christmas eve, seattle, kentmere 400.

Scroll down to content

121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle022I had decided a few months ago to try shooting with Kodak 400TX as much as possible. But like most of my decisions in life, I changed my mind. I ordered 5 rolls of Kentmere 400 to use on the street. Before I shot the film at 1600 I had decided to develop the film in HC-110(1:31) for 11 minutes. I had the film loaded in my Nikon FA, with a Nikon 50mm F2 lens attached. I was satisfied with the results using the Epson V850 scanner, and the Epson Software. I tried to use the PrimeFilmXE with Silverfast but had trouble matching it with a particular film stock. The software does not include Kentmere film, but it does include most of the other Ilford films. I also shot a couple of rolls on Portra 400 shot at 800 in December that I will display sometime this week

121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle019-Edit121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle012121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle010-Edit-2121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle001-Edit121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle008-Edit121319 Kentmere 400 1600 Seattle013

Published by seatacphoto1951

6 Replies to “christmas eve, seattle, kentmere 400.”

  1. I’m entirely unfamiliar with Silverfast as it’s way out of my budget, as is any scanner capable enough to benefit from using it. Does it have profiles for Rollei RPX 400 or the new Agfaphoto APX 400 (not the old, original emulsion)? If so, they might work well for scanning Kentmere 400 as they are very similar, if not practically identical, emulsions.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      1. I see. Well, I thought it was worth mentioning just in case. Sorry it didn’t pan out. For determining the best substitute profile to use then, the only thing I can think of to do would be to look at a bunch of sensitometric curves for various traditional 400 ASA B&W stocks and use the one that most closely matches the curve for Kentmere 400. Or, scan the film straight, without a profile, as a positive slide, as a 16-bit TIFF to ensure you have as much information to work with as possible, and then invert, desaturate, and manually adjust the gamma and curves in post to get the results you’re looking for. The latter is probably the approach I would take. Take care, Steven. I hope you had an enjoyable Christmas and that you have a happy New Year!

        Like

      1. Wow, you’re right. The datasheet for Kentmere 400 doesn’t provide any curves. In fact, it’s missing all sorts of information that used to be included by default in every film stock’s datasheet back in the day. The RPX and APX datasheets are also missing the curves and other info. That’s a shame. Oh well, I guess. It’s still a pretty nice film that can provide good results, as you’ve shown, and thankfully it’s still relatively inexpensive (emphasis on “relatively”). I think scanning it without a profile as a positive slide and doing everything in post is your best bet at maximizing your scan quality anyways.

        I truly hope Kentmere 400’s price stays relatively low, although despite still being the cheapest 400 ASA B&W stock out there today, at a minimum of $4.29 per 135-36 roll it’s already left the realm of being a legitimately budget stock, in my opinion. Film is getting way too expensive, and it’s become a serious problem for amateurs like myself with limited budgets. I truly believe that for film to remain viable and sustainable long-term, film stocks that cost no more than $3-4 per 36-exposure roll of 35mm (or 120 roll) must remain available on the market, for both color and B&W stocks. Likewise, for serious B&W shooters on a budget, $30-40 100 foot bulk rolls are equally important, in my opinion. Unfortunately, pretty much none of this is a reality anymore. And once Kodak increases their prices “significantly” in the new year as they’ve stated they’re going to, I’m pretty sure they are going to lose my business permanently as they’re already badly overpriced as it stands, in my opinion. For the first time in many decades, film is no longer truly affordable for enthusiasts on a budget. The constant, and in many cases flat-out ridiculous, price increases in recent years may not matter to people who only infrequently shoot the occasional roll, or for pros able to offset the cost. But for truly devoted amateurs who desire to shoot a decent quantity of film but aren’t pros or people with money to burn, it really is a big deal. There are a lot of “talking heads” right now within the film community (mostly people who own and run film-related sites, or are pros) that are so vocally defensive of the manufacturers increasing film costs that it really does make one raise an eyebrow. Unless they’re being compensated to do so, why are they defending something that’s going to hurt the average serious film amateur, and potentially even significantly shrink the number of these people within the community due to film simply becoming too expensive for them to bear, and thus forcing them out? These vocal individuals’ arguments are almost entirely illogical, if a person really thinks about it for themselves. And it’s the serious amateurs, after all, who really are the people manufacturers should be listening to and catering to if they have any interest in film’s long-term survival and not just high short-term profits. But sadly, it would appear to me they’re not interested in the former, at all. I guess we’ll see what happens in 2020 and beyond in the world of film. I’m hoping for the best, but based on the past couple of years I am quite concerned about film’s future and the ability of people like myself to afford to continue this wonderful hobby. Sorry for the rant.

        Happy New Year!

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment