Help finding development time...

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by marciofs, Mar 9, 2014.

  1. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I have checked in the digitaltruth.com and there is no information about developing Kentmere 400 at ISO 1600 with Ilford HC. So I tried by guessing and I got it.

    Now I shot a Kantmere 400 at ISO 3200 and the same problem again. No info found about development time. So I need help on guessing how long time should I try as development time now.

    So using 1+31 Ilford HC 20C at ISO 400 the development time is 8min
    The same but at ISO 800 the the time is 12.5 min.
    The same at ISO 1600 the time I guessed and got right is between 18 and 19 min.

    Now at ISO 3200, how long time would you suggest me to try?
    I am thinking about between 26min and 29min(???). But if I can get help on think about it would be nice. :smile:
     
  2. Kevin Caulfield

    Kevin Caulfield Subscriber

    Messages:
    3,333
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, A
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Try 30 mins and you will be fine.

    Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
     
  3. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks... I feel more in the right the path now.

    I actually will try 28min since I might have overexposed a bit when shooting in the snow.

    I show the results here later on. :smile:
     
  4. mfohl

    mfohl Subscriber

    Messages:
    492
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    Westerville,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    At 30 minutes, 2 minutes either way won't make a big difference.
     
  5. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Thanks to let me know. It is the first time I am developing a negative for longer than 20min. I am used to develop for less than 10 min in most cases...
     
  6. pentaxuser

    pentaxuser Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,053
    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Location:
    Daventry, No
    Shooter:
    35mm
    There would appear to be a consistent factor of 50% extra here for each stop which you have probably worked out so that would suggest between 27 and 29 mins and as others have said a difference of even 2 mins at these times will be fairly slight.

    pentaxuser
     
  7. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
  8. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Member

    Messages:
    8,036
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Central flor
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Following BTZS, here is how I do it:
    1.assume that box speed -2/3EV is correct and shoota few tonal range scenes on 5 rolls or sheets.Yhen developthem at 4,5.5,8,11 and 16 minutesLook at the resulting negatives to determine the best dev time.interpolate as necessary.90%of my film tests end upwith box speed -2/3 EV and 10-12min in D761+1 in rotation on the Jobo.
    all the best
     
  9. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I am unsure as to your reason for posting these. The developing looks adequate to me. The exposures seem otherwise. I wouldn't say snow overexposure is an issue. The pictures themselves put me in the mind of mid last century, noir–y, true detective magazines. Very harsh, super contrasty, and no shadow detail. If that was your goal – mission accomplished. Are these 120?
     
  10. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    The snow doesn't look over exposed to me. Do you have a good example of a well exposed snow ground so I can compare?

    I think the high contrast and very low shadow detail is expected since we are talking about pushing 3 stops. But the red filter I used was the actually main influence.

    My goal was to get more grain but I actually love what I got. The "aggressive" look.
     
  11. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Of course, and as I suspected. That's what overly strong filtration will do for (to) you. As I say, if you like that look, then you're there. You will find plenty of support for your style of photography among the frequent posters here. If you'd like to see examples of full tonal fine art monochrome photography, with shadow detail, you can go to my site, where nothing stronger than yellow filtration was employed. I have already posted plenty of unappreciated examples here already.
     
  12. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Beautiful and well done photographs you have in your website.

    I do landscape too with shooting at low ISO which I think is easier to get details on shadow.

    I like the high ISO and agressive look for my street photographs. The shadow details are not that bad if I proper work on then. Here a example:
    http://www.marciofaustino.com/uploads/1/6/4/6/16464874/221853_orig.jpg

    Theses shots are just test to see what I could get from pushing K400 at 3200.

    By the way, they were shot with a roll of 35mm.
     
  13. Michael R 1974

    Michael R 1974 Subscriber

    Messages:
    6,375
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    How sad, such underappreciated masterpieces.
     
  14. Michael L.

    Michael L. Subscriber

    Messages:
    53
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Location:
    Copenhagen
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Kentmere 400 @ ISO 3200

    Hello Marciofs,

    After a little experimenting, I have (in my own opinion) had reasonable success pushing Kentmere 400 to ISO 3200 in Rodinal/R09 1+25. The appended shots were made last November at 2 PM on a "cloudy bright" day - which at 55°40'N is not very bright.
    Development time was 20 minutes, with very gentle agitation every 30 seconds.
    Incidentally, the prints were made on 20+ years old Orwo paper (found in an attic) and then scanned on a generic home office scanner (I apologize for the dust and cat hairs on the scanner plate).
    These imperfections notwithstanding, the pictures should still convey an impression of the possibilities offered by the combination K400 + Rodinal.

    Best of luck!

    Regards,
    Michael
     

    Attached Files:

  15. marciofs

    marciofs Member

    Messages:
    685
    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Location:
    Hamburg
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Michael L.

    Thank you for sharing.
    It seems to me that wuth Rodinal/R09 it looks even better than with Ilford HC.
    I thought about trying develope with Rodinal but wan't sure how many minutes I should develop it for. Thanks to your post I know now.

    I just bought in the internet 10 rolls of Formapan 400, just to compare with Kentmere 400. Both are grainy and push very well but Formapan seems to have a old formula and deliver an old look which I also like.

    Anyway, I like the result you got and it is what I want to archive, a more agressive heavy and grainy look.

    Thanks. :smile: