Taking first steps in developing the film

[M-88]

The house in the first photo is a bit oblique. Check whether your tank was truly upright.

It's my kitchen desk, very horizontal.

 

[M-88]

I mean the tank was sitting on the kitchen desk, which is horizontal. Eggs never fall from it.

 

[MattKing]

They look a little washed to me.

Like as not that has something to do with the scanning part of the equation.
That and the fact that many of the images reflect an attempt to photograph everything from deep shadows to bright skies - always a challenge.

 

[M-88]

Like as not that has something to do with the scanning part of the equation.
That and the fact that many of the images reflect an attempt to photograph everything from deep shadows to bright skies - always a challenge.

On some of the scenes there were small pieces of clouds. And what I got as a final result is clear sky. Negatives are like that too so it can't be scanning issue. Not that much anyway.

 

[M-88]

Does anyone know by any chance dev times for Kentmere 100 pushed to 800? I can't seem to find anywhere. Official datasheet has only three EI values - 50, 100 and 200, while various resources on the internet don't go further than 400. Little help?

 

[pentaxuser]

I haven't checked but I wonder if there are any 100 speed films that have times for pushing 3 stops. Maybe there are no times for Kentmere because the end result is so poor. If your aim is to get good negatives from which good prints can be produced then it might be worth buying Kentmere or other 400 film instead.

If you are intent of pushing this film to 800 then unless you get a response from a user who has done it and is able to show you the result, you could try cutting the film in three and start with the 400 times and increase times from there.

If you do this, then I'd be interested in seeing the result

pentaxuser

 

[M-88]

I haven't checked but I wonder if there are any 100 speed films that have times for pushing 3 stops. Maybe there are no times for Kentmere because the end result is so poor. If your aim is to get good negatives from which good prints can be produced then it might be worth buying Kentmere or other 400 film instead.

If you are intent of pushing this film to 800 then unless you get a response from a user who has done it and is able to show you the result, you could try cutting the film in three and start with the 400 times and increase times from there.

If you do this, then I'd be interested in seeing the result

pentaxuser

Well the thing is, I still have a bit of Kentmere 100 bulk and I don't want to buy anything else until I waste it. I've been thinking to try it in low light and then push to 800. I can shoot at ISO 400 and push it to that value. Digitaltruth says 1+1 dilution of ID-11/D-76 can give results if developed for 20 minutes at 20 degrees celsius. I will try to find any information about pushing it to 800. If not, I might just as well experiment a bit. That's what cheap films are for, after all.

 

[removed account4]

hi M-88
the ballpark rule for pushing film is
add 30% extra development time for every doubled iso
in your case it is 3 stops so you want 3*30% more time
but these numbers are ballpark figures and it depends on your agitation
if your film has been compromised ( old, poorly stored &c )
and the developer you use ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pushing-kentmere-100-to-800.51406/
this old thread describes something similar to what you want
they used d76 ( similar to your developer, yours is sometimes described at a d76 clone )
so you might want to experiment a little since you have some extra film to play with
ALSO do you have print developer? if your film is fogged or sufferes speed loss
you might use some print developer instead of ID11
are you in georgia USA or the country georgia ?

good luck !
john

 

[M-88]

hi M-88
the ballpark rule for pushing film is
add 30% extra development time for every doubled iso
in your case it is 3 stops so you want 3*30% more time
but these numbers are ballpark figures and it depends on your agitation
if your film has been compromised ( old, poorly stored &c )
and the developer you use ...
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pushing-kentmere-100-to-800.51406/
this old thread describes something similar to what you want
they used d76 ( similar to your developer, yours is sometimes described at a d76 clone )
so you might want to experiment a little since you have some extra film to play with
ALSO do you have print developer? if your film is fogged or sufferes speed loss
you might use some print developer instead of ID11
are you in georgia USA or the country georgia ?

good luck !
john

1. Hello and thank you for your time!
2. I saw the thread but it was way too short to tell me anything except I might get reaaally bad results.
3. If I understand correctly, 3*30% is 90%? And if ISO 100 takes for example 8 minutes, ISO 800 should take 8 + (90% of 8) = 15.2 minutes? Or should it be incremental, like this:

100 -> 200 = 8+8*30%=8+2.4=10.4 minutes
then 200 -> 400= 10.4 + 10.4*30%=10.4 + 3.12= 13.6 minutes
then 400 -> 800= 13.6 + 13.6*30%=13.6+4.08=17 something minutes?

4. I guess I indeed will have to experiment. I know that with 1+1 dilution it takes 20 minutes at 20 degrees to push K100 to ISO400 so might as well try developing up to 25-26 minutes (minding your 30% increment).
5. I only have ID-11. There is paper developer available, two in fact, "Bromophen" and "Ilford Multigrade".
6. It's Georgia the country.

 

[MattKing]

On some of the scenes there were small pieces of clouds. And what I got as a final result is clear sky. Negatives are like that too so it can't be scanning issue. Not that much anyway.

I'm guessing from your posts here and otherwise that you are using your OM-4 for the metering.
As you are probably aware, skies and clouds are challenging to meter if one is trying to retain shadow detail as well.
Ultra-violet also plays a role - it is invisible to you and your meter, but the film does respond to it.
Kentmere may require different metering and development approaches than a faster film like Tri-X - more exposure and less development comes to mind.
But if that is the case, you may find as well that the film doesn't respond well to the severe under-exposure/marked contrast increase through over-development that comes from a three stop development push.
Generally speaking, films that are suitable for three stops of under-exposure plus a three stop development push have a characteristic curve with a long toe and a relatively long straight portion plus a useful shoulder.
That may not apply to your Kentmere.
And for clarity, no matter what, when you under-expose by one, two or three stops, you will lose substantial amounts of shadow detail. All a push development does for you is improve the near shadow and mid-tone contrast and rendition, usually at the expense of highlight rendition.

 

[M-88]

I'm guessing from your posts here and otherwise that you are using your OM-4 for the metering.
As you are probably aware, skies and clouds are challenging to meter if one is trying to retain shadow detail as well.
Ultra-violet also plays a role - it is invisible to you and your meter, but the film does respond to it.
Kentmere may require different metering and development approaches than a faster film like Tri-X - more exposure and less development comes to mind.
But if that is the case, you may find as well that the film doesn't respond well to the severe under-exposure/marked contrast increase through over-development that comes from a three stop development push.
Generally speaking, films that are suitable for three stops of under-exposure plus a three stop development push have a characteristic curve with a long toe and a relatively long straight portion plus a useful shoulder.
That may not apply to your Kentmere.
And for clarity, no matter what, when you under-expose by one, two or three stops, you will lose substantial amounts of shadow detail. All a push development does for you is improve the near shadow and mid-tone contrast and rendition, usually at the expense of highlight rendition.

I see. I understand that push processing can not create something out of nothing (underexposed shadows in this case). i might or might not give EI800 a try after all, it depends on shooting conditions. But from the way I see it right now, it might be much better to be satisfied with pushing to EI400. I know that even though property of Harman, Kentmere isn't as fancy as Ilford. But this is what I have right now and I want to utilize it at its best to learn how various things work.

 

[removed account4]

hi M-88
try doing it from each push increment
like you described here
100 -> 200 = 8+8*30%=8+2.4=10.4 minutes
then 200 -> 400= 10.4 + 10.4*30%=10.4 + 3.12= 13.6 minutes
then 400 -> 800= 13.6 + 13.6*30%=13.6+4.08=17 something minutes?

i asked about the paper developer because
you might experiment with that too,
i don't know if the two you mention would work similar to dektol
but you can always try you might like the results
a starting point for using print developer is the dilution # for the dilution #(time)
so 1:6 for 6 mins, 1:7 for 7 mins &c ... and if you are pushing your film
your time won't be as long as in the ID11 ...
ive been using print developer for my film for years, love the results!

have fun !
john

 

[M-88]

hi M-88
try doing it from each push increment
like you described here
100 -> 200 = 8+8*30%=8+2.4=10.4 minutes
then 200 -> 400= 10.4 + 10.4*30%=10.4 + 3.12= 13.6 minutes
then 400 -> 800= 13.6 + 13.6*30%=13.6+4.08=17 something minutes?

Duly noted!

i asked about the paper developer because
you might experiment with that too,
i don't know if the two you mention would work similar to dektol
but you can always try you might like the results
a starting point for using print developer is the dilution # for the dilution #(time)
so 1:6 for 6 mins, 1:7 for 7 mins &c ... and if you are pushing your film
your time won't be as long as in the ID11 ...
ive been using print developer for my film for years, love the results!

have fun !
john

Sadly there's only one supplier of chemicals out here and they offer only Ilford. I wish there was a chance to get Xtol, Rodinal, or HC-110, but local legislation does not allow me to import anything unless MSDS states it's safe for airmail. And none of the abovementioned have that kind of MSDS.

I'll run some research on using paper developer on film, I have two shots of ID-11 left if I dilute it 1+1. I'll see what can be done then.

 

[MattKing]

I know that even though property of Harman, Kentmere isn't as fancy as Ilford.

Kentmere films are made using the same people, techniques and equipment as the films labelled as Ilford.
I wouldn't say they are less "fancy", just designed for a particular market segment.
In particular, I expect that the school and student market is a target for Kentmere products.
If you insist on trying for a three stop under-expose/push development (which I never like or recommend) and are going to experiment, try shooting some side by side comparisons in the same light and with the same or similar subjects - one roll metered at an EI of 100 and developed normally, and one roll metered at an EI of 800 and pushed processed.
I would look to Ilford's recommendations for a three stop push for |HP5+ as a starting point - if they recommend 2.5 times the standard time there, try 2.5 times your developing standard developing time.

