I saw someone comment but it looks like it was removed or they deleted it. Saying * something about The Massive Dev* chart and the times for rodinal. I was going to use those times. In fact I did start by developing the Kentmere as by the Massive Dev Chart 1+50 100 15mins. My Result gave me a complete over developed negative, to the point you could see no detail on the negative at all so that is why I changed developer. So I had to start the experiment from scratch. Your comments would be welcome.
@@jonnoMoto Hi I checked my held for review comment area to see if it was in there but was not so I am guessing it was either RU-vid or the poster that took it off. Thanks
Although all three films should be pretty much identical (they are all made by Harman) I feel like Kentmere is more prone to flare/halation than the Rollei RPX films. It makes me wonder if RPX has a stronger anti-halation layer than Kentmere. Never used Agfa APX, so can't say, but looking at images on flickr it seems prone to the issue to the same or nearly the same degree as Kentmere. A stronger anti-halation layer might also explain the subtle difference in curves between the RPX and the other two.
I think what fotoimpex says is that they're all the same base emulsion, but they're slight variations, which is why they're 99% the same - but can claim being different?
I can't comment on RPX, because I haven't used that stock, but APX and Kentmere are totally different. I've used both before and Agfa APX 100 is my most favourite film stock. It has a lot more contrast than Kentmere. On the latter my shots were very flat and boring, still decent grain structure,but needs to be pushed 1 or 2 stops to get actual blacks.
Kentmere 100 and THE NEW Agfa APX 100 are exactly the same film. The original Agfa APX 100 is of course entirely different. Look at your development technique/times as Kentmere 100 is NOT a flat film and gives great blacks if developed for thr correct time and agitation. Are you getting confused here????
For me Ketmere is clearly different. Between APX and RPX I see a lot of similarity, maybe as the same film from different manufacturing batches. Still, RPX seems to have more contrast and slightly finer grain.
Hi Arturo Thanks for your comment I think you are right having spent time looking more closely at the films. I have also found that as you say Rollei seem to use different manufacturers. The RPX was made in the UK which I had for the test. And the current Infrared I have got is manufactured in Belgium!
Well done. Thanks. Any small variation in the 3 examples may be explained by the position of the reels in the tank. I've found this with 3 or more reels in my large tank. I think it's due to slight differences in the agitation effect from top to bottom. I don't get this difference with long stand development and very dilute developer. Only see it with stronger developer ratios and short times.
Thanks for your comment Paul and your explanation regarding position of the film in the tank. I think you are right. The difference between them is tiny.
Bravo for the seriousness of the process! I just discover your channel, i will check the others video, because it's hard to get good revues process to analyse the films. I think you are right, it's probably better to develop the film in the same batch. But to stick to perfection, it should be important also to check the regularity of the shutter of your camera. In some cameras, there are 15% difference between different frames at the same speed. Your Praktica get a vertical shutter which give in general more regular results than horizontal textil shutter. Avoid 1/1000 and 1/500, if there is a problem, there are more chance to be at the fastest speeds. (1/1000 could easily be between 1/800 or 1/1200) AE1 or autofocus reflex from the 90s, are good example of good shutter regularity. It would be nice also to get the file weight of each BL Analog camera repairman
Your right they are the same on price I always use kentmere this has been confirmed by a number of sources but applaud Agfa and rollie for keeping film alive and trying do something rebrand film is nothing new but gives more choices and stops film prices spiralling out of control which benefits us all
Agfa makes their own film, I don't see why two companies (them and Harman) would have the same film. Rollei could be either, as they are just bankruptcy vultures, not a real company.
Nice video. I would like to believe you but still can't ignore the differences in development time listed in the "Massive Development Chart". When we take as developer Rodinal in a dilution of 1 + 50, the development times for box speed of 100 ISO vary from 10 min. for APX over 15 min. for Kentmere to a spread of 12 min. to 18 min. for the RPX. At my supplier the prices for 1 roll of film/36exp. vary only €0,75 between the three.
The development times are incorrect I did try them and the Kentmere was over developed to the point you could see no objects at all the negative looked about 5 stops over developed.
This is not a good source for development times, unless you don’t have access to manufacturer data sheet. Even in that case I always compare with other sources and apply the logical comparing the times for similar films.
Tolles and Agfa a re certainly the same, but I ‚d say that Kentmere is way less acute and some times are lighter then in the other two - so I’d say it’s different. Which would agree with other people‘s statements that usually leave Kentmere out of the list (but take the Adox in). Also Haarmann is also producing ilfopan which would make little sense to sell it twice 🤔
@@mynewcolour Yes, it is. But its the same as the current Agfa APX. Kentmere is different. I dont know if its discontinued or if they just sell it under different brands in different countries
Modern APX is not the same APX as before... I've bought 10 rolls of APX100 on Amazon, as well as couple of rolls of APX400 in local DM markets where they are till sold. First suspicion is that APX100 is made in UK. 99.5% that it's produced by Ilford since there is definitely not so much film manufacturers nowdays. Especially in UK alone. Looks like exactly the story with Fuji 200 which is made in USA and most likely is rebranded Kodak Gold 200. I have both... so, need to take a better look on it.
That’s a great comparison. Another clue could be that none of these films are available in 120 size. Guess if you decide to buy one of these films, just look for the cheapest.
LOL I did mention about price but made 2 different endings and it was on the other take. The other thing I forgot to mention is they are all manufactured in the UK. Thanks for your comment 😀👍
I think you are wrong in your conclusion. I have not tried Agfa APX 100 yet, but I have tried Kentmere Pan 100. I checked developing times in Adonal (Rodinal) 1:50. Kentmere Pan 100 has a developing time at 15 minutes and Agfa APX 100 has developing time 10 minutes, this talks against it is the same film.
@@FilmPhotography I will do so as soon I can get a APX 100 for a resonable price here in Sweden. But you say in your film that as they have the same developing time it talks for it is the same film. But according to both datasheet for APX 100 and Rodinal, APX 100 has a developing time at 10 minutes . And acording to the datasheet for Rodinal, and from my own experience, Kentmere 100 has a developing time at 15 minutes.
We also have to consider that Harman Technology (which makes all three) has stated that its own films (which include Kentmere) are not produced for anybody else. However, it does not claim that films they make for others are different from one another. I am inclined to believe them on this showing, but it seems likely that RPX100 and APX100, RPX400 and APX400 are the same formulations respectively, any differences between the two being accounted for by coming from different batches. Moreover, I don't think there is any difference in the film base used for all of them, and Kentmere formed the basis of the precise formulation of the emulsions for the other two brands.
Are these films really the same? I don't know. I don't really care. I'd probably use Ilford FP4+ or Delta 100 or T-Max 100 instead! | This rather well-done exercise reminded me of why I never use film any more. Frankly, I don't like the look, compared to even modest digital image capture. | One thing I'd caution folks about: Film performance has a lot to do with the hardness and pollution of the water used to mix the developer. Use distilled water for consistency. Some regions' tap water has so many mineral salts in it, you get very different results from what the manufacturer intended. | I've spent the last few years digitizing 50-year-old film negatives with a camera and a macro lens. Negative Lab Pro plug-in for Lightroom Classic software is the tool I use to do the inversion, tonal adjustments, and color corrections. It saves oodles of time.
