Trying to decide between HP-5 Plus and Kentmere 400.

[rpavich]

I'm at the point where I have to buy another 100' roll of Black and White film. I had purchased a roll of Kentmere 400 and a roll of HP-5 Plus.

I found (through trial and error) that I liked shooting HP5 Plus at 1250 and developing in Diafine. My scans are more pleasing to me and printing seems to be easier. The tones seem less harsh. Not sure how to describe it.

So in an effort to see if the substantially less expensive Kentmere could hold up to my HP5 results; I shot a roll of Kentmere at the same ISO and developed in Diafine the same way.

I haven't printed yet, so that's pending but here are the scans.

What I'd like from you all is just your impression of each one; maybe you see something that I don't. Maybe you notice something that I didn't...something to consider that might escape my notice given my noob status.

So with that...here they are:

Shot #1:

Shot #2:

 

[darkosaric]

Both are excellent films, both of your pictures are equal in quality/tonality/etc to me. I like HP5+ more, specially in HC110 dil. B or Rodinal 1+25. One of rare films that I don't develop in high diluted 1+100 Rodinal.

 

[rpavich]

Both are excellent films, both of your pictures are equal in quality/tonality/etc to me. I like HP5+ more, specially in HC110 dil. B or Rodinal 1+25. One of rare films that I don't develop in high diluted 1+100 Rodinal.

Thanks for the feedback. I also like HP5 in HC110B.

 

[ColColt]

Never tried Kentmere but am somewhat partial to HP-5 but at ASA 250 with HC-110 and Dilution H. If Shot #1 is with HP-5 at 1250 that is superb quality for that speed. I think for my eye I'd cut back on the developing time as tome it looks a mite contrasty. YMMV. It's subjective but, sort of like this...

25563958422_f0afa4d466_h01 by David Fincher, on Flickr

 

[rpavich]

Never tried Kentmere but am somewhat partial to HP-5 but at ASA 250 with HC-110 and Dilution H. If Shot #1 is with HP-5 at 1250 that is superb quality for that speed. I think for my eye I'd cut back on the developing time as tome it looks a mite contrasty. YMMV.

Thanks also.

Shot #1 is the Kentmere. I agree though, it's a bit contrasty for my taste but that's probably my post processing. Since I was within the editing time window, I lowered the contrast and replace the photo in Flickr.

Refresh your browser and check it again, see if it's not better now.

 

[ColColt]

Superb. I need to try Diafine

 

[rpavich]

Just an FYI: HP5 at ISO 1250 in Diafine makes underexposed negs. I started going back to my old negs and proof sheets and doing proper proof sheets for proper blacks, and found that a lot of my negs that seemed ok, weren't. Severely underexposed. I didn't know until now.

 

[calebarchie]

Of course, you are rating at 1250.

 

[dabsond]

I tried both the Kentmere 100 and 400 in 24exp rolls. I decided to go with the 400 and ordered a roll for bulk loading. I just developed my first two rolls off of the roll. Excellent results using HC110 dilution B. I don't wet print, so the big selling point for me is how flat the kentmere dries. Absolutely no curl. Easier to scan.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You really can't evaluate film on the basis of scans alone unless you are careful to turn off all autocorrection software for the scanner. Unless you do this your negatives will appear to be better than they actually are. This warning comes up periodically on APUG. It's much better to base any judgments on traditional analog prints.

 

[wblynch]

Of the above examples I prefer the HP5+ It seems to have more dimensionality (is that a word?)

 

[rpavich]

Of the above examples I prefer the HP5+ It seems to have more dimensionality (is that a word?)

I think I agree. I shot another roll and developed in HC110B and I just like it better. I'm not sure why, but I do.