Best budget film? How do Arista and Kentmere stack up against T-Max? You may be surprised!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2023
- #filmphotography #film #kodak #kentmere #ilford #bronica #blackandwhite #vintagecamera #vintagecameras
In this video I test two budget-friendly 100 speed films (Arista EDU and Kentmere Pan) to see how they stack up against my favorite black and white film of all time - Kodak T-Max 100. The results were no less than surprising.
WD7GAQDHH51ZGJ8V
SFJ4K6M7QJEGLANI
JAXRXVYENH0XFYKF
Hi Stephen, congratulations for your channel. Have been a professional photographer for many years (I'm 60 years old). Follow many interesting and very good channels on UA-cam but I never comment or like... now have to do it for you: you are unsurpassed, the best of all :)
Let me tell you: this technical/professional comparison should be a model for everyone out there.
Excellent. Hope you will continue your project. Your website is also excellent… Thanks for your work
Many, many thanks - you’re too kind! I do honestly appreciate the words of encouragement. And I’m glad you found this info helpful/interesting/useful. It’s been a lot of fun putting this channel together. Drop by anytime!
I totally agree. These are brilliant videos. Very professional and - and interesting. These sorts of tests save people so much hassel and encourage experimenting. I now use D76 1+3 after watching another expert doing tests - thanks you guys....
Many many thanks! Glad you’re experimenting with the D-76 dilutions. I just picked up some Ilfosol to see if I’m happier with that for Kentmere. If so, I may do a follow up. Thanks for watching!
I used to develop my Kentmere films using Rodinal, and got sub-par results. I finally changed to developing in Ilford's IlfoSol 3, and it looked like a different film.
Thanks for the tip! I'll definitely try Ilfosol. I just purchased a 100' roll of 35mm K100. I'm determined to make myself happy with it by the end of the roll. I developed 2 rolls yesterday in D-76 with 1:1 dilution. Some frames were very nice. Others not so much. But I was shooting with a 70-yr-old camera which turns out is in desperate need of a CLA. So I can't base my feelings about the results on the film alone. I need to put it in a camera that is functioning correctly. That would be a good first step, lol.
Excellent film test, thank you very much. I just found Pentacon Six in good condition and bought several rolls of Kentmere Pan and T-Max. This will be my first time shooting in medium format ._.
Glad I found your channel
Glad you did, too! I will predict you’ll find little similarity between the Tmax and the Kentmere. They both have their places, though. Happy shooting with the Pentacon! I’ve never tried one of those, but had a Kiev-6C that was similar.
This was a great comparison. I actually appreciate that it had two conventional grain films vs a tabular great film because we can really see the difference and, imho, advantage of using TMax. The flatness of the base is also a big deal. I use a flatbed scanner and Kodak film is so far the easiest to scan because it is flatter than Ilford's or others.
Next, it would be interesting to see a similar comparison but with Diafine for the developer. That would be an even stronger equalizer.
Thank you for making these videos, they are very much appreciated.
Thank you for watching! Glad you found it useful, and thanks for the suggestion. I also did an episode on the 400 speed versions - but substituting TMAX 400 for Tri-X so that they were all similar in grain. Well, I say that, but turns out that they weren’t really. Tri-X wins for resolution and sharpness. No surprise there.
Thanks so much for the effort and patience you put into this. I would never do it, just too lazy I guess. But I have wondered for years what results I would come up with. The closest I ever got was a test about 5 years ago with a Voigtlander R4M and a Minolta SRT loaded with 24 shot rolls of Fomapan400. One in Rodinal 1 Hr. Stand developed and the other in HC110, Dil B compensated for 69degF. Subject was a skatepark, mid morning light, some clouds. Nothing was blown out, shadows had constrast but good detail. Both scans fo the rolls looked identical. I never printed the pictures in the darkroom, but as I always print some pictures from almost every roll I shoot now, they would have looked great. I live in the Czech Republic most of the year and I can tell you Fomapan makes great film and enlarging paper. But I love the look of Ilford, Rollei and Kodak more. The Fomapan curling thing is no problem at all on mediem format plastic reels and when loading the film on a negative carrier. Plus the develpment times are short. I usually go stock or 1:1 with D76. Essentially the shot I get is WAY more important than the camera or film I’m using. But it’s good to have the best tools you can get when you get some rare opportunities for some great captures. Thanks, again.
Thanks for watching! I guess the main inspiration for this was to satisfy my own curiosity. I guess that’s the inspiration for most of my videos, to be honest. For this comparison I was more or less concerned with value vs. effort. The way I think of film photography these days, especially if we’re talking medium or large format
…Continuing the above reply: I don’t want the effort I put into the shots compromised by the film I choose. To me, the film shouldn’t be the wild card or the unknown variable. That’s why I tend to stay away from long-expired films. Some folks like that amount of suspense, but not me. There’s enough suspense in film photography already, lol. So, I was doing this to prove to myself that sometimes the more expensive film is the best choice.
I started watching you because you are so knowledgeable and I appreciate the loads of information you come out with. I am just starting to develop some sort of sense of what photography should be like. That being said, at first glance I preferred the Arista over the other two photos almost every time.
I had a similar first impression when looking at the results of this test. Processed in this way, I did like the built-in contrast and mid-tones of the Arista. In my test of the 400 speed films, I did it a little differently by examining the histograms. I should do this 100 speed test again, but next time I’ll use FP4 as the “control” film. TMax just wasn’t a good film on which to base comparisons. It’s just too different.
Nice video. That has to be a significant amount of work to put together and I appreciate it.
Ive noticed some differences in Foma 100 in 35mm and in 120. Specifically some halos on highlights and muddy details that seem to go beyond negative size. Look forward to more film and film processing or printing evaluations.
Thanks for tuning in! I think that’s what gets me about Foma - there is a thread of inconsistency. Maybe not a lot, but enough to bug me that I’ll by a different film. I really should cut them some slack, though. They’re cranking it out at bargain prices and that is commendable in this current market. Thank you Foma!
Great video! I wish I had your patience for the thorough side by side testing. So useful! I'm also a bit fan of T-Max 100, and actually now that I think about it, the last few rolls of Kentmere 100 I've shot were over exposed. Next time I load a roll of that I'll be shooting it at 200. Really enjoyed the test, and it's an invaluable resource. Great stuff!
Thanks! I’ve yet to shoot any K100 at 200 to do any testing. But I certainly will do it. I did reach out to Harman to see if they could add any insight but never heard back. But that’s fine, we’ll figure it out on our own. Hopefully soon.
Thanks for posting this!
You’re welcome!
Excellent comparison. Thank you! I just purchased a Mamiya 645 with 80mm f1.9 to restart my film hobby that ended at the dawn of the digital photography era. Starting off with Ilford HP5 and Fuji 400H but will definitely add some T-max and Portra into the mix if I get rolling...
Glad you found this helpful! And nice score on that Mamiya with that 1.9 lens. I owned a 645 1000s for a couple of years and was always tempted by that lens. Welcome back to the wonderful world of film!
Its amazing to see, that you got trough that hole session without ever taking a back of the camera with no dark slide in place. I think if i did this, i would lost a least one shot to that error. The Video is Amazing! thank you so much for that. I shoot a roll of Fomapan in my Rolleiflex some time ago. It was okay. If you think about the price of a roll of foma here in Germany becorse we dont have any impord fees its amazing valeue for you money! Just get it und try it out. I used a ligth yellow filter on my rolleiflex, like a always tend to to with b&w. Just becorse if i dont do that, i always tent to tweek the contrast just a bit after the party. If a use a yellow filter, i´am most of the time very happy with the result frome the getgo! But I really like some of the final results of the kentmere after you did go over them. Iam very interested in the results of the new test! i need to get a roll of that Film soon. Just need to get back my rolleiflex that i loaned to a good friend of mine. Thanks for your nice work !
Thanks for the tip about using the yellow filter. I will definitely try that! Even with import costs, the Foma/Arista is a bargain here in the US. And like I said, I discovered I didn't hate it. I just had to accidentally find a better way of processing it. I've got the 400-speed test on the list of things to cover in the next several weeks. So stay tuned. ALSO - the reason I didn't accidentally expose a frame of film when changing backs is that the design of the Bronica makes it impossible to remove the back unless the dark slide is in. Error-proof!
