Kentmere 400 b&w film

F

fixedimage

Suspended / Banned
Messages
902
Edit My Images
No
Anyone tried it?
Good price compared to Tri-X etc and meant to be good quality as it's made by Ilford.
I like contrast by the bucketful though so reticent to move away from Tri-X but saving some cash would be nice.
 
i have a roll waiting to be developed so i will let you know how it goes. as far as i know it doesnt have massive contrast, maybe try rollei 400 for that?
 
Hmmm, not liking anything that google shows me for an mage taken using either Kentmere or Rollei everything looks quite flat and muddy to me (told you I like contrast). Could be because I think a lot of what I'm seeing are scanned negs and not shot to be contrasty whereas Tri-X is more often shot and printed contrasty so used to seeing it looking a lot punchier.
Which Rollei film were you referring to by the way? it seems they do 400rpx and 400s, the latter having some IR sensitivity.
 
just bought two rolls to try out, my favourite B&W film at the moment is rollei retro and its cheap! 36 rolls for 17 quid!!!
 
walsh said:
just bought two rolls to try out, my favourite B&W film at the moment is rollei retro and its cheap! 36 rolls for 17 quid!!!
Click to expand...

Do you mind tell me where you get this particular Rollei deal from?

Thanks

Al
 
Tri-X isn't a particularly contrasty film, if you want lots of contrast you need Pan F really.
 
At the moment I print at grade 4 - 5 so I can't really lose any contrast in my negs.
I also like 400 iso, seems just right for me.
The images in here that have a white border are all Tri-X devved in Xtol. This is the look I want/need.
The price on the Kentmere is so good, might just try some.
 
alistair.o said:
Do you mind tell me where you get this particular Rollei deal from?

Thanks

Al
Click to expand...

It's a family run camera shop in my town, it really hasn't changed much since the 70's. He even has new Polaroid cameras for sale on the shelf! It's like stepping back in time.
 
That's a shame, because 36 rolls for £17 is an absolute and utter steal. Would love to get my hands on that.
 
freecom2 said:
That's a shame, because 36 rolls for £17 is an absolute and utter steal. Would love to get my hands on that.
Click to expand...

I know, it's only that price because he cant shift it.
 
IMHO, with a figital work flow, it is a moot point to talk which films have more contrast for those films with a gamma of 0.75-0.95. You have contrast control both in the graphics editor and with the film development time.
 
But as 'fixedimage' stated he's printing on Grade 4 or 5 I can safely assume he isn't using a digital workflow, so your comments are mute!
 
EdBray said:
But as 'fixedimage' stated he's printing on Grade 4 or 5 I can safely assume he isn't using a digital workflow, so your comments are mute!
Click to expand...

Grade 4 and 5 are extreme. That is similar to over adjusting contrast it the graphics editor of a well exposed negative. In other words, the bulk of properly exposed and developed films printed on grade 5 will all have their mid tones crushed. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish between, say, Tri-X and Pan F in that scenario except for the grain.
 
Last edited:
Shame about delivery on the 10 rolls for £18 because otherwise I might've bitten - but I prefer the flexibility of shooting ISO400 film, so I'm sticking with TMY-2 for now I think.
 
AlanSmithee said:
IMHO, with a figital work flow, it is a moot point to talk which films have more contrast for those films with a gamma of 0.75-0.95. You have contrast control both in the graphics editor and with the film development time.
Click to expand...

The only digital in my workflow is a cheap Canon scanner which scans my prints and gives me a digital copy of them.
 
AlanSmithee said:
Grade 4 and 5 are extreme. That is similar to over adjusting contrast it the graphics editor of a well exposed negative. In other words, the bulk of properly exposed and developed films printed on grade 5 will all have their mid tones crushed. You'd be hard pressed to distinguish between, say, Tri-X and Pan F in that scenario except for the grain.
Click to expand...

I see what your saying but a low contrast film printed at grade 5 would look quite different to a high contrast film printed at the same grade surely?

