photo-gear

I've gotten through most of a 100' roll of the Kentmere 100 and I do find it sharp. The contrast and sharpness remind me of Plus-X, although I found Plus-X to have finer grain. I use HC110 for processing.

It's amazing. My favorite film is Kodak 125 Plus-X (and I keep in my fridge 2 bricks of them), so I had compared both films (kentmere and plus-x) and I don't share your opinion regarding kentmere.

I have used quite several b&w films over the past few years and although Kentmere is cheap I find this film very low contrast.

Personnally I prefer using the same film for any circumstances.

In terms of price, I find 35mm fomapan 100 & 400 very satisfactory.

<p>Just ordered 10 rolls of Ultrafine Extrem 400. Keep you posted on this!</p>

<p>John,<br>

Well I kind of like the Extrem films 100 or 400 as well.<br>

The 400 one might be grainy with several developers but, honestly, that hasn't been noticed by me.<br>

Concerning Kentmere, I did try the film a several occasions. I am no expert but either I go with the massive dev chart or longer dev time, the results aren't satisfying to me in regard the contrast. That is unfortunate coz Kentmere films are very much affordable. <br>

<br />Keep shooting films!</p>

<p>I love that kind of thread.<br>

Personnally, I have been exploring several films since my return to films some 6 years ago.<br>

In terms of cost, Foma is pretty much affordable with films and paper (Arista EDU with Freestyle) and the results are very much reasonable.<br>

In a recent past, Fujifilm was selling his last films under LegacyPro. They were fantastic films and at a good price. It's unfortunate it is now gone.<br>

In Canada, the real problem is the transportation cost, especially from US. Otherwise, i would order a lot more from Ultrafine Online (Ultrafine Extrem 100 and 400) or from Freestyle (Foma products as well as Arista EDU). By the way, rumor has it that the Extrem line is Kentmere. Although the chart dev is quite similar, I find Extrem more constrasty that Kentmere which is rather flat.<br>

I regret that Kodak 125 Plus-X is gone (still available on Ultrafine Online). Silvermax 100 does the job but it is costly.</p>

 

<p>In this case, I believe the back door plate has to be reajusted. That's what happened to my Konica nT3. I used to get my films scratched when trying to get to the next frame. Before getting it fixed, I had found a temporary solution by holding the opposite spool while using the advance lever. </p>

<p>According to my own experience, loading 35mm films on metal reels is a little more difficult (but with practice you get used to it), especially if your film has a thin base and is longer than 30 exposures. Besides, I don't see obvious advantages using metal reels, although I still use them, once in a while, when my plastic reels are still wet...<br>

Plastic reels are way much easier, no sweat.</p>

<p>Does anyone know about time development with D-76 1:1 for this film? I find no such time on the net. Only for stock solution. If I try it out, I think I should for 50% longer.<br>

<br />Any suggestions regarding the D-76 1:1 ?</p>

<p>My first Silvermax shot:<br /> <a title="Hebergeur d'image" href="http://www.hostingpics.net" target="_blank"><img src="http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/822214x201306058.jpg" alt="Hebergeur d'image" border="0" /></a><br>

Pentax K1000<br>

Silvermax 100<br>

Rodinal 1:50</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Mike is right: Ultrafine Extreme has been offered on the market quite a longer time ago before the Silvermax arrival. Rumor has it that the "Extreme" line is a re-branded film from either Ilford or Kentmere.<br /> Also from some other rumors, it appears that Silvermax is a film base from Agfa left over, after the bankrupt. Adox acquired this batch and added up the emulsion. Someone could understand that Adox might not produce Silvermax on a long-term basis, unless the market is very positive. In this very case, Adox will then have to make the film from scratch after running dry from the Agfa batch.</p>

<p>Beurk!<br>

Why don't you try Shanghai films instead?</p>

<p>And I also tend to believe the Plus 100 and 400 are Chinese films (Lucky?) while the Extreme 100 and 400 could be either Ilford or Kentmere.</p>

