This seems to show evidence of the less effective anti-halation tech, compared to Ilford labeled films. The halo around the reflective thing on the right. Unless it was a glowy lens. Could be a look one wants, or wants to avoid. I've personally only shot one or two rolls of it and I think I haven't printed anything from them. But I have observed similar halation from the 400 speed type.
I have shot Kentmere 100 and Kentmere 400 recently and never noticed any abnormal halation problem with either one or the other. On the photo above, I would suspect either the lens, or the scanner mirror.
About the film quality itself : I didn't expect much from the Kentmere 400, but I liked what I got from the lone roll of it I shot last summer very much eventually. The grain is a bit visible (shot at 400, developed in D76 1+1) but well defined and the greyscale is rich enough. The negatives came out as super easy and pleasant to scan and wet print. It reminded me the real 1970's Tri-X. Of course I know it has nothing to do with it.
Yet I found the Kentmere 100 a little bit deceptive : it clearly doesn't like contrasted scenes and it requires more digital darkroom post-processing and analog wet darkroom masking and pushing. OTOH, it is a bit too "flat" when you shoot in overcast situations with not much contrast.
The Kentmere 100 is a good film nonetheless, yet it can look to be a budget film indeed and as for budget films I would prefer Ilford PAN 100 or even the old Fomapan 100 (the latter often having QC issues, unfortunately, which isn't the case with Kentmere 100, which is sold for the same price).
At the end of the day the other mysterious Ilford budget films, PAN 100 and PAN 400, may be better choices than their Kentmere 100 and Kentmere 400 siblings also made by Harman in the UK. To my eyes they are much closer to the Ilford FP4+ and HP5+, especially as for dynamics in front of various lighting situations.