More contrasty film/negs = don't have to print at such a high grade to get the same result right? So if anything I want a more contrasty film not a less contrasty one.

Actually, I'm presuming that a film emulsion has a degree of contrast and that it isn't entirely dependent on the development process and chemicals used. If that is so and bearing in mind that lighting conditions will alter contrast so lets assume we are taking a set scene in one type of light, is there any benefit to getting contrast in the neg during development and then printing at a softer grade as opposed to developing the neg for a more standard contrast level and then printing at a harder grade?
 
fixedimage said:
I see what your saying but a low contrast film printed at grade 5 would look quite different to a high contrast film printed at the same grade surely?

More contrasty film/negs = don't have to print at such a high grade to get the same result right? So if anything I want a more contrasty film not a less contrasty one.

Actually, I'm presuming that a film emulsion has a degree of contrast and that it isn't entirely dependent on the development process and chemicals used. If that is so and bearing in mind that lighting conditions will alter contrast so lets assume we are taking a set scene in one type of light, is there any benefit to getting contrast in the neg during development and then printing at a softer grade as opposed to developing the neg for a more standard contrast level and then printing at a harder grade?
Click to expand...

Your sentance that I have highlighted in bold is completely wrong I'm afraid, and this could be why you are getting the results you currently are.

The film chosen will have a certain contrast when exposed and developed in a particular way, any variation from that and there will be marked differences in the negative.

Under normal development and in the same lighting Tri X would have much less contrast than FP4 or Pan F, with Pan F having the most contrast.

In order for you to get Tri X to have a lot of contrast you must be either over developing the negatives (blocking up the dark tones) or over exposing the film (but probably a combination of both) and thus compressing the tonal range, and printing on grades 4 + 5 will only exacerbate that further.

From the tone of your posts though you are happy with the end result and that is all that really matters, but your being happy with how you process and print your negatives does not mean that it is the correct way, but many a 'style' has been developed from a specific and repeatable change to what would be considered normal.

Another way of introducing higher contrast in monochromatic images is to use a filter on the lens at the time of shoorting, typically an Orange or Red with a very dark Red giving some extremely high contrast and almost IR in feel.

As for your sentance that I have highlighted in bold/dark red, know you are getting close to understanding how exposure x development can be used to create a full toned negative that will print well on standard grade paper.

This is the first steps in really understanding how the Zone System works.
 
freecom2 said:
Shame about delivery on the 10 rolls for £18 because otherwise I might've bitten - but I prefer the flexibility of shooting ISO400 film, so I'm sticking with TMY-2 for now I think.
Click to expand...

I would still buy some. I took this as a test shot this week using Rollei 100 @ 80 and didn't pay too much attention to the developing regime (I just wanted to see that there were no scratches.

5639274315_edd00c5655_b.jpg
 
Not the best example to encourage me to buy some, whites are muddy and the image lacks punch. But then, if you have not paid much attention to the development as you state, how are we supposed to judge how good (or not) it is?
 
EdBray said:
Not the best example to encourage me to buy some, whites are muddy and the image lacks punch. But then, if you have not paid much attention to the development as you state, how are we supposed to judge how good (or not) it is?
Click to expand...

This image was taken indoors with the blinds down and letting some back light in, into an office. It was taken using a low contrast 1952 leica lens and the contrast in the Rollei film is still evident. There are no 'whites' there are no definitive 'colours' per se but there are plenty of shades/tones. I have not got a clue what are you on about? The contrast is still evident - that is what was spoken of...
 
So the White paper in the office which is not white in your example is a good indication of how this film handles contrast?

Still you are obviously happy with it. I would not be. Simples!
 
EdBray said:
Your sentance that I have highlighted in bold is completely wrong I'm afraid, and this could be why you are getting the results you currently are.

The film chosen will have a certain contrast when exposed and developed in a particular way, any variation from that and there will be marked differences in the negative.

Under normal development and in the same lighting Tri X would have much less contrast than FP4 or Pan F, with Pan F having the most contrast.