<p>I don't like Ultrafine Plus 100 for other reasons than the grain itself. On this point, I have no particular comment. But what about the contrast? I find it rather plain. And this is not without speaking about the huge curling of the film. <br>

Here an example of one shot (HC-110 dil. B): <br>

<a title="Hebergeur d'image" href="http://www.hostingpics.net" target="_blank"><img src="http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/795588x201209050.jpg" alt="Hebergeur d'image" border="0" /></a></p>

<p>On the other hand, I am experimenting another Ultrafine film, which is Extreme 400 and I am pretty much satisfied. I heard even better commentaries about the 100 ISO.</p>

<p>I should mention that my experience with those films are with 35mm format.</p>

<p>For a while I also thought that Tri-X would be discontinued, taking into consideration the Arista Premium 400 (in Freestyle) was out of stock. Now only 24 and 36 rolls are available, no more 100 feet roll though.</p>

<p>I have a good news for you John.<br>

There is one distributor in Canada. After looking for it for a long time (coz Freestyle cannot deliver across the border this product), I ended up asking to Maco (European photo products - this company has the copyright for Rodinal) how to get hold of Rodinal in Canada.<br>

The distributor is called "Blazes Photographic". There used to be a website in its name but not anymore. If you google the name, you can get hold of his ph. number.<br>

The product is called "Blazinal" (since the distributor, for legal reasons, cannot use the commercial name of "Rodinal") and it should be available in any major photo retailers by now.</p>

 

<p>According to the description and especially for its "increased silver-component", I am wondering whether this new film is comparable to the late Kodak 125 Plus-X.<br /> In other words, is this possible that Adox introduces on the market an equivalent of Kodak 125 Plus-X?<br /> BTW, I checked out this film on Freestyle and there is no mention of this film.<br>

ps: before writing this comment, I did not go thru the whole thread, especially towards the end where Ricardo Mirando mentions something about Kodak Pan-X. We both had the same idea. ;)</p>

<p>BeBu Lamar,<br>

I think you have it all correct. What I have to do is simply find out a K-mount tamron adaptall-2 to get the proper adapter for my Tamron adaptall2 lenses.<br>

<br />Thanks to all of you who took the trouble to answer to my question. Really much appreciated.</p>

<p>Here's a look at the animal (bought on e-Bay for cheap).<br>

<img src="http://img1.imagilive.com/0912/tamron_adaptall_k-mount_001-1-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<img src="http://img1.imagilive.com/0912/tamron_adaptall_k-mount_003-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img1.imagilive.com/0912/tamron_adaptall_k-mount_002-1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I have a reading ! And it looks like it changes with aperture change. Very strange.<br>

But maybe I should compare it with an independant light meter.</p>

<p>I do agree that it should be underexposed in the case the adapter doesn't contribute to light measurement. So I tend to believe the lens itself is a problem.<br>

On another forum, someone believes that cheap adapters don't help to get a light measurement and that they are just design to get the lens fit on a body. But, to me, it would be absurd to design such adapters.</p>

<p>I have started using Tamron adaptall-2 lenses on my several systems. For most of my systems, I have the genuine adapter except for the K mount one. Recently I bought a cheap one on the net. The K-mount adapter allows the tamron lens to fit the body, no problem. But after shooting and developping, I realize the shots are all over-exposed. My Pentax K1000 is in good condition. Other films shot with my regular lenses turn out good.<br>

What should I understand from that? I can see the genuine Tamron adapters don't look like the cheap one but what mechanism makes the light measurement different?<br>

Thanks for answering.</p>

<p>Thanks for this thread. Now I know about the fog.<br>

I now understand how come some of my films have this dark density all over their surface sometimes. Most of the time, it is from old films or films bought on websites without being sure of their conservation methods...<br>

Mainwhile, I would like to make another observation regarding fog effect. I did develop some foggy frames and, even though it takes more time to expose under the enlarger, the final print result is quite acceptable.</p>

 

<p>Thanks to this thread. I cleaned the contacts with a pen rubber and it worked out just fine. Such a relief!!!</p>