 

[removed account4]

whoops !

I would look to Ilford's recommendations for a three stop push for |HP5+ as a starting point - if they recommend 2.5 times the standard time there, try 2.5 times your developing standard developing time.

i didn't realize ilford had a recommendation!
you might want to try their recommendation like matt suggests before you go off-road with mine.

regarding the other developers
if you can get baking soda
vitamin c powder and coffee
you can make your own coffee based developer
it is easy to make and fun to use and can give you
very good results. make the coffee adn you measure the other ingredients with a table spoon
and if you want extra contrast you can add a little bit of stock print devoper to it ... just a little ....
the ilford products are very good though i doubt they will give you poor results ..

anyhow, good luck!
looking forward to hearing how you make out
john

 

[M-88]

Kentmere films are made using the same people, techniques and equipment as the films labelled as Ilford.
I wouldn't say they are less "fancy", just designed for a particular market segment.
In particular, I expect that the school and student market is a target for Kentmere products.
If you insist on trying for a three stop under-expose/push development (which I never like or recommend) and are going to experiment, try shooting some side by side comparisons in the same light and with the same or similar subjects - one roll metered at an EI of 100 and developed normally, and one roll metered at an EI of 800 and pushed processed.
I would look to Ilford's recommendations for a three stop push for |HP5+ as a starting point - if they recommend 2.5 times the standard time there, try 2.5 times your developing standard developing time.

I will do my best to refrain from underexposing three stops. If it was in daylight, it might have had a little bit of chance, but in low light it'll be even more difficult.

regarding the other developers
if you can get baking soda
vitamin c powder and coffee
you can make your own coffee based developer
it is easy to make and fun to use and can give you
very good results. make the coffee adn you measure the other ingredients with a table spoon
and if you want extra contrast you can add a little bit of stock print devoper to it ... just a little ....
the ilford products are very good though i doubt they will give you poor results ..

the main reason I'm avoiding caffenol is that there are too many variations of baking soda, vitamin c and instant coffee on the market, so I think results will also be variable. And frankly I like consistency in what I do, I like getting 32-34 well exposed frames on a 36-shot film, I liked a lot that my BW development went well and the film was scratch and dust free, without artifacts and sprocket hole ghosts and bubbles and other bad things that might occur from improper development. So I'd like to keep it that way. Don't get me wrong, I don't have OCD, but I'm not exactly a rich guy who can afford shooting ten rolls of Ektar per month. And I think some branded powder can give me more consistent result than coffee + vitamin C and soda. At least for now.

 

[removed account4]

And I think some branded powder can give me more consistent result than coffee + vitamin C and soda. At least for now.

as long as you can get it ..

but if you get in a bind and can't get anything you need
and all you have is coffee &c, i wouldn't hesitate from using it
as long as you have regular old sodium carbonate baking soda
and coffee and if you can get vit c .. there really aren't too many variations
cause you find what you use and you just use that
and to be honest some people just use the coffee and nothing else no vit c, no washing soda .
and get fantastic results ... .. ive had great success
with caffenol and use it as my GO TO developer with every roll or sheet of film ..( for about 10 years )
but i can totally see why you would stick to the 4 lane super highway instead of a path that leads into the woods ..

 

[M-88]

as long as you can get it ..

but if you get in a bind and can't get anything you need
and all you have is coffee &c, i wouldn't hesitate from using it
as long as you have regular old sodium carbonate baking soda
and coffee and if you can get vit c .. there really aren't too many variations
cause you find what you use and you just use that
and to be honest some people just use the coffee and nothing else no vit c, no washing soda .
and get fantastic results ... .. ive had great success
with caffenol and use it as my GO TO developer with every roll or sheet of film ..( for about 10 years )
but i can totally see why you would stick to the 4 lane super highway instead of a path that leads into the woods ..

You must be quite proficient with things you do. And I'm just a beginner. Maybe, just maybe, some time later I might give it a try (just like I was saying several months ago that maybe, just maybe I might give home developing a try). And there's also a red wine developer. Such a barbaric act to waste fine drink on film!

 

[AgX]

Sadly there's only one supplier of chemicals out here and they offer only Ilford. I wish there was a chance to get Xtol, Rodinal, or HC-110, but local legislation does not allow me to import anything unless MSDS states it's safe for airmail.

You are not obliged to use airmail. Or does that import restriction applies to surface transport too?
However the problem seems that over here in the long past nearly any air transport of letters and parcels had to be paid extra. Today air transport has become an integral part of mail transport.

