Any views on Kentmere film?
Old 04-07-2012   #1
River Dog
Always looking
 
River Dog's Avatar
 
River Dog is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bath, England
Posts: 622
Question Any views on Kentmere film?

My UK supplier is now stocking Kentmere at a reasonable price but is it any good, especially in Rodinal? Any recommendations on dilution and developing times (I normally use 1:25)?

__________________
If I can find it, buy it and lift it, I'll shoot it

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #2
markrich
Enthusiatic amatuer
 
markrich's Avatar
 
markrich is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, UK, European Union
Posts: 172
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 :-)
__________________

____________
Canon EOS30, Contax G2, Zorki 4, Zorki 4K, Bessa R2a, Lomo LC-A, Olympus XZ-1, Olympus OM2-SP, Olympus E-510, Sony RX100, Fujifilm X-Pro 1 and X-Pro 2
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #3
steveyork
Registered User
 
steveyork is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 693
It's made in the UK. I understand it's a bit grainy.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #4
Nigel Meaby
Registered User
 
Nigel Meaby is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bournemouth, England.
Age: 50
Posts: 892
This discussion might prove useful http://www.flickr.com/groups/kentmer...7627434275433/

Seems you have to be careful with the 400 to tame the grain! I don't think using Rodinal with it would make a very good combination.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #5
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
 
Ronald_H's Avatar
 
Ronald_H is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helmond, The Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 1,731
Bought a few rolls of 100, expecting it to be rebadged FP4+. Sadly it isn't. I use it in HC-110 dilution 'B' for 8.5min @20 degrees Celsius, but the results lack 'bite' and are too grainy. Of course you can make decent pictures with it, it's just not to my taste.

Shot below was done on Kentmere 100, developed with the regime above. Nikon FM with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF.


Graveyard - b/w by Ronald_H, on Flickr
__________________
"The only substitute for Tri-X is more Tri-X"

My Flickr

My regular website: www.lookupinwonder.nl
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #6
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Kentmere 100 and 400 are effectively versions of FP4 and HP5 with less silver in them (a lower coating weight). This makes them slightly finickier about exposure and development.

Cheers,

R.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #7
btgc
Registered User
 
btgc's Avatar
 
btgc is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Kentmere 100 and 400 are effectively versions of FP4 and HP5 with less silver in them
Another version on Kentmere.

Could it be that this film before were sold outside UK as Ilford PAN 100/400 (not PAN F) ? It did cost cheaper than any other Ilford film.
__________________
MyFlickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #8
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Yes, it's a cheaper export emulsion from Ilford/Harman. Rollei-Maco is using it for their RPX 100/400 films.
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #9
Ronald_H
Don't call me Ron
 
Ronald_H's Avatar
 
Ronald_H is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helmond, The Netherlands
Age: 48
Posts: 1,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Kentmere 100 and 400 are effectively versions of FP4 and HP5 with less silver in them (a lower coating weight). This makes them slightly finickier about exposure and development.

Cheers,

R.
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
__________________
"The only substitute for Tri-X is more Tri-X"

My Flickr

My regular website: www.lookupinwonder.nl
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #10
River Dog
Always looking
 
River Dog's Avatar
 
River Dog is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bath, England
Posts: 622
Any more scanned examples, please?
__________________
If I can find it, buy it and lift it, I'll shoot it

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #11
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
 
Trius's Avatar
 
Trius is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Rochester, NY & Toronto area
Posts: 8,257
It has an "older" look and grain, compared to FP4+ & HP5+. I had a few rolls of 400, but not enough to experiment with developers other than Rodinal. I wasn't all that happy with it in Rodinal. It might be fun in Finol or Tanol!

BTW, according to Simon Galley, Ilford does not rebadge emulsions.
__________________
My Gallery Flickr
Fine grain is a bourgeois concept

Happiness is APX100 and Rodinal 1:100

A bunch o cameras. Does it really matter?
And NOW ... Fuji X-Pro1 w/ 18-55, 18/2 & adapted Zuikos and Hexanons
http://zuikoholic.tumblr.com
https://www.instagram.com/e.r.dunbar/
http://weedram.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #12
geertvn
Registered User
 
geertvn is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Belgium
Posts: 87
I've shot Kentmere 400 @ 1600 and developed in DDX 1+4 20C for 15'20" (for scanning) and quite like the results. Haven't shot it at 400.
Kentmere 100 @ 100 I devolop in Ilfosol3 (1+14 - 20C) for 5'15". It's a lot less than the recommended time I've found somewhere (around 8min) and the negatives are a little on the thin side but they don't scan too bad. I tried 8 minutes once, which gave me thick negatives which were difficult to scan on a Nikon V (bleeding), then tried 6min, but ultimately preferred still thinner.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #13
MartinP
Registered User
 
MartinP is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trius View Post
BTW, according to Simon Galley, Ilford does not rebadge emulsions.
That is correct. This simply confirms that the Kentmere films are not HP5+ and FP4+ in different boxes. They are not the same emulsions but are made with a different formulation for a different end result - still made by Ilford/Kentmere though, with the consistency and quality control you would expect.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #14
Noserider
Registered User
 
Noserider is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 313
I've done some recent testing and can provide some starting point numbers since the data sheets list mostly Ilford chems.

