Your best experiences for Pushing Kentmere 400 to ISO 1600, and HC100 vs. XTOL for this purpose

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry for multiple questions in one 

I really like this work: https://alysvintagecameraalley.com/2021/01/04/developing-adventures-pushing-kentmere-pan-400-to-1600/  The author developed in HC100B. Something like 13min/10second. My other reference is massive dev chart.  

What developer do you use? what develop time & agitation? My major interests is for travel, including encountered landscape, architecture, and people.

By the way, are Xtol, XT3 and Eco-Pro practically the same thing?

Edited February 3 by Einst_Stein

[jakontil]

I used to shoot with bulk rolls of  kentmere 400, was my go to… then i got a good deal on few bulk rolls of ilford hp5+

Most of the time i developed in ilfotec HC dilution B which is 1:31

now im on my last bulk of HP5 i might revert back to kentmere 400.. the results are quite consistent between the two.. the only notable difference is price in my case.. ok may be i lied a little.. but the difference isnt as noticeable in my case

Ilfotec HC is ilford’s answer to kodak HC110 

[Einst_Stein]

38 minutes ago, jakontil said:

I used to shoot with bulk rolls of  kentmere 400, was my go to… then i got a good deal on few bulk rolls of ilford hp5+

Most of the time i developed in ilfotec HC dilution B which is 1:31

now im on my last bulk of HP5 i might revert back to kentmere 400.. the results are quite consistent between the two.. the only notable difference is price in my case.. ok may be i lied a little.. but the difference isnt as noticeable in my case

Ilfotec HC is ilford’s answer to kodak HC110 

Kentmere 400 is sort of the cost down and somewhat degraded version of Ilford  HP5. But the difference with digital light room is less visible than analog dark room.   

[250swb]

5 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Kentmere 400 is sort of the cost down and somewhat degraded version of Ilford  HP5. But the difference with digital light room is less visible than analog dark room.   

Yes I agree, I think Kentmere 400 is a little less contrasty than say HP5 but if scanning to digital the loss is easily made up in post processing. For pushing any film I'd use DD-X but I've never used Xtol or the equivalent XT-3.

[LocalHero1953]

Quite a long thread here on related subjects, including XTOL vs XT-3. 

 

[Einst_Stein]

In the past I preferred HC110 and Rodinal for the convenience and their long shelf life. For Kentmere 400, HC110 was reported to yield excellent up to ISO 1600.  According to massive dev chart, XTol,  XT3, and ECO Pro are listed to yield up to 6400. 
 

Since XTol/XT3/Eco Pro are capable of higher ISO, I am naive to assume they will perform better at ISO 1600 than HC110. (What is better is yet to be defined.), But is this true?

Edited February 6 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

The first question,   are those 3 developers the same chemical... 

 

     NO  they are not.   Even if using old, pre change in manufacturer  Xtol,, it is not the same chemically as Eco Pro or the Xt3

 

Eco Pro, if the package is correct, was designed as an improved, next generation of Xtol by a few of the brains who designed the last Kodak recipe of Xtol..  its similar, but not the same.  Xt3 is similar, but not the same..  Current production Xtol is NOT the same as it was 5 years ago.. 

    IN fact i have a feeling the powdered Eco Pro "xtol" is the current production of Xtol labelled package due to it having the same issues that Xtol had when it changed maker, exactly when Xtol had those issues.

Is the improvement in the sense of more environment friendly  or better artistic performance?

Edited February 6 by Einst_Stein

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, mark_s90 said:

90% in the name of avoiding Kodak lawyers, although the MSDS for eco pro film developer powder indicates that there is alot of wiggle room in actual percentages,  in part A sodium sulfite can be 90%-96%, the other ingredient can be 3% to 6%.. 

 

And the other 10% of the improvements is adapting the recipe to different ingredients that do the same thing. 

 

Its like Jello and store brand "instant gelatin desert". Same thing, just different proportions of ingredients.

Then I wiould not call it an improvement. It's just to escape IP lawsuit?

My interest is which one works better, particularly for Kentmere and Ilford. 

[Ko.Fe.]

HC100 is just so much less hustle with insignificant difference in results.  D76 -> XTOL -> HC100 was my path.

Kentmere @1600 was at the end of it, because HP5+ became unreasonably high in price for daily shooter. 

Massive dev chart was the only thing I trusted.

[Einst_Stein]

1 minute ago, mark_s90 said:

Kentmere is supposed to have less silver content.. 

 

thus what developer would work best with that?  Its really going to come down to a get the cheapest one and try it. Going by results you see online are only so much, because so many people do the film shooting, and then develop the film based on how it scans, and then based on how they like to have it look before they open up photoshop. 

 

Its why you have such huge animosity and fights on most photography forums that deal with film development and use of enlargers. How one person likes to print, say they only want to use a contrast 2 filter,,  they will do their negatives one way for exposure and developing to compensate for that. 

 

while a guy who just puts a negative in the enlarger, makes a test strip and then thinks and adjusts with his filter pack.

What exactly are you trying to say?

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, mark_s90 said:

Its all a pile of hot shit..   the film developing database thingy.. ts all bull shit according to emails displayed by the owner. Its all edited on "gut feeling" by the dude.. not by science. 

 

And most of the recipes if you will, massive film dev, people develop film wierd to suite their private needs, not a universal need to get a universal negative..  Meaning, if mike in  brussels is developing Kentmere 400 for 8 minutes in 1:9 DDX,  its most likely because his scanner setup works better with that negative, or its because they are printing with a bare 20 watt lightbulb.. 

not YOUR enlarger or scanner. 

 

Its sort of like the world of wet shaving forums. you can ask something like "how much shaving cream do you use to make lather in the morning" and sit back and laugh all you want for the next 40 pages of replies, arguments, and fist fights over how big a "dollop" or "pea sized" is.. 

OMG, have you ever developed a film? At least following Kodak or Ilford or whatever the producer'srecommendation?  have you ever compared those with Massive Dev chart? and have you ever scanned the film you developed yourself with YOUR enlarger and scanner?

[PetPhoto]

can someone tell me what "HC100" is.  Google and Bing cant figure it out, keep giving a product called "home care 100"

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, PetPhoto said:

can someone tell me what "HC100" is.  Google and Bing cant figure it out, keep giving a product called "home care 100"

I assume it's a typo for HC110.

[PetPhoto]

The only option is to actually knuckle down and ride the data sheets from the manufactureres and see what happens. 

 

I "push" and even "pull" HP5+.  Even did the same to XP2 and Delta 400.  Even used multiple Exposure Index/iso values for these films on the same roll of film. Used Rodinal and all was good. For the most part.  cant engage the extreme ends of ISO on the same roll sadly.