The developing agent for Rodinal can be snythesized if one is inclined to chemical worl.
There even are formulae for developer based on natural ingredients.

 

[M-88]

You are not obliged to use airmail. Or does that import restriction applies to surface transport too?
Howeverr the problem seems that over here in the long past nearly any air transport of letters and parcels had to be paid extra. Today air transport has become an integral part of mail transport.

Ground shipping takes roughly a month and will probably cost twice as much as the chemical itself.

 

[Huub]

I can tell you that my first film looked a lot worse then the pictures you are showing here. Congrats with the results!

A few things to add from my side:Ilford is a company well known for its excellent products. Being able to get Kodak or other products gives you more freedom of choice, but the differences you will achieve with what you are using now are pretty small. Think in effects in tonal scale for instance. If you want more sharpness, moving up in format and use roll film will bring way more then using for instance a film like Delta100 or TMX or some 25 iso film.

ID-11 in itself is a good all round developer, well suited for the film you are using. ID-11 is basically the same as D76 and as such the benchmark to which all other developers are compared. The 100 iso film being outdated a few years is not that big an issue as long as it was stored more or less properly in a dry environment.

Printing skies and keeping texture in the high lights is always a challenge. I found using a yellow filter helps and also over exposing the film by 2/3 stop and then reducing the devlopment bij 25% helps too, That way you reduce contrast in the highlights, which makes printing them a lot easier. But even when I combine these two things I often have to print the skies a bit longer to achieve the look I like.

It is a good experience to try what happens if you push your film to 400 and 800 iso. Longer development will add contrast to your negatives, but the gain in real film speed will be limited as this is measured in the dark shadows. The most probable effect is loss in shadow detail and blown out high lights, which doesn't say the pictures can't be interesting. If you can get your hands on Microphen: that is the recomended developer for push processing.

 

[M-88]

I can tell you that my first film looked a lot worse then the pictures you are showing here. Congrats with the results!

Thank you. Looks like I'm lucky.

A few things to add from my side:Ilford is a company well known for its excellent products. Being able to get Kodak or other products gives you more freedom of choice, but the differences you will achieve with what you are using now are pretty small. Think in effects in tonal scale for instance. If you want more sharpness, moving up in format and use roll film will bring way more then using for instance a film like Delta100 or TMX or some 25 iso film.

I used to own 645 camera and put two rolls of Acros 100 through it. Results were more than stunning, but it was also more expensive and less versatile. So I had to sell it.

ID-11 in itself is a good all round developer, well suited for the film you are using. ID-11 is basically the same as D76 and as such the benchmark to which all other developers are compared. The 100 iso film being outdated a few years is not that big an issue as long as it was stored more or less properly in a dry environment.

Yes but I've read somewhere that the higher the sensitivity, the sooner it gets fogged. For example using a 20 years old Tmax 3200 seems to be a bad idea altogether, but results may vary.

Printing skies and keeping texture in the high lights is always a challenge. I found using a yellow filter helps and also over exposing the film by 2/3 stop and then reducing the devlopment bij 25% helps too, That way you reduce contrast in the highlights, which makes printing them a lot easier. But even when I combine these two things I often have to print the skies a bit longer to achieve the look I like.

So far the only filter I have got is red. But I'll work on getting a yellow one on local flea market. Also, what's a development "bij"? I'm a little confused there.

It is a good experience to try what happens if you push your film to 400 and 800 iso. Longer development will add contrast to your negatives, but the gain in real film speed will be limited as this is measured in the dark shadows. The most probable effect is loss in shadow detail and blown out high lights, which doesn't say the pictures can't be interesting. If you can get your hands on Microphen: that is the recommended developer for push processing.

There are three film developers usually available (unless out of stock and "on the way"), which are ID-11, Microphen and Perceptol. I intend to try them all, but started with ID-11 for obvious reasons stated by you too a little above.

 

[AgX]

Also, what's a development "bij"? I'm a little confused there.

Huub is a Dutch and non-nativer speaker sometime let at native word or expression slip in, or a text autocorrection does so.

What he meant was "reducing the development by 25%".

 

[M-88]

Huub is a Dutch and non-nativer speaker sometime let at native word or expression slip in, or a text autocorrection does so.

What he meant was "reducing the development by 25%".

So he suggested me to overexpose and underdevelop. Interesting technique.

 

[Huub]

AgX was right: I wanted to write 'by' but instead used my native 'bij'. Overexposing and underdeveloping is a well known technique to reduce contrast, based on the zone system. By overexposing you take care the shadows retain the level of detail you need, underdeveloping keeps the highlights in check. This is more or less the opposite as pushing a film, where you underexpose and overdevelop, hence my remark on lost shadowdetail and blown highlights when pushing your film to 800 iso.