Any views on Kentmere film?

[paulfish4570]

harman bought kentmere in 2007.
from a 2009 press release:

"After acquiring KENTMERE in 2007, it was always HARMAN’s intention to use its greater size and infrastructure to benefit this new addition to its business. As such, it has already used its expertise and advanced manufacturing technology to increase batch-to-batch consistency of the KENTMERE PHOTOGRAPHIC range. This latest development will help to boost market penetration."

the kentmere films are their own, it seems ...

 

[jatiphoto]

yep rain. i havent done it yet, but this film would be great to shoot/dev in rodinal, to purposely have alot of grain.

 

[KoNickon]

Did Kentmere make film prior to Harman's acquisition of it? Or did it only make paper? I ask because I had never heard of Kentmere film until I got a couple of rolls, and saw the Mobberly address on the box. My working theory is that Kentmere film is how they're branding some old school Ilford emulsions, but I may be way off on this.

 

[paulfish4570]

kentmere was making its own film and paper.

 

[Fotohuis]

Papers, yes they produced.
Film: new since Ilford/Harman merged them.

Under the Kentmere label they are selling a cheaper line films.

 

[wojtek]

I didn't like it. Souped in HC110 it was rather dull and very flat. I won't use it again.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Hi Roger,

Could you elaborate on how a reduced of amount of silver causes a film to be more demanding? One of my biggest faults has been lack of consistency in the darkroom. Mainly because I wanted to change all and every parameter, without ever arriving at a film/developer/development regime that worked for me and I could repeat consistently.

Cheers,

Ronald

Dear Ronald,

Very briefly, given that I am not an emulsion chemist and that this is based on limited understanding:

On a conventional cubic-crystal film, there is a wide range of crystal sizes, which translates directly into more latitude. Up to a certain point, more silver is better, simply for tonality and latitude. Beyond that point, of course, there's no advantage in more silver.

Films with a bigger range of crystal sizes and more silver are also more forgiving when it comes to development.

If you hit on EXACTLY the right exposure and development regime, the Kentmere films can deliver excellent results, but their silver-richer cousins will give you better results, easier.

Cheers,

R.

 

[River Dog]

Thanks for the information, I will stick with Acros 100 in Rodinal.

 

[Taija71A]

Re: Kentmere Films... ARRRGH!!! ^$*#~&#-!@* 😱
_____

Like my Mother always told me... "If you can't say something good about something... Then don't say anything at all." 😉

I can't help but feel, that this is *** Definitely *** the case with respect to the Kentmere films.

__________

 

[kossi008]

I happen to quite like the K400 / RPX400, and it's definitely NOT grainier than HP5+. Here are some examples:
Rated at 400 in Xtol1+1:

Rated at 200 in Spur SD2525:

Recently I have rated it at 800 and developed in Emofin with very nice results (no uploads yet, unfortunately)...

I've also briefly tested the K100 and will probably adopt that as my substitute for APX100 when that runs out...

 

[Fotohuis]

Both with very nice results. Good job!

 

[RicD]

Oh-my, I am a few years late to this party.

My opinion of Kentmere 100 and 400 is based solely on images presented in this thread; I have not used any Kentmere film. To my eye these images appear the same as Kodak Tri-X we used in the 60s.

Tri-X today is different than back then. There have been numerous (do not know how many) changes to Tri-X emulsion bringing it to the Tri-X we now use. Back in the 60s Kodak said shoot Tri-X 200 at double its rated speed. Thus 200 would be 400, however development time did not change. For those old enough to remember that it would be interesting to hear your opinion as well.

Kentmere may be attempting to produce that much older Tri-X look and feel thus the grain we now see in their film; only a guess. For my B&W shooting my first choice is Ilford FP4 Plus, second choice Delta 100.

 

[mpaniagua]

I would say Kentmere 400 grains could be more "Harsh" than Tri-x. Great film though.

 

[Jake Mongey]

Isn't it made by Ilford? I suspect it can't be bad. I have a couple of rolls on order from Discount Films Direct. Not yet had the chance to use though 🙂

Its now made by ilford however, its not an ilford design. I shot it in bulk for a while and enjoyed it, IMO straight at box with standard developer its not anything to write home about but once you try different techniques with developers such as Rodinol it really comes to life.

One of my favourite ways to shoot it is pushed to 800 and stood in rodinol for 1.5 hours 1+100 which gives it a lovely look and good contrast

 

[mpaniagua]

Its now made by ilford however, its not an ilford design. I shot it in bulk for a while and enjoyed it, IMO straight at box with standard developer its not anything to write home about but once you try different techniques with developers such as Rodinol it really comes to life.

One of my favourite ways to shoot it is pushed to 800 and stood in rodinol for 1.5 hours 1+100 which gives it a lovely look and good contrast

Thanks for the info Jake. Will try it. Usually stick with D-76 and yeah, regular results, nothing that great. I usually use it when I just shoot for fun or on my photo-walks around the office or my home. Cheap 🙂

 

[Jon Buffington]

The 100 is really a nice, classic emulsion film. Developers I use are hc-110, rodinal and d-76. Examples:

hc-110 dil h (pakon f135+ scan)

rodinal 1:50

kentmere 400 is also really nice as well (though 100 is a bit nicer). Both tend to bloom in the highlights in strong backlight situations, probably a thin anti halation layer. Some may like that look for certain situations
d-76

hc-110 dil h

I have and do shoot a bunch of this film, all bought in bulk. Fantastic price point for a nice general purpose film. Sure, I like shooting other stuff like tmax, delta, fp4+, hp5+, triX, double X etc, but, I can't complain when I use kentmere. The 400 sometimes leaves me wanting a spec more from it (the 100 is very nice) but really, I could just change developers or make do.

 

[johnf04]

Two photos taken with Kentmere 100 developed in Rodinal 1:50. The cameras were an Agfa Agfaflex IV, and a Yashica Pentamatic.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Oh-my, I am a few years late to this party.

My opinion of Kentmere 100 and 400 is based solely on images presented in this thread; I have not used any Kentmere film. To my eye these images appear the same as Kodak Tri-X we used in the 60s.

Tri-X today is different than back then...

Sweet!

But how do you know? Negatives scans wasn't option in the 60s.
And I believe what bw negative film is to be judge by the prints.

Those are scans of the prints, from Kentmere 400:



From Kentmere 100:

 

[Greyscale]

Kentmere 100 in D76 was the first film that I ever developed at home, I suppose that it will always have a spot in my heart because of that.

From that first roll

 

[Daryl J.]

Elsewhere on this forum, it was mentioned Kentmere 400 was recently reformulated.

True?

If yes, when? And what changed?

Thanks!