Ultrafine Xtreme. Saw the end coming and stocked up. I almost got them to admit it was a Harmon produced product, with the same font/packaging and nearly the same bluish flat drying base. Im guessing is the a pan 100/400 variant, cousin to the current kentmere family of lower amount of silver films. I also found it interesting that kentmere 120 came out some months after Freestyle basically admitted they would not be getting anymore. Usually I use replenished xtol for my harmon films, but 100 shot at 50 with ilfosol is exquisite, if you nail exposure.
Unfortunately, I did not see the end coming. Heck, I’d only “discovered” it a couple of years prior. It was just an easy film to get the results I wanted. I did just pick up some Ilfosol to use with the Kentmere. I’m optimistic!
@vintagecameradigest I just looked up my times for ufx 100. I pulled with perceptol not ilfosol, which I only used a few times with ufx 400 and mostly with fp4+. What was your preferred developer for ultrafin
Ah… Perceptol….I was using my old standard of D-76 at 1:1.
I like Arista EDU. I think it's very a good value for me as I am a beginner film photographer.
It is a great value, for sure! I would just tend to over-expose it a bit to improve the mids. Cheers!
Great review and comparison. I'd love seeing a similar comparison for all three with their ISO 400 emulsions. Thanks for the info!
You’re welcome and thanks for watching! I’ve got it on the “to do” list since I’m curious, too.
I`ve also had Kentmere 100 come out quite dense, and it was all shot with a Maxxum 7000 with no compensation set, so most of the roll should have been metered fine. In my case, it was with Rodinal instead of D-76.
Yes, it’s interesting. I’ve been meaning to get back to doing some tests on K100. I have a roll shot at EI200. Just haven’t had time to do the processing yet.
I’ve just bought a brick of Kentmere 400 to try. Tri-X is too expensive now, so I’m looking for a much cheaper alternative. Fomapan 100 is nice in Rodinal 1:50. I tried slitting some Fomapan 100 to use in my Minox subminiature cameras, but it’s not got the resolution I needed really.
I live about 30 miles from Harman Technology, so I’m hoping to visit one day.
I have yet to shoot any of the K400 I got in, so let me know how you like it. I'm definitely going to do another comparison video with it - just need to get it scheduled. But you are SO right - Tri-X is getting more expensive by the day. I went online to order some just the other day, but couldn't bring myself to hit the "purchase" button. And the budget-friendly options are dwindling as well. I just received notice that the Bergger Pancro 400 that I had on order for months now has been discontinued. So thankful for Harman Tech these days!
Another excellent video and presentation. I must say that I am a bit surprised at these results. Even after taking all your disclaimers into consideration, if I go by a simple flash-card test of the images; I have to say that the Arista is first, followed by the T-Max (further back), and then Kentmere a distant third. I would have guessed T-Max, Kentmere, and then Arista. I need to stop 'burning' through my Arista to use as a test film.
You couldn't be more shocked or astounded than I was. Next will be to try out different developers to see if I can get all I can out of the Arista.
Wow - a great bit of good information.
1. I have not purchased film since the late 1990's. Sticker shock sets in. And a very good argument for not wanting to revisit a film camera again!!
2. I liked T-Max (100 & 400). But for twice the price, I'd be willing to use more Kentmere under these conditions - hone in on film developing times and digital processing procedures. I actually think that the longer developing times you used might be more the problem. Decreasing them from 21 minutes to 17, like the others, might prove to be more beneficial than changing the shooting ASA to 200.
3. Bottom line - I prefer the T-Max grain structure to the other two films, and also a less contrasty image to begin with. Particularly since the ultimate processing will be digital. Much easier, IMO, to preserve details in the highlights, and easier to increase contrast in post rather than subdue it.
4. FYI - My favorite Kodak 120 b&w films were -
Tech Pan, ASA 32,
Verichrome Pan, ASA 125 (probably my all-time favorite, if I could only shoot with one film) - Developed in D-76, 1:1.
T-Max 100,
Tri-X 400, and...
Royal -X film, ASA 1000. It was the grainiest film I ever used, but what gorgeous "artsy" images it could produce.
Thanks for watching! I'm in agreement about the T-Max. There are some subjects where I think I'll still prefer it, BUT otherwise, I'm going to be shooting more of the Kentmere. I just got in a 100' roll of it in 35mm, so I'm determined to make it work. I think I'll be perfectly happy and so will my bank account. I have a couple rolls to process tomorrow, but I'm going back to my D-76 1:1 dev instead of the 1:3 . So shorter development times for sure. We'll see if that affects the density any. It's funny you mention Verichrome Pan - as I've heard others recently say that the Kentmere 100 reminds them of that. A good all-around film. T-Max was brand new when I first started out, and I found I liked it better than Plus-X due to the grain structure. I used a lot of the T-Max 400, too - probably most of all. I haven't shot that in several years, but I have a brick of it just waiting for the right moment.
I only use Tri-X for B&W, Portra for color neg and E100 for reversal film 🎞️ both 120 and 135 🎉
I don’t shoot very much color compared to B&W. But I do like Ektar and Portra. I just picked up a pro-pack of Fuji 400 to give it a whirl. And it’s probably been close to 20 yrs since I’ve shot any transparency stock. I keep thinking about it though. Maybe one day soon.
Actually Formapan comes out very nice when stand developed. It is grainier than TMAX but stand developed the contrast is pretty normal. Forma 100 has lots of latitude when stand developed and very nice contrast. I use a HC110 semi stand development but add 1mL of Rodinal and that seems to be a super combination although HC110 alone is almost as good. Yes Arista is Formapan.
Like I said - I’m just excited to have a new film to play with!
Temperature, time, agitation and dilution are critical factors to my liking.
Kodak had few Developers back in the days, because I found the D-76 is an all around one and easier to work with.
By the way, I’m in the Pacific Northwest area. And you if I may ask? 😅
D-76 is a good all-around choice I think. It’s been my standard for many years, though I have tried others. I have some Ilfosol to use on a test roll of the Kentmere - as someone recommended to me.
Georgia!
@@vintagecameradigest I’m in Washington.
@@vintagecameradigest Try it.
I did not like the Arista Edu 100 until I started pushing it. Shoot it at 400ASA and develop it accordingly.
I’ll need to try that out. Thanks for the suggestion!
I buy Fomapan 100 in bulks and develop in Adox Rodinal or Fomadon R09. Arista is probably another name for Fomapan.
Yes, I think it’s the same. I do need to try out different developers. I was really surprised by the results of this test. I thought there would be big differences. Yet, it turns out they’re quite subtle.
@@vintagecameradigest if you want really good bw film, then try ADOX CMS 20 Ultra-High-Resolution Film with Adotech IV Developer. I saw that even expired 6 years ago produces results better than most digital cameras. I mostly use Fomapan and recently I have bought one roll of Adox HR-50 and Ilford Pan 100 to check if they are any better than Fomapan. With Rodinal expect more grain. IMO Rodinal should not be used with ISO greater than 100. With Fomapan 400 it gives really big grain.
I have not tried any of the Adox. But sounds like a film I’d like. Thanks for the recommendation!
Interesting, across the pond Tmax is just very premium priced and for that cost I prefer the specificity of spending it in (Kodak) color film. B&W for me has been mostly Ilford made, both the Deltas and HP5. My last BW brick purchase in 120 was in 2021 and I still have now expiring Delta 400, HP5. I took a break and lost a bit the familiarity witch characteristics so still wonder in which to invest the nest time... That's "two quality" price tiers already. I never tried Foma 400 as back then it was just slightly cheaper than Ilford.
However, FOmapan 100 is wonderful. Serves as my less worry film for sunny days. The general consensus (for all Foma) is that they are not box speed, so I give them more light and then it's beautiful in HC110 H and Rodinal! There is something in its tonality that is very classic and beautiful. The only problem is that there are often minor QC isssues such as coating comets and pinhole (maybe due to anything damaging a soft wet emulsion). The 200 is an interesting mix of tabular and cubic grain but some batches came or were very easily scratch damaged.
I haven't tried the Kentmeres in 120, while a staple in 35mm. Likewise I stretch for HP5 a bit, but do want to try them in the future.