In order for you to get Tri X to have a lot of contrast you must be either over developing the negatives (blocking up the dark tones) or over exposing the film (but probably a combination of both) and thus compressing the tonal range, and printing on grades 4 + 5 will only exacerbate that further.

From the tone of your posts though you are happy with the end result and that is all that really matters, but your being happy with how you process and print your negatives does not mean that it is the correct way, but many a 'style' has been developed from a specific and repeatable change to what would be considered normal.

Another way of introducing higher contrast in monochromatic images is to use a filter on the lens at the time of shoorting, typically an Orange or Red with a very dark Red giving some extremely high contrast and almost IR in feel.

As for your sentance that I have highlighted in bold/dark red, know you are getting close to understanding how exposure x development can be used to create a full toned negative that will print well on standard grade paper.

This is the first steps in really understanding how the Zone System works.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply.

I am really happy with what I'm getting just now but I'm also aware that the set I linked to is a step in the right direction for me and not me arriving at my final destination. Further steps in the right direction might involve me changing the overall look of my images or might not.

It was all shot on compact cameras which is quite a departure for me and it has seen me be a lot less concerned with technical aspects like focus, composition etc.

I've actually found that in some ways it's been useful to go directly against what is 'correct' sometimes to create images that are less 'photographic'.

That said, in photography and possibly especially so in the context of film/darkroom work, you still have to retain a bit of technical involvement in the process and as such I'd like to know
a)if there are improvements/changes that I can make that will integrate well with this new way of working.
b)how I can get the look that I am happy with while using other (cheaper) materials.

Related to those points, while Pan F and FP4 might be higher contrast films, the speed and cost of those films puts me off. I get through quite a lot of film so that's why I started looking at the Kentmere in the first place.

As I mentioned above, these were all shot on compacts so should be relatively correctly exposed and I have been doing a slightly longer (about 10%) development time that the MDC specifies for Tri-X and Xtol.
 
EdBray said:
So the White paper in the office which is not white in your example is a good indication of how this film handles contrast?

Still you are obviously happy with it. I would not be. Simples!
Click to expand...

Edward,I have thought whether to reply to your post or not and after careful consideration, I believe there is value in doing so.

1. The OP stated this: "...I like contrast by the bucketful though so reticent to move away from Tri-X but saving some cash would be nice"
2. There was talk of Rollei film.
3. I posted a PULLED shot in Rollei Retro 100

When you PULL film it lowers contrast and appearance. This can be 'reversed' to a degree with longer development times (but it's tricky with pulled film)

My post was about 2 things:

1. Rollei Retro 100 film
2. Contrast.

Not about the picture per se.

One other thing for everyone: Monochrome is tonal; shades of black and white i.e. white and every degree variation; black and every degree variation.
If you are seeking absolute precision then go digital (and still struggle)

Regards
 
EdBray said:
Not the best example to encourage me to buy some, whites are muddy and the image lacks punch. But then, if you have not paid much attention to the development as you state, how are we supposed to judge how good (or not) it is?
Click to expand...

Besides, it could also have been scanner settings, or your browser, or the various steps in between :shrug:
 
freecom2 said:
Besides, it could also have been scanner settings, or your browser, or the various steps in between :shrug:
Click to expand...

Quite, one image in isolation will not give a perspective on how a film will perform, particularly if it has been given non-standard exposure or processing.
 
alistair.o said:
I would still buy some.
Click to expand...

The price in total per film would be over £2, and at that price I can instead get Rollei RPX-100 or Rollei RPX-400 at £4 for 2 36exp rolls:

http://www.westendcameras.co.uk/rollei-rpx-100-36exp-twin-655-p.asp

http://www.westendcameras.co.uk/rollei-rpx-400-36exp-twin-653-p.asp

Which suits me better because a) I shoot more 400 rolls b) buying 10 at once would take me ages to go through c) I can go directly to West End Cameras to pick that up, saving me on postage.

EDIT: done some more research and it seems that RPX100 falls short of the old APX100, so I may have to reconsider and pick up the 10 rolls after all...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top