Using Filters on the Pentax 17

The Pentax 17 with an 85b filter

About a month ago, I purchased a new Pentax 17 half-frame camera. While it does have its peculiarities, I enjoy shooting with it, and hope to do a full review of it soon.  One of the peculiar things about it is the 40.5mm diameter for a threaded filter.  While not a common thread size in most cameras, it is shared by Leica and some other 35mm rangefinder lenses.  There are a couple of ways to go with using filters on the Pentax 17, and since the light sensor is next to the lens, it will include the filter in its exposure calculation.  You can attach filters on the Pentax 17 a few different ways as follows:

• Purchase a set of 40.5mm filters - which can be pricey
• Buy a 40.5 to 49mm step up filter adapter, allowing use of readily obtainable 49mm filters
• Buy a 40.5mm to Series VI filter adapter.  
• Tape a bigger filter over the lens - works, but looks like shit.

Series 6 filter unit

Options 2 and 3 are the best, in my opinion.  If you already have some Series 6 filters, all the better. It just so happens that I already had the 40.5mm to Series 6 adapter, and me, being the old guy with all the old stuff, I have a shoebox full of Series 6 filters and assorted adapters.  So, I put together a kit with Series 6 filters, which include:

• Red 25A filter
• Yellow K-2 filter
• 85B warming filter
• Polarizing filter

Series 6 filters, with the adapter retaining ring on the left, and the adapter base on the right

The beauty of Series filters is that you can also use gels or other circular materials to create filters - or a piece of window screen, plastic wrap, or other material to provide a special filter effect.  Series filters consist of a screw-in adapter (or a push-on adapter for some older lenses without screw threads), and a screw-in retaining ring that holds the screw-less filter in place.  No one is making Series filters today, but they are easily found on eBay as well as your traditional old camera store - in the junk boxes.  

The light sensor is above the lens, but within the filter ring.

Why would I want to use a filter?

If one is using black and white panchromatic (full-spectrum sensitivity) film, using a colored filter can open up your creativity.  With some films that are more sensitive to the red end of the spectrum - as in near infrared, a deep red filter will give you the "Wood effect" which is when leaves and other surfaces reflecting infrared look a ghostly white with deep black skies.  I've not tested the Pentax 17 with near-infrared films, but it might be able to use something like the Ilford SFX 200 with a red 25A filter.  Since the camera is auto-exposure, using an R72 deep IR filter is out of the question.

In more typical panchromatic films, a red filter really darkens the skies and gives clouds more contrast. An orange filter also does that without as extreme a result, and a yellow filter is that sweet spot of enhancing tonality in landscapes as well as every-day photography.  

Okay, I listed the 85b warming filter, so why would I use it with b&w film?  My fellow photographer, Russell Young, got this tip from the great Laura Gilpin.  Using an 85b filter with panchromatic b&w film subtly renders better contrast in many subjects, and also gives wonderful skin tones to most subjects.  It's especially valuable using it in the skies of the West.  I've been using such a filter a lot in the past few months, and I do think it enhances the images.  So, give it a try.

Using a polarizer without seeing its effect in the viewfinder may seem like a bad idea, but in reality, it's great to use to reduce reflection from shiny surfaces and also as a kind of neutral-density filter.  

Neutral-density (ND) filters are helpful if you want to use higher ISO films to create slow-moving effects, such as waterfalls.  The slowest shutter speed on the Pentax 17 is 4 seconds, as well as B.  So, using an ISO 50 or 80 film with an ND filter should give you good results if you want that silky waterfall look.

As far as filters for color film, you could use the 85b with any Tungsten film (such as Kodak Vision 200T) in daylight, providing more natural color.  In addition, the polarizer and ND filters could also be used.  Hey, you have a lot more exposures per roll with the Pentax 17, so feel free to experiment!

 

K&F Concept 40.5 to 49mm filter adapter

the 49mm filter will obscure part of the viewfinder

Kentmere 200 is here!

I’ve been shooting Kentmere 100 and 400 for at least a decade, since I started buying the film in bulk from Ultrafine Online as Ultrafine Xtreme 100 and 400.  They have been dependable, lower-cost alternatives to Ilford FP4 and HP-5, as well as other b&w film choices.  So, you can imagine that I was pleased to see a new film from Ilford - Kentmere Pan 200.  A medium speed b&w film which is supposed to be fine grained, have medium-high contrast, and good sharpness.  What’s not to like about that?  I’ve been bulk-rolling Fomapan 200 and using it for some time, so I was definitely hoping that the Kentmere Pan 200 might be a better alternative.

