Film/dev failure?

[Cluster]

Hi,
I tried my first roll of Kentmere 400 135 in my new-to-me Kodak Retina as a camera test.
The exposure seemed to be OK with a negative of reasonable density (all mine need a good contrast boost).
I developed it in Bellini Duo Step as per my normal process, then scanned by photographing the neg with my Samsung NX3000 with zoom lens and "macro filter". My Duo Step chemicals are newish, only having successfully developed a handful of 135 rolls.

Scanning this way is relatively new for me since the loss of my flatbed scanner, but I have been pleased with the results from other film scans, although I've never developed or scanned Kentmere 400 to date.
The result is awful, see the worst of the roll at 1:1 (cropped) and a scaled FF attached. I will hurry to try a Fomapan 100 or 200 to check if the chems/process is at fault. Could this be a film/dev mismatch? I recall reading of one or two film types that didn't work well with DS, but now can't find the article.

 

[The Oldun]

That pattern of artifacts looks like nothing I have seen on any scans I have done of K400. They look like digital artifacts to me rather than a negative fault. Does the negative fill the frame when you photo/scan it or have you had to crop? It reminds me a bit of my first failed attempt at scanning with my phone, where I had to crop to fill the frame.

 

[zx9]

That pattern of artifacts looks like nothing I have seen on any scans I have done of K400. They look like digital artifacts to me rather than a negative fault. Does the negative fill the frame when you photo/scan it or have you had to crop? It reminds me a bit of my first failed attempt at scanning with my phone, where I had to crop to fill the frame.

I was thinking that too.

The lack of fine detail in the grasses looks like an aliasing artifact, the low frequency in the sheeps' faces looks good.

I have only ever developed Kentmere 400 in DDX or Xtol so can't comment on the developer incompatibility but it seems unlikely.

 

[Nod]

Looks like a low quality/heavily compressed JPG file full of artefacts, as Keith says.

 

[Sangoma]

Have you looked carefully at the negatives? That will tell you if it is a film or scan problem

 

[Cluster]

Thanks to all for your suggestions.....
The scans do not fill the frame, each is cropped. This image is the poorest on the roll, perhaps the exposure was off on what was a flat scene. Other frames show a little more blocky artifacts than I expected, but not as bad as the sheep frame.
Re"scanned" it with RAW, but it's no better... my RAW skills were tested again in "Darktable" software, here it looked super flat....
I can't magnify it sufficiently to see detail by eye.