Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2021/07/12

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Kentmere 400
From: benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney)
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2021 20:22:31 +0930
References: <CABmfTOUzvvWVVUN3O_AoScR4tWOK95ZHOgOTdL4C1MYGJufHig@mail.gmail.com> <2D7C6496-394D-4C92-B9F4-22497A6E0974@mac.com>

I recommend the shortest development time you can workably use.  I don?t
know why, but Kentmere 400, Foma 400 and other gritty low tech films look
best with short development in strong developer with lots of restrainers.
Foma looks best in TMax/RS, but Kentmere looks better, to me, in HC-110 and
clones at 1+31 for 5.5 min and no more unless you really need the density.

Marty



On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 at 2:19 pm, Jeffery Smith via LUG <lug at 
leica-users.org>
wrote:

> Marty,
> Do you recommend the longer development time with more dilute DDX?
>
> JLS
>
> > On Jul 11, 2021, at 8:28 PM, Marty Deveney via LUG <lug at 
> > leica-users.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > ?It looks good in HC-110 (or clones), TMax or even better TMax RS, or
> DD-X.
> > Expose plenty and don't develop too long.  5.5 min in HC-110 (I use the
> > Freestyle Legacy Pro clone) 1+31 is about right; adjust your exposure to
> > the time.
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:29 AM Jeffery Smith via LUG <
> lug at leica-users.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> I still have some rolls of Kentmere 400, and may try Ilfotech DD-X. I
> also
> >> have Ilfosol 3, so I'd better see what other folks have used.
> >>
> >>> On Jul 11, 2021, at 11:53 AM, Lluis Ripoll via LUG <
> lug at leica-users.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jeffery,
> >>>
> >>> Thank you for your comment! The only time I get some satisfactory
> >> results with Kentmere was with X-Tol, but even so the contratst was
> quite
> >> harsh and unpleasant for me.
> >>>
> >>> A friend is getting great results with Ilford HP5 and Ilford Perceptol
> >>>
> >>> Lluis
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> El 11 jul 2021, a les 19:50, Jeffery Smith via LUG <
> lug at leica-users.org>
> >> va escriure:
> >>>>
> >>>> I tried what proved to be an awful combination this morning...Kentmere
> >> 400 and Precysol. This developer brought out all of the worst qualities
> of
> >> Kentmere 400, i.e., harsh, ugly contrast and poor sharpness due to
> >> highlights encroaching on grays.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lluis, you were right. It's not a very good film unless one can find a
> >> developer that kills the contrast and increases resolution.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jeffery
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Leica Users Group.
> >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Leica Users Group.
> >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Leica Users Group.
> >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Leica Users Group.
> > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from smithjeffery at mac.com (Jeffery Smith) ([Leica] Kentmere 400)
Reply from smithjeffery at mac.com (Jeffery Smith) ([Leica] Kentmere 400)
Reply from lluisripollphotography at gmail.com (Lluis Ripoll) ([Leica] Kentmere 400)
In reply to: Message from benedenia at gmail.com (Marty Deveney) ([Leica] Kentmere 400)
Message from smithjeffery at mac.com (Jeffery Smith) ([Leica] Kentmere 400)