Anyone tried Kentmere 400 ISO 35mm ?

[Shac]

Curious about this film - if anyone has tried it I'd appreciate hearing your opinions compared to the more common 400 ISO films
Thanks in advance
David

 

[Ljós]

I have no personal experience, but read up on it. The lowdown on the origin of the film is: made by Ilford, but NOT identical with Hp5 plus.

Greetings, Ljós

 

[Shac]

Thanks Ljós - I did search on the web but wanted to hear what RFF members thought as I value their opinion

 

[paulfish4570]

it is grainier than hp5 and tri-x. the grain can seem a bit clumpy, too. BUT, it has an air about it, something different. it also dries just about flat, which is good for handling and scanning.

 

[Shac]

Paul - many thanks - very useful. On one web site they spent almost 13+ "pages" debating whether it was rebadged HP5 or not despite a clear statement from the Ilford rep - LOL

 

[Trius]

Rodinal 1:100

Rodinal 1:100

 

[Trius]

I love the spelling here ... both of these Windsor, ON

 

[Shac]

Trius - looks good on the shots above tho' I seem to see the grain clumping that Paul mentioned
I'll probably give it a try

 

[dovi]

I like Kentmere

I like Kentmere

 

[randomm]

Yeah, on the plus side dries very flat, although that makes it difficult to get the cut negatives in their pockets!

Otherwise I'm not 100% sure if I like it. I've shot about 15 rolls of it, experimenting in various Caffenol developers. The grain is rather pronounced, which sometimes is good, most times I don't like it.

Mind you, my tests are from Rollei RPX 400, but I've heard from "almost the horse's mouth" that its the same film. Maco relabel material sold to them by Ilford. RPX 400 is an end of the line product in at least in 135 format, due to some contractual issues between Maco and Ilford, so may be cheap to get. I've got couple of bricks of the stuff labeled as Kentmere to still play with, but I think I'm going to go back to shooting Rollei Retro 100 (APX 100) @ 200 as its my mainstay in B&W.

RPX 400 samples:


Steps in a jagged direction by randomm, on Flickr


20 by randomm, on Flickr


trunks by randomm, on Flickr

 

[Mablo]

Like randomm I'm not 100% sure if I like the film or not. I shot a brick or two of it during last winter, mostly @ ASA 250, and developed it in D-76 or Xtol. It doesn't like Rodinal very much which is a big minus for me.

Well... I just realized this photo is taken on the Bulevardi Street so here is one for our new friend from Brussels (bulevardi).

 

[juBadub]

Thanks Shac for starting this thread! I've been also thinking of getting this film. But since there seems to be very little information about this film I've given it a second thought. On the other hand that might be a good thing, no expectations, right?

I like the grain I see on Trius' photo. Is that shot at ASA 400? Is it possible to see a 100% crop?

Dovi, I like your shots! Especially the second one. Looks almost as the statues are painted on the photo. And very helpful too. Thanks for posting!

 

[Shac]

Thanks everyone - some great images. There seems to be a fair bit of confusion abut this film - Ilford states a) they don't sell film to others for re-badging and that b) this isn't rebadged HP5 - but that's somewhat irrelevant I suppose - it's the images that the film gives that count

I don't see much obvious grain in your images dovi or Mablo - what developer are you using?

 

[dovi]

e great images. There seems to be a fair bit of confusion abut this film - Ilford states a) they don't sell film to others for re-badging and that b) this isn't rebadged HP5 - but that's somewhat irrelevant I suppose - it's the images that the film gives that count

I don't see much obvious grain in your images dovi or Mablo - what developer are you using?[/QUOTE]

I used ilfotec ddx for all. the softer ones were stand developed 1:100 for 1 hour and the harder ones were developed 1+4 shot at 320 asa.
I liked the film a lot because the shots seemed moodier than with other combos I have used.

One more stand developed

 

[randomm]

Thanks everyone - some great images. There seems to be a fair bit of confusion abut this film - Ilford states a) they don't sell film to others for re-badging and that b) this isn't rebadged HP5

It certainly isn't HP5+. I think their statement makes perfect sense, otherwise people would start hunting their stuff sold cheaper under generic brands rather than buy their own label product with premium price, right?

 

[kosta_g]

in NYC it's about the same price at BH as hp5 (when I bought some two months ago)
I have a roll exposed but not developed. Had a sticky shutter on an om-2s which I returned for a -2n, so i'm not expecting many frames to have content 🙁

looks quite nice, I like the grain and the tones. great images above, thanks for sharing.

If i get any, I will post over the weekend!

 

[randomm]

... and my grain is partly due to find the right Caffenol recipe / time / agitation for this stuff. I'm pretty sure I'd get a smaller grain by using the Spur developer that Maco hails to be used with this stuff.

... which reminds me that I have to get some of that stuff!

 

[paulfish4570]

i shoot a lot of hp5; ain't no way it is hp5. iirc, it was made by a company that ilford merged with about five years ago. the film is made on that company's machines with that company's stock.

 

[Mablo]

In my case I used mostly D-76 stock or D-76 1+1. I definitely wouldn't use Rodinal but Xtol 1+1 is good with this film. Unlike HP5+ you don't get EI 400 (EI 250 is OK).

If you've ever used Tri-x in Rodinal 1+50 I'd say Kentmere 400 in D-76 1+1 has the same kind of rough look.

 

[Trius]

Trius - looks good on the shots above tho' I seem to see the grain clumping that Paul mentioned
I'll probably give it a try

Rodinal

X-Tol or FG-7 might alter that.