Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
> Have we been had over? |
*** Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks *** |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Have we been had over?
I was at a friends house yesterday and watched him printing in his darkroom. (B&W) He opened a new box of Kentmere satin surface VC Select paper and made a decent print first time out but to me it looked a little bit flat without the full blacks and clean whites that I have always come to expect from Kentmere. It also seemed a bit too warm to be 'true' Kentmere . The developer was Ilford Multigrade, it was clear and un-oxidised, originally decanted from a 5 ltr canister into glass bottles.
The filtration was 25M and the exposure 40 seconds to make a 12x16 print. Now with the older (pre Ilford owned) Kentmere I very rarely used any filtration above 5M (grade 2.5) for a negative of the same visible contrast as the one used and the exposure times would have been shorter too. I mentioned this and he said well Lets try some MG4 as well. The paper was Ilford MG satin satin surface, but as it was smaller than the original print, he only printed a central section of the original with the same filtration. He did a test strip and the exposure was more or less the same. Lo and behold when washed and dried the 2nd print was indistinguishable from the one on Kentmere paper. I have always preferred Kentmere because the exposure times were shorter and I liked the cooler tones, plus before Ilford took it over it was also a good bit cheaper too. I could never see the logic of a major company buying out a smaller one with the possible exception of getting rid of any competition so I have my suspicions that Kentmere paper and MG4 are more or less the same product except in name. Even the prices are now not far removed from each other. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On a factory tour it was explained that Kentmere had God market share for display inkjet material, that was what Harman really wanted, the rest was a bonus.
Ian |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I feel a bout of cynicism creeping in!
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I have the Kentmere pdf on its VC Select. It was printed under the Harman label and is dated 2009. It states that Kentmere is a stop faster and its filtration for grade 3 is 25M for enlargers which use the Kodak filtration. It doesn't give half grade filtration unfortunately but interestingly grade 2.5 for Ilford MG is 5M and maybe equally interestingly Kentmere grade 3 is 25M and Ilford MG grade 3 is the same whereas on the original Kentmere spec when it was Kendall based has grade 3 as 45M - see below
Many years ago I bought some Kentmere which had the Kendall address on the packet so I presume this was the original Kentmere paper. I certainly recall this stuff as being a stop faster than Ilford and Ilford confirms this in its Kentmere spec sheet dated 2009 However the "old" Kentmere spec sheet when it was produced in Kendall does not have a zero filtration at any grade unlike the Ilford produced Kentmere spec sheet. If we stick to Kodak values then it goes from grade 1 at 45Y to 10M at grade 2 so was there a grade where 0 filtration was right? If there was it must have been somewhere between being more than 1 and less than 2 if my logic is correct. If Kentmere paper has now lost its difference of a stop faster from Ilford MG and if it now looks to be the same grade as Ilford MG with the same Ilford filtration then it begins to resemble the saying that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc However my head is now spinning and all I can safely conclude from what I have found out in the above is that there is more questions and answers and I cannot "square the circle" here What would appear to be case however is that the original Kentmere(Kendall based) filtration was different from the Kentmere 2009 filtration when it was produced at Mobberley Mike |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
John I wouldn't say ilford and kentmere RC are the same I would say kentmere RC is better its a bit cheaper and has more contrast shorter exposure times and faster development time ,but saying that Ilford RC paper has its place that's why I buy three kentmere RC to one ilford RC.
the one that got me was when they discontinued kentmere fineprint VC FB and kentmere bromide graded FB,they were great papers and sadly missed saying that I have about 80 sheets of bromide 12x16inch left.. www.essexcockney.com |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
It certainly sounds from what you are saying, big paul, that Kentmere Select retains its differences from Ilford MG
I take it that it still the case that the Kentmere info sheet in the box states that it is a stop faster and that the single filtration setting remain the same as shown in the Harman-Kentmere section of the website. Just out of interest does it still fail to show half grades? If this is the case then we have no need to worry that Kentmere is or has become Ilford MG by any other name. I must admit that I cannot see of any reason why Ilford, now Pemberstone should attempt any kind of change to Kentmere paper without informing the users and risk its reputation for integrity. Mike |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Just another bit of info., when we toured Ilford factory they said when they bought Kentmere they found that Kentmere emulsions contained chemicals which Ilford could not use due to current regs.and health hazards so they had to modify the composition of Kentmere's formula. They said the Ilford Kentmere was not the same as the original Kendall Kentmere.
Tony |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
It might well explain why the Harman-Kentmere filtration differs from the original Kendall-Kentmere filtration and while it doesn't show 0 filtration in the table I have looked more closely now and it does say that zero filtration gives approx grade 2 as does Ilford MG. So I was wrong to assert that there is no mention of what grade zero filtration gives. That's one running hare now stopped Mike |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Still Cynical
When a large company takes over another but smaller one with the same product and things do change in a very short time, I always think back to the years just after 2000 when the cement works in upper Weardale were bought out by the LA Farge company from France.
Within a matter of months it was announced by the French giant that they were closing the company down. Nothing had been mentioned in or before the takeover - it was just done. No consultation, nothing, a fait acompli. The site was cleared but is still derelict today. In upper Weardale, work opportunities are at a premium and closing the works down meant that several hundred men were put out of work with little hope of getting another. It is a few years since I went to the Kentmere factory in Cumbria and I have a sneaking suspicion that will also have closed too. I have just dug out a filtration sheet from my last box of Kentmere Paper and the filtration figures are EXACTLY the same as Ilford paper using an enlarger with Kodak values. That also includes single and dual filtration values. There is no mention of different speeds compared to Ilford paper. There is a mention of separate filters but only to say that Ilford MG filters are suitable. I rest my case for the prosecution. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I have just came out of my darkroom with 10 prints I am happy with and 4 I will see . if I expose Ilford at 22 seconds then the kentmere paper at 22sec all on grade 2 filter kentmere will come out well over exposed so I would expose the kentmere at 10 sec to get the same results as 22 sec Ilford and it developes faster ,and I feel that I get better blacks ,and it was also the same with the FB papers .
I would say next time you buy paper try kentmere side by side with Ilford ... www.essexcockney.com |
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free: AG Photographic The Imaging Warehouse Process Supplies RH Designs Second-hand Darkroom Supplies |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|