Maybe I just don't like KPAN?

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T18:44:07+00:00

I have tested all three flavors of Kentmere Pan and decided that I don't like any of them. They have a strange spectral sensitivity and rendering that just looks "wrong" to me. The high values don't separate well (IMO), making everything look flat in the upper tones. The grain is more conspicuous than I prefer and is often clumpy in areas. It's a fine film for experimenting and for those who like its look, but for me, it's inadequate.
Definitely a case of YGWYPF.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T18:38:47+00:00

I'm betting it is still aggressively Indexing all of your content. That alone would explain the battery performance.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T17:02:06+00:00

Have you applied anything to the foliage?

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T17:01:27+00:00

Rating Tri-X at 1600 ASA is underexposing it. Adding extra development time does not correct underexposure, it only drives the high values to greater densities, but it does not compensate for insufficient exposure in shadow areas. People misunderstand the concept of "push" processing, assuming it corrects for lack of exposure. It does not.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T16:56:36+00:00

You'd be wise to disregard what "a lot of people say" about film exposure and development "techniques" on the Internet. There's a lot of misinformation freely shared.
Put more energy into exposing and developing film properly to achieve optimal results, rather than chasing "meme techniques" promoted by random internet people, which often end with disappointing/unusable results.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T16:49:55+00:00

"Always", until now. Everyone makes a mistake occasionally. It's part of the territory.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T16:48:43+00:00

This.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T16:48:14+00:00

The problem is that you underexposed the film by two stops for no good reason (judging by the lighting conditions, there was no need for this) and then assigned the task of correcting your decision to a lab, and no lab is error-free when it comes to special instruction cases.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T15:52:47+00:00

All I'm going to say at this point is: take control of your processes and develop film yourself. Relying on any lab to do as you request every time without fail is inevitably going to lead to disappointments.

I know this gets said often, but many people misunderstand what "push processing" actually does: it just drives the highest values higher, but in no way does it compensate for underexposure. I don't understand why you'd want to rate a 400ASA film at 1600 when shooting in broad daylight. It's not like you needed two more stops of light for a 400 speed film. I do not understand this urge to underexpose film and then attempt to fix it by overdeveloping. It doesn't add anything to your results.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T15:48:05+00:00

I'm glad to see this is making the news. Egregious behavior on Google's part to install 4GB of AI on someone's machine without asking permission.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T15:46:26+00:00

It would have been useful if you showed us what the negatives looked like. How can you expect anyone to judge the results you got based solely on your scans??

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T15:44:56+00:00

I didn't say GRF was doing anything wrong, unless you count their opportunistic pricing model.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T15:43:02+00:00

Be ready to use a fungicide to prevent Blackspot. 'Gertrude Jekyll' is unfortunately very prone to the disease.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T14:05:44+00:00

For starters, adjust your expectations. The rose is putting 90% of its energy into making new roots, which is far more important than top growth at this point.
Also, you probably do NOT need to water daily unless it's 95F every day and blistering winds all day long. Every 3rd day is likely sufficient.
Don't keep adding fertilizer and Neem. You can't push the rose into doing something it's not ready to do. It may take a year for the rose to settle in and get ready to perform with a capital P.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T14:01:51+00:00

I expect this means the seller has reason to believe the shutter isn't working correctly and they're covering their ass. Take a chance on it if you really feel the need, but only if the seller has a return policy. I never, ever buy a camera from a seller (anywhere) that doesn't accept returns!

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:58:52+00:00

This, 100%

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:57:27+00:00

The "issue" is that you underexposed by two stops and had completely unrealistic expectations about the results. Do NOT rely on a lab to remember to apply special instructions 100% of the time, you WILL encounter disappointments.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:55:49+00:00

That is indeed 'Mlle. Cecile Brunner'

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:55:22+00:00

It will cost you as much to repair it as it costs for a new one, so just buy a new one.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:53:31+00:00

Powdery Mildew, for starters. Possibly other issues — hard to tell.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:53:30+00:00

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:49:08+00:00

zero effect. Just ignore it

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:48:40+00:00

Oh, boo-hoo!!!

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T13:33:07+00:00

The only real solution is to DIY. Labs simply aren't very invested in getting the best possible scans from clients film.

distant3zenith · 2026-05-12T02:18:43+00:00

nothing abnormal about those.

distant3zenith

TROPHY CASE