Kentmere 400 ISO Experience

Simon Galley from Harmon/Ilford made this statement:


"KENTMERE film is absolutely BRAND new, 2 new emulsions, 35mm only, at a competitive price, it is not a 'rebadged' ILFORD Film, I think I have stated many times WE DO NOT SUPPLY PRIVATE LABEL even to a BRAND we own."
 
ilford doesn't sell film to be rebranded. i am not sure why, despite ilford repeatedly stating so, that this seems to persist?

as far as i know the arista premium and ultra line are re-badged fuji and kodak.
 
Al Kaplan said:
Does anybody know anything about Photo Warehouse and their Ultrafine house branded films and papers?
Click to expand...

I've shot a fair amount of their films. Note that they switched to a new supplier and call the new films "Ultrafine Plus" with an emphasis on the plus. The previous films were widely believed to be rebadged Fomapan films. These new films have a little more mystery to their origin. Here or there you can hear people say its a film from China.

The 100 and 400 speed films are pretty decent. I've only developed them in Diafine at box speed and the images came out pretty good. They seem to be missing or don't have much of an anti-halation layer because they give highlights a spectacular glow. Midtones and shadows hold up pretty well but not grain. This film is not fine grain by any means, but in diafine the combo worked out nicely. Classic would be the word to describe its characteristics. Also means its not very good when you want a technically sharp modern looking film.

uf100
ultrafineplus100
ultrafineplus400


I have a few rolls left of the 100 and 400 bulk rolled somewhere. You can have them if your interested in trying them.
 
Hmm this thread seems to have died out. Im looking to buy 2 rolls of bulk film. One 400 and another 100 speed. For 100 I was thinking Kentmere since I've seen great results on Flickr and for 400 I was going to go HP5 plus but I know that film performance depends a lot on the developer I pair it with. I'm just going to use versions of Caffeinol/D76 but any developer recommendations would be most appreciated! I love the clean modern look @.@
 
I am shooting the 400 ISO version as Maco/rollei RPX-400 it IS a harmann/kentmere product. very similar to neopan 400 or other traditional acetate base films. It is a completely new emulsion, designed to be a european alternative to TRI-X you can see my images here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40146285@N08/8209167758/in/set-72157621929203790/

Please note my developer: HC-110/Rodinal mix 1:1 for one litre 15cc each, development time about 10minutes, depending of the wanted gamma/density; More for printing in enlarger, less for scanning.
 
For me I found it OK. I mean I thought that it could have more contrast, my negs came out a bit weak. Cooked them in HC-110 Dil. B for 5mins, so maybe they need longer.

Personally I found Fomapan 400 much much better, more contrast and much more of the grittiness that I get from HP5+.

Also fomapan is dirt cheap, and their sheet film is amazing!
 
I haven't shot a ton with it yet but so far it's not bad. A nice point, it dries REALLY flat. Great for scanning.

8202620704_0d4489fa6d_c_d.jpg
 
raytoei@gmail.com said:
jukka,

nice images. can you comment on this film vs your tri-x images ?

thanks
Click to expand...
You know: TRI-X has changed many times, my 60`s tri-x look much smoother, maybe it is also developers. TRI-X with rodinal ( Ralph Gibson Style)= Is really rough. Tri-X with diafine is kind of "no punch". The films I use are TRI-X, Double X 5222 and Rollei RPX-400 Rollei is in between these two kodak products. As I don`t use Ilford, I cannot compare. I would say Kentmere/RPX 400 is "midle of the road" If you develop too much, it will be coarse. If you scan and keep to reasonable limits with density and contrast, the grain will be very nice... No TMax , but nice.
 
I did a test on Kentmere 100. The 400 seems a bit grainer to me than HP5 and Tri-x, close to Foma 400 and Efke. Not a bad film but not great, I'd recommend souping it in something more consistent than Caffenol at first to gain some understanding of what the tonal and grain qualities are. I've had nice looks with DK-50 and Xtol Replenished.

See the 100 test on silver prints at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/03/01/kentmere-100-test/
 
Noserider said:
I did a test on Kentmere 100. The 400 seems a bit grainer to me than HP5 and Tri-x, close to Foma 400 and Efke. Not a bad film but not great, I'd recommend souping it in something more consistent than Caffenol at first to gain some understanding of what the tonal and grain qualities are. I've had nice looks with DK-50 and Xtol Replenished.

See the 100 test on silver prints at http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/03/01/kentmere-100-test/
Click to expand...

You are referring to 100 iso film, I have 400 iso for compare
 
Last edited:
having bought a roll of kentmere,
i like the film:

+ works okay at 800 iso
+ flat when scanning
+ cheap to buy
- more grainy than Tri-X
- more development time to figure out as there aren't
too much info on massive chart website.

kentmere200-400-800.jpg


i shot in iso 200, 400 and 800 but didn't have the development
time for Ethol UFG, the above roll was developed at
around 10mins @ 30C in 1+2 Dilution. I think the 800 can develop
a bit longer. The 200 and 400 iso are good, the 800 is usable as well.
All of them have been brightness and contrast adjusted.

raytoei
 
I have found it too grainy. BTW the RPX-400 is NOT the same film. APX-400 (new) Lupus IS the same film like Kentmere 100 is equal to APX-100 (new) Lupus. The last film, APX-100 (new) I have tried out too. This ISO 100 film is almost the same comparing to RPX-100 and FP4+. if you can get it cheap it is a good alternative for Fomapan 100 too however the combi R09/Rodinal and FP100 E.I. 80 is better then Kentmere 100 and R09/Rodinal. For some (unknown) reason R09/Rodinal is not fitting well with Harman/Ilford products except maybe PAN F+.
 
I'm with HP5+ for now, because I need it @1600 and I'm not rich for TRI-X and T-MAX.
I went through few bulk rolls of Kentmere 400 with different developers prior and in between HP5+ and Foma 400 (the crappiest one).
Kentmere 400 isn't 400 film to me, but 200. At 200 it is good film for scanning. I have two bulks of it for bright time of the year.
I would rate Kentmere 400 based on 400 films I used so far in next order (top is the top):

TRI-X
TMAX
HP5+
Kentmere 400
...
...
....
Fomapan 400.
 
Thanks for your opinions guys. It looks like it's not as good as HP5+, which is to be expected because it is cheaper...
 
In my limited experience, it is grainier and grittier than HP5+. I like the look in Xtol 1+1. I use it either at box speed or push it two stops for night scenes, which results in a contrasty negatives, but I like the look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom