Author Topic: Ilford Pan 100/400 and Kentmere 100/400 (Read 12924 times)

Kayos · « **on:** February 08, 2015, 07:43:12 PM »

Im still at an "experimental" phase of my filmwasting, currently searching for a go too 100 iso b&w film
In my last order I bought 4 rolls of Pan100, as soon as I looked at the film I remembered Kentmere was made by Ilford as it looked and felt exactly the same

I have not had much luck developing Kent, either 100 or 400, out of 6 rolls I have had lines running from the sprocket holes across every frame, and lots of uneven development
I just developed a roll of Pan 100 and its fine, no lines, even dev and the negs look pretty good.

So are my assumptions about it being the same wrong? or have I just got better at developing?

I will put a roll of Kent 100 through the same camera and develop it in the same way (same dev times) just to see if it is the latter

LT · « **Reply #1 on:** February 08, 2015, 09:21:52 PM »

do you pre-wet the film before adding the developer? Give that a go. Just fill the tank with water the same temp as the developer, and leave for about 30 secs to 1 min. Then empty and add the developer as usual.

Lines from sprocket holes are clear signs of too much agitation ... so if they have gone more recently, then I'd say your development is getting better. Be gentle with your agitation and try to be unpredictable - don't do the same swirls every time. Just gentle inversions rather than swishing rotations.

hope that helps.

Kayos · « **Reply #2 on:** February 08, 2015, 10:07:31 PM »

I do normally pre wet, but the Pan data sheet specifically recommends against it, I've also started using the twiddly stick rather than inverting, as I was bored of loosing bleach while developing C41

LT · « **Reply #3 on:** February 08, 2015, 10:22:10 PM »

twiddly stick = sure fire way to get streaky negs. Inversions all the way.

Are you using paterson tanks? Do you 'burp' the lid after putting it on? it shouldn't leak after sufficient burping.

Good luck.

Adam Doe · « **Reply #4 on:** February 09, 2015, 12:06:47 AM »

Quote from: Leon on February 08, 2015, 10:22:10 PM

...Are you using paterson tanks? Do you 'burp' the lid after putting it on? it shouldn't leak after sufficient burping.

Good luck.

Oooh, I hadn't known about the Paterson lid burp. Thank you for that tip Leon.

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #5 on:** February 09, 2015, 01:02:48 AM »

Quote from: Leon on February 08, 2015, 09:21:52 PM

Lines from sprocket holes are clear signs of too much agitation ...

Hmmm, my experiance and literature say something else. These streaks from the sprocket wholes are usually bromide drags and can be avoided by sufficient agitation. They can be seen e.g with a Caffenol stand development without using a restrainer agent. Agitation can avoid all kinds of uneven development.

All Ilford/Kentmere films I used so far are very easy to develop with perfect results and don't need any presoak. I can't remember any Ilford datasheet where presoaking was recommended.

LT · « **Reply #6 on:** February 09, 2015, 08:54:34 AM »

Too much/ overly aggressive agitation leads to the developer flowing in a stereotypical way through the sprocket holes leading to streaky negs, but of course YMMV.

Bromide drag is an entirely different, chemical-based issue and is ameliorated by gentle but regular inversions.

Pre-soaking is an important step in balancing film and developer temperature. It also assists in developer take up in areas where less than ideal water quality can affect this. Again, YMMV. If it's not necessary for you, then don't do it. No need to overcomplicate matters. The OP is having problems, so I am making suggestions on issues that may and could cause the reported issues. It seems you are not experiencing these issues, so more power to you. It's frustrating when it doesn't work out, and when we get it right, it is easy to forget that.

Final point - just because Ilford does not mention pre-soak, it doesn't mean it is not helpful. Ilford used to suggest drying films with a hair drier ... imagine that - a fan-powered dust distributor firing it onto overly heated sticky gelatine. Disaster.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #7 on:** February 09, 2015, 09:12:43 AM »

as someone with a family in the tupperware biz, the lid burping was nothing new

LT · « **Reply #8 on:** February 09, 2015, 09:27:52 AM »

I hear you Jojonas. Lid burping is an obsession of mine. Somehow the world is a better place with a burped lid.

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #9 on:** February 09, 2015, 10:41:45 AM »

Hi Can you post a digi snap from a phone or similar of these lines?
The reason I ask is they might not be chemical at all; years ago I had a friend who had pressure marks caused by winding back anticlockwise (he was left handed)
Might not be the case with you but a little picture might help us diagnose.

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #10 on:** February 09, 2015, 07:21:43 PM »

Quote from: Photo_Utopia on February 09, 2015, 10:41:45 AM

Hi Can you post a digi snap from a phone or similar of these lines?
The reason I ask is they might not be chemical at all; years ago I had a friend who had pressure marks caused by winding back anticlockwise (he was left handed)
Might not be the case with you but a little picture might help us diagnose.

Yep, and a description of the used developer and agitation sceme would be very helpful.

I guess that digital pics for documentation purpose are fine here.

jojonas~ · « **Reply #11 on:** February 09, 2015, 08:09:25 PM »

Quote from: imagesfrugales on February 09, 2015, 07:21:43 PM

I guess that digital pics for documentation purpose are fine here.

yup. we all need to digitize the analog to reach out to the web anyway.

but a scanned polaroid is better

Indofunk · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2015, 08:26:59 PM »

Quote from: jojonas~ on February 09, 2015, 08:09:25 PM

Quote from: imagesfrugales on February 09, 2015, 07:21:43 PM
I guess that digital pics for documentation purpose are fine here.
yup. we all need to digitize the analog to reach out to the web anyway.

but a scanned polaroid is better

Kayos · « **Reply #13 on:** February 10, 2015, 07:24:15 AM »

I will try the burping next time I develop a film

As for the lines, it's happened with and without pre wash, in D76, ID11 and Rodinol, constant agitation for first 30 seconds then once every minute

With pre wash, I tend to follow the manufacturers recommendations, however I have done it when it's not recommended and not noticed a difference, but when not pre washing if it's recomended I've had patchy development

My initial question was are Ilford Pan and Kentmere the same? As apart from Pan developing much nicer they seem the same to me, I would like to use the Kentmere without streaks so I will certainly try altering my technique, alltho it works fine with every other film I use

jojonas~ · « **Reply #14 on:** February 10, 2015, 09:55:13 AM »

I've read before people guessing that the pan films are edge cuts from fp4 and hp5 master rolls. though it could be from kentmere too.

could be worth comparing ilfords recommended dev times for the different films.

Francois · « **Reply #15 on:** February 10, 2015, 02:48:51 PM »

That's always what I do when I have off brand films.
I can't remember if it's got a DX barcode, but it it does you can always send the canister code to the dexter DX code search engine.

imagesfrugales · « **Reply #16 on:** February 10, 2015, 03:59:34 PM »

Kentmeres are definately not FP4+ or HP5+. You can see it by the imperfect anti-halation properties. Kentmeres and Rollei RPXes are very close relatives. They are the best low-budget films available imo. The RPXes I used a lot and never had any issues with uneven development, besides Caffenol I also use Rodinal frequently.

My standard agitation sceme is 60 seconds initially constant, then 3 turns every minute. That's almost the "official" Ilford sceme. Never any problem, neither with our very chalky tap water or clean demineralized. Unsufficient agitation may lead to uneven development. Many people use overall constant agitaion with reduced dev time and very good results, e.g. with the Jobo processor machines. And of course blurping is important to dislodge bubbles.

Again, it would be helpful to see pictures showing the fault.

gsgary · « **Reply #17 on:** February 10, 2015, 06:02:58 PM »

Quote from: Kayos on February 10, 2015, 07:24:15 AM

I will try the burping next time I develop a film

As for the lines, it's happened with and without pre wash, in D76, ID11 and Rodinol, constant agitation for first 30 seconds then once every minute

With pre wash, I tend to follow the manufacturers recommendations, however I have done it when it's not recommended and not noticed a difference, but when not pre washing if it's recomended I've had patchy development

My initial question was are Ilford Pan and Kentmere the same? As apart from Pan developing much nicer they seem the same to me, I would like to use the Kentmere without streaks so I will certainly try altering my technique, alltho it works fine with every other film I use

Not enough, 3 to 4 every minute

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2015, 10:34:42 AM »

I know I sound like a broken record, but I'd still like to see these marks...

jojonas~ · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2015, 10:56:31 AM »

in the mean time, here's the datasheet for anyone interested: http://www.ciemnia.net/Ilford/Pan100_400.pdf

Indofunk · « **Reply #20 on:** February 11, 2015, 04:48:53 PM »

Quote from: Photo_Utopia on February 11, 2015, 10:34:42 AM

I know I sound like a broken record, but I'd still like to see these marks...