I received 2 rolls of the Kentmere Pan 200 for testing from the FPP, and over the course of a couple of days, shot the two rolls with my Nikon F3HP and a 50mm f/2  Nikkor-H lens.  Certainly the sharpest lens in the drawer, and a great way to test the film.  I shot at a variety of apertures, but mostly around f/8 and f/11 in sunny conditions, and opened up to f/4 and f/2 when necessary.  Most of the shots were taken during the AVL camera Club camera meetup on April 27 in Asheville.

Roll 1 was developed in Kodak D-76 at full strength, for the recommended time of 7 1/2 minutes.

Roll 2 was developed in FPP D-96 for 8 1/2 minutes.  

My standard processing is develop for the listed time, wash - i.e., water stop, then fix for 8 minutes, and wash via the Ilford method.  I use JOBO reels and tanks, all done manually.  After the film dries, I scan it on my Epson V700 Photo scanner at 3200 DPI. You know what’s great about using an actual scanner, and not using a DSLR camera to “scan” the negatives?  I can write this post while the scanning is going on.  

Back to the Kentmere 200.  These were 24 exposure rolls, which was fine for reviewing the film, but in my typical practice, I’d want to use 36 exposure rolls.  The cassette is DX-coded, so for cameras that require a DX code, that is a plus.  ISO 200 hits that sweet spot between 100 and 400, and I was eager to see how my results fared.  

Roll 1 - Shot during the Asheville Camera Club meetup with the visiting Greensboro Photo Collective on April 27, 2025.  Developed in D-76 per Ilford’s instructions at 7.5 min.

Roll 2 - Shot on 4/27 and on 4/28,  finished up around my yard. Developed in FPP D-96 for 8/5 min.

Comments about the film

First of all, I like the way the film responds to a variety of lighting situations, and the grain is definitely less than Fomapan 200.  I normally tweak my images a bit from the scans to get what I want in a photo, but the Kentmere Pan 200 definitely did not need much of any “tweaking.”   The contrast that I found from this film was also very pleasing.  Not too contrasty, and not muddy, for sure.  The beauty of b&w films is that they can all do the same thing a bit differently from one another, but this film fits in with what I expect from a b&w image.  This is of course, very objective.  My expectations may be different from yours. 

Second, the film has a clear base, and sits absolutely flat in the scanner holder.  That’s a big plus for me. 

Third - Kentmere films have been reasonably priced (we'll see what Trump tariffs do), and the lower cost made me switch to them for a lot of my photography.  It’s rare that you get a bargain and excellent results.  I’ve not tested the 120 version of Kentmere Pan 200, but I expect that anyone that uses it should be happy with the results.

My final verdict is that Kentmere Pan 200 is worth a try, and it fills that niche of being of medium speed, making it rather versatile for anyone that wants a film with low grain and is of moderate contrast.  I definitely see it replacing Fomapan 200 as my go-to 200 ISO b&w film. Also, now that Kodak Double-X is becoming hard to get, Kentmere 200 definitely belongs in your camera.

Jiangshi 400 from the FPP

That vampire hopped right into my SLR

Back in late March, the Film Photography Project announced a new b&w film that they called Jiangshi 400, and subsequently reported that it should probably be shot at ISO 200.  Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like the Lucky Pan SHD400 film that I reported on last year.  Of course, we are “Lucky” to be able to have another choice in b&w 35mm film.  I finally got around to shooting a roll of Jiangshi 400 and finished it up today.   I shot my roll in the Minolta X-7A, which is also known as the X-370, an aperture-priority SLR that is actually a nice camera to shoot with.  As per the FPP instructions, I set my ISO to 200.  

After I finished the roll, I developed it in D-76 for 7.5 minutes. Standard fix and rinse. My observations about the film support my initial assumption that it’s the Lucky Pan SHD 400 of recent vintage.  Same PET film base, great tonal range, and same development as the Lucky film.  I like the fact that the FPP has labeled it as a Chinese hopping vampire!  Mythical non-European monsters are a rarity in our popular culture, though I suspect Godzilla and Mothra might disagree.  Maybe the FPP could use Godzilla for a batch of large format film?

Here are some scans (via my Epson V700 scanner) from the roll of the Jiangshi film.  I like it, and I definitely used a shorter developing time than I did with my test of Lucky SHD 400 in 2024.  It’s a really nice film for landscapes and moody scenes. I think it's got great resolution, and really does a wonderful job with greens.  

It's definitely one of those films that you should try before it disappears from the FPP store.