Tmax is about the best tech ever, and Delta 100 is crunchy and snappy (need more experience with it)
If I’d had another film back I would have added Delta 100 in the mix. However, I think it’s right up there with TMax, so it might have been a bit redundant. I love Ilford’s films. I just haven’t used them as much as the Kodak varieties. But I do use Delta almost exclusively with 4x5. I have noticed the odd QC issues with Arista/Foma and that’s why I hesitate to shoot more of it. Otherwise, it seems to be pretty nice.
Arista EDU 120 film have the same backing paper as Foam 120. Arista 120 works great in a box camera with a red window.
Thanks for confirming! I hadn’t considered the red window issue. But I suppose some films’ backing paper wouldn’t be safe for that. So, good to know!
Arista/Foma also works great in folders that rely on the red window. Much easier to read the numbers than other films.
@@vintagecameradigest The issue is that on some backing paper (Kodak, Ilford) the numbers are so dim that they are hard to read through the red window. Foma/Arista 120 film has nice dark printing on the backing paper so it’s easy to read the numbers through the red window.
Makes perfect sense.
I shoot the Kentmere 100 at 200 ISO. Happy with the results. 35mm.
Excellent! Great to know that you’ve tried it and are pleased. I just got a 100’ roll of the 35mm in and will be shooting this weekend.
Sorry, I misheard what dilution you used. Caught it at the end of the video. Massive Dev chart also suggest 21miin for D76 1:3 for a starting point.
Thanks for the comments. I reached out to Harman to see if they had anything to say about the density or the EI of the Kentmere 100. I’ve not heard back, so I’ll just go forward with my own test of just rating it at 200 and using standard dev times. I did check the 21 min dev time across multiple sources just to confirm since my very first thought was I messed it up.
As for the Arista/Foma, well, this test proved me wrong. Which is exciting to me because now I have a whole new film stock to use!
i Like the grey tones of the kenmere 100 very much . However the filn is very curly and hard to stay flat when scanning. It also at times has some indentations on certain parts of the emulsion, Maybe thats whats u get for a cheaper film i guess
Interesting about the indentations…I’ll see if I notice anything like that as I shoot more of it. As for the film curling, I honestly didn’t experience that at all. I do know that can be affected by the humidity of the drying environment, though. I did find the Arista to be quite curly because of the thin film base.
Curious: why not throw Ilford Delta-100 into the pool? Much less $$$ than Tmax and a tabular grain film like Tmax. Because its tab grain, Tmax has several developers to optimize its characteristic: Kodak's Tmax developer, Ilford's DDX, Adox FX-39, and what I use, Geoffrey Crawley's FX-37 - for both Tmax and Delta films. The difference between these and non-optimized developers is substantial IMHO, your mileage may vary. Your thoughts, sir? Keep up the good work.
I have two answers for this. First the long answer:
Delta 100 is by all means an excellent film. It's my go-to for 4x5, since it is more affordable than T-Max. I don't know if I would categorize it as a "budget" film (although when compared to Kodak's films, just about any other film would be, lol). I'm also slightly ashamed to admit that I've used the T-Max developer only a couple of times - back when the T-Max films were just appearing on the scene. And I would certainly have been too green to be able to note any differences between it and D-76 or HC-110. Now that I'm *more mature* I probably should branch out and experiment more. I have contemplated DDX before, but have never followed through. Perhaps now would be a great time to give it a shot. And it might make for an interesting episode here. Thanks for the suggestion!
The short answer:
I only have 3 backs for the Bronica :-)
Love the short answer, LOL! and, alas, as you note, ANY film is budget compared to Kodak. I have to wonder if they are deliberately pricing themselves out of the market to justify closing their photo products line?@@vintagecameradigest
I wonder that too, but I can’t bring myself to believe they’d actually do that. Still, an almost 30% price increase over just a couple of years is huge. I read where part of that was to be used to invest in increased production capabilities to secure it for future demand. Let’s hope it levels off soon.
I prefer shorter scale for B&W photography - Kentmere always irritates me SOOC - very bland to my eye. So, for me, adjusting in post after digitizing is key to liking any B&W. Detail, though, is something else . . .
Agreed. I absolutely finesse my b&w negs in post. But in the spirit of comparing apples to apples I can at least see which of these might get closest to what I’m looking for. Thanks for tuning in!
I think you overdeveloped the Kentmere. The massive development chart shows 11 min for D76 1:1 and 9 min for D76 stock. I find that the massive development chart is often a good starting point for determining my own numbers based on my process. I can't believe the data sheet is showing 21 min?