Me too.

Also, vis a vis burping, I find I need to burp it once right after adding the blix, and then once more after the first inversions, and sometimes after the second inversions, as pressure builds up slowly. I used to HATE the leaking blix, but now I haven't seen any in a while (knock on film).

Related question: What exactly causes this pressure buildup? I assume it isn't steam, as 100F isn't enough to release that much steam in that little time (also, it's only the blix that does this, never the dev). Is there a chemical reaction where gas is actually released?

Kayos · « **Reply #21 on:** February 11, 2015, 05:16:25 PM »

I will get some shots of the lines in the morning, At the minute im having childcare issues and the film stuff stays locked away when its just me and the kids, however they will be at school/nursery in the morning and I don't start work until 2, so will have chance to get something uploaded

I use separate bleach and fix and its just the bleach that leaks for me, using no scientific basis or information I think its just that some chemicals search out gaps/weaknesses (like antifreeze on old cars) Im sure there is a proper reason for it

Dave Elden · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2015, 02:06:24 AM »

Quote from: Kayos on February 08, 2015, 07:43:12 PM

I have not had much luck developing Kent, either 100 or 400, out of 6 rolls I have had lines running from the sprocket holes across every frame, and lots of uneven development

Another data point:
I use K400 for a beginner darkroom class (because it is economical and seems a perfectly good film) so I've seen quite a few rolls developed by absolute beginners; in many cases the first roll of film the student had ever developed. But I've never seen sprocket hole lines. We use the Ilford recommended agitation (4 gentle inversions/minute).

Dave.

timor · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:52:40 AM »

Kayos, check your camera for light leaks. With the next film seal the edges of the door with black electrical tape. Many of this 30 years old cameras have the light seals in very poor condition by now.

LT · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2015, 10:02:55 AM »

good point Timor. That could explain a lot!

mcduff · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2015, 02:05:25 PM »

I had discounted pre-wetting, likely because of the guy who taught me a zillion years ago (who may not have been any more of an expert than I am now, and likely light years behind some folks here). I think I was told it was for old-timey emulsions. ;-)
I am generally happy with my negs but feel they could use a bit of grain taming, esp with stuff like hp5 - which never matches some output I see. I will try pre-wetting.

Francois · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2015, 02:56:05 PM »

Pre-wetting does reduce contrast ever so slightly, but you'd be hard pressed to see it without a good comparison method or a sensitometer.
But what it does is soften the emulsion and, with frequent burping, dislodge any air bubbles that could have stuck to the film before the developer gets introduced in the tank.

But so far, I don't do it much and haven't had any problems. I think it might be more useful for large format film than anything else.

LT · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2015, 04:23:42 PM »

Quote from: mcduff on February 13, 2015, 02:05:25 PM

... they could use a bit of grain taming, esp with stuff like hp5 - which never matches some output I see. I will try pre-wetting.

Try Hp5+ in 5x4. No grain visible up to 16x20 in my prints

mcduff · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2015, 04:49:00 PM »

So how many times do I need to fold it to fit in my 645??

SLVR · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:20:11 PM »

^HA

Sometimes I do with stand developing because I also heard that it will reduce air bubbles. Generally though I don't.

Francois · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2015, 08:51:15 PM »

Quote from: mcduff on February 13, 2015, 04:49:00 PM

So how many times do I need to fold it to fit in my 645??

You see, Leon has the solution to your problem

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2015, 09:03:25 PM »

Quote from: Leon on February 13, 2015, 04:23:42 PM

Quote from: mcduff on February 13, 2015, 02:05:25 PM
... they could use a bit of grain taming, esp with stuff like hp5 - which never matches some output I see. I will try pre-wetting.

Try Hp5+ in 5x4. No grain visible up to 16x20 in my prints

It's actually quite nice in lowly 35mm and 120 even in Rodinal...

I'm like a budgie–I like a little grain and grit

Kayos · « **Reply #32 on:** February 20, 2015, 02:10:08 PM »

Due to my PC dying I don't have easy access to the original scans, and the jpegs were corrected in lightroom

However......

A bit of research and experimentation and I have discovered it was caused by lack of fixing, either too short a time or exhausted fixer, either way ive adjusted my processes to allow for it and so far so good