• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Some experiments with Kentmere 400 (pushed to 800 and 1600), developed in FLIC Black, White and Green

oneeyedpainter

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Mar 1, 2026
Messages
7
Location
London
Format
Analog
Hello all,

I just wanted to share some satisfactory results with pushing a few rolls of Kentmere 400 to ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The "push" was mainly due to the necessity of working with interior low light for a few family occasions, but got the chance of shooting some frames outside as well, just to check how they would look. I used the Flic Black, White and Green developer (1+49), after having read of some success with K400 in other threads here.

Both Flic and the Massive Dev Chart leave us wondering what reasonable developing times should be when pushing Kentmere 400. I know the Film Developing Cookbook suggests to multiply the developing time by 1.25 for each stop of push, but I have the (wrong?) impression that the Flic BWG is not a particularly energetic developer (as several other phenidone-ascorbate-based developers confirm), so I opted for a 1.35x factor instead. Hence, the +1 push was developed for 22min (Agitation 1min + 15s/min), while the +2 push was developed for 30 minutes (Agitation 1min + 15s/min). I found that both developing times worked faily well. I reported below ad few samples, mainly of harsh light/constrast conditions, where grain would be more visible under pushing.

I would like to hear about your experience with Flic BWG and pushing Kentmere 400. I know, the grain is there, but I frankly like the results, and might end up experimenting with this combination more in the future.

See you

OneEyedPainter


(Kentmere 400 - ISO 400 (box speed) - BWG 16.25m AG: 1m + 15s/min)



(Kentmere 400 - pushed to ISO 800 - BWG 22m AG: 1m + 15s/min)



(Kentmere 400 - pushed to ISO 1600 - BWG 30m AG: 1m + 15s/min)


(Kentmere 400 - Pushed to ISO 1600 - BWG 30m AG: 1m + 15s/min)


(Kentmere 400 - Pushed to ISO 1600 - BWG 30m AG: 1m + 15s/min)
 
I've pushed Kentmere to 800 and 1600, up to 8X10 to compare with Tmax 400, grain was pretty good, at 800 I could see a 11X14, I used Clayton F76+ for the 800 push and Acufine for the 1600 push. Although Tmax 400 and 3200 would be my first choice Kentmere is doable. On the other hand Foma 400 not so much.
 
Welcome to Photrio.
A good rule of thumb: don't take photos of backlit black cats if you want to test what happens when you reduce exposure and increase development (known colloquially as "pushing" film)
I'll let the cat owners chime in on whether a white cat or Cheshire cat will make a good test subject.
 
I had the Cheshire cat on the 37th shot of that very same roll, alas, the scissors slipped when I snapped the roll from the cartridge, and there you go....
 
Are these scanned with an Epson? I mostly stopped using Flic Film Black White & Green as I disliked the "sandy" quality of the grain. But maybe it's less of a problem on a flatbed scanner.
 
loccdor said:
Are these scanned with an Epson? I mostly stopped using Flic Film Black White & Green as I disliked the "sandy" quality of the grain. But maybe it's less of a problem on a flatbed scanner.
Click to expand...

Nope, no Epson scanner here.
 

I'm amazed by the results; thanks for sharing.
 
That makes sense. Most scanners cap out at around 2400 true dpi and that smooths the appearance of grain.
 
loccdor said:
That makes sense. Most scanners cap out at around 2400 true dpi and that smooths the appearance of grain.
Click to expand...

Thanks @loccdor

That is true. Although I was taught many years ago that any discussion about film grain should also include a clear note to the enlarger magnification ratio used to print it

I am not printing any 35mm film on 16"x12" (ever), hence my assessment of those results was "satisfactory" based on the typical use I would make of a digital scan of them The grain is there, nobody can deny it, but the results are definitely much better than I expected from a cheap film pushed with a cheap developer, to be viewed at normal screen resolution.

YMMV and I appreciate that.
 
Yes, just analyzing. Thanks for sharing the images. My favorite is the flower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register