Yes I thought 21 mins was a lot. But the data sheet confirmed it. I did check the mass dev chart, as well as my darkroom solutions app. The latter even suggested 23 mins with agitation once per minute. But more testing will definitely be done.
Ilford recommend agin action for the first 10 seconds only, then a further ten seconds every minute. Your negatives should be thinner with less agitation at the beginning of the development time.
That should read “agitation”, not “agin action” LOL
Well, heck. I must’ve missed that. But as luck would have it, I have a roll just waiting to be developed - but I shot it at EI 200, drat. Okay, the NEXT roll I shoot will be shot at box speed with correct agin action, er, agitation :-) Many thanks!
i have an easier time developing foma and ilford than i do kodak because of the thickness of the film base. I'm sure if i shot more kodak it would be easier to load the reels. I've shot a good bit of the foma and kentmere this year. I really like them in pyro and freestyle's hc110 clone.
I’m making a note that I need to try some of Freestyle’s HC110. Thanks for the reminder.
I find that the Kentmere and Kodak film bases are similar, or at least similar relating to curl - or lack thereof. The thinnest film I’ve ever shot has got to be Fuji Neopan Acros. I thought I was going to destroy it before I got it processed. I know people hate them, but I’ve always used Paterson reels and tanks for medium format and have never had an issue. More recently I’ve been using Unicolor reels and a roller tank. So far, so good on that, too.
i haven't had an issue scanning foma but i use a valoi holder. Dilution h works well with the hc110 clone. i think there is a semi stand dilution for it as well.
Yeah, I need to upgrade my film holder. That’d probably help me a lot.
"Back when film was king" is kind of strange frase to use. Low film prices were an anomaly that was brought on by the shrinking of the whole industry due to digital cameras. Back in 1995 when film was truly king it was still more expensive than it is now. Edit to add: Is your lightmeter ok? 1/60th at F4 in middle day in sunlight sounds like it is way over exposed. Like close to 5 stops.
Yes, light meter is fine. But I was using it to measure both highlights and shadows and averaging the two readings. In several of the shots I had a bright foreground with shadows in the background. And averaging those brought the f/stop down quite a bit. I encountered no exposure problems throughout the roll except the one shot I underexposed by two stops.
@@vintagecameradigest That still feels way overexposed. Have you checked it lately against a known good meter? Perhaps the battery is running low or something.
I just checked to verify using a Kodak gray card against my Canon DSLR. Both meters gave the same reading.
@@vintagecameradigest Ok good. Just felt really of to me.
I process my own film at home. 😂
That’s the way :-) I do enjoy the entire process of it - from shooting to developing.
Is there ever so slight possibility that the Kentmere film is... overdeveloped, somehow?
That was my first thought. So I went back and checked the data sheet, and the time i used was correct. I shot a second roll to test again, and it also came out dense. The episode I’m working on now is with the 400-speed versions of these (substituting Tri-X for the TMax this time). And guess what? The Kentmere is dense. Again.
It was suggested to me by a viewer to check my agitation process for the Kentmere. It is possible that too much agitation during the first 30secs might cause this. I agitated it the same as I did the Kodak and the Arista. So, next time I shoot it, I’ll modify that to see if it does have such an effect. I’m also planning to do another test comparing the results of Kentmere developed in D-76 and Kentmere developed in Ilfosol 3 - as Ilfosol was also suggested by another viewer. So we shall see!
@@vintagecameradigest Hmmm... I just recently got into shooting B&W film agin, and I plan to use Ilford's developers that I used wayyyyy back in the day (decades ago), like Microphen, Perceptol and ID-11 developers (yep I'm obviously an Ilford guy), all of them are coming into powder form. Course back in the day I was never satisfied with results that semi-finished developers gave me - either too grainy or too contrasty or too dense. I did use D-76 (home made) with Ilford FP4 a number of times and results where fine. Now with that being said I've never used Kentmere films. Yet...
The Kentmere films (at least 120 size) are decent films. And the price-point can’t be beat. They are a bit more grainy than their Ilford counterparts, though. But they do have a nice tonal range.
@@vintagecameradigest OK, I'll have to try them out now 😁