I've done the K-400 in replenished Xtol, replenished UFG (very nice!) DK-50 1:1, Parodinal 1:25.

The K-100 I've done in Repl Xtol and some optically printed on RC samples are at
http://four-silver-atoms.com/2012/03...mere-100-test/


"From my understanding and more than a bit of pure conjecture, I think this film is a high quality level classic style emulsion, a totally new emulsion formula produced by ILFORD for the Kentmere brand using the newest of the AGFA coating line machines that Ilford bought after AGFA ceased APX film production. Just my guess.

But it does remind me a (more than a bit) of AGFA APX 100, as does (did) my first test roll of Kentmere 400"

UFG and DK-50 look to be my fave so far.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-07-2012   #15
Mablo
Registered User
 
Mablo is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,932
My best results from Kentmere 400 (and Rollei RPX400 which is the same film whatever Simon Galley says) come from undiluted Xtol and D-76 at EI200. In Rodinal it's much too grainy for my liking. It's grainy and highlights get blown out easily. Here is one example in HC-110b from a foggy day:

__________________
Mablo
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #16
haempe
negative guy
 
haempe is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 926
K400 is became my TriX substitute (I know, blasphemy!) in the last months for 800-3200 iso.
It pushes very well in TmaxDev without noticeable grain enlargement.
I have shoot not much in high iso recently, so I haven't formed a final opinion about this film, but I have a good feeling.

Some examples, sorry no sophisticated content:
@320 TMaxDev 1+4 - a bit flat, maybe a little bit overdeveloped


@1600 TMaxDev 1+4


@3200 TMaxDev 1+4


2x @400 Rodinal 1+25; 7,5 min; 20C




Next time I will try the K400 in D76 and Adox MQ Borax. I have high hopes for that...
__________________

haempe.net
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #17
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 68
Posts: 9,581
the 400 is good in d-76 and tmax. no experience with other developers.
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #18
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
 
KoNickon is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Age: 60
Posts: 3,107
I remember years ago Ilford (pre-bankruptcy) sold a line of film, the name of which I forget, that was distinctly grainier than FP-4 and HP-5+. "Universal," maybe? It was marketed as being for students, since it was inexpensive. Could this be the same stuff?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #19
jatiphoto
Registered User
 
jatiphoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: d.c.
Posts: 69
its the grainiest film ive ever used just developing in regular d76. rodinals my preferred developer, but i couldnt imagine using it with this film, unless i purposed wanted a WHOLE lot of grain in my shots.








__________________
ive HAD: m4, chrome m4p, blk m4ps, m6ttl, m6classic, mp; 50cron, 35cron v.4, 35cron asph, 35lux asph, 28 elmarit, 21 elmarit, zeiss biogons 28&35, v/c 28 ultron, 50 nokton.

i HAVE: m6 classic w/winder, M9, M240, 28 elmarit, 35 lux asph FLE, 50 lux asph
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #20
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
 
KoNickon is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Age: 60
Posts: 3,107
I generally am not a fan of grain, but I like these last pictures. U Street corridor -- I used to live above there, in Mount Pleasant. Rain on the lens in the last one?
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #21
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 68
Posts: 9,581
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 ...
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #22
jatiphoto
Registered User
 
jatiphoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: d.c.
Posts: 69
yep rain. i havent done it yet, but this film would be great to shoot/dev in rodinal, to purposely have alot of grain.
__________________
ive HAD: m4, chrome m4p, blk m4ps, m6ttl, m6classic, mp; 50cron, 35cron v.4, 35cron asph, 35lux asph, 28 elmarit, 21 elmarit, zeiss biogons 28&35, v/c 28 ultron, 50 nokton.

i HAVE: m6 classic w/winder, M9, M240, 28 elmarit, 35 lux asph FLE, 50 lux asph
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #23
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
 
KoNickon is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Hartford, CT USA
Age: 60
Posts: 3,107
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-10-2012   #24
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 68
Posts: 9,581
kentmere was making its own film and paper.
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #25
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Papers, yes they produced.
Film: new since Ilford/Harman merged them.

Under the Kentmere label they are selling a cheaper line films.
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #26
wojtek
Registered User
 
wojtek's Avatar
 
wojtek is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 120
I didn't like it. Souped in HC110 it was rather dull and very flat. I won't use it again.
__________________
wojtekkutyla.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #27
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 23,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald_H View Post
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #28
River Dog
Always looking
 
River Dog's Avatar
 
River Dog is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bath, England
Posts: 622
Thanks for the information, I will stick with Acros 100 in Rodinal.
__________________
If I can find it, buy it and lift it, I'll shoot it

  Reply With Quote

Old 04-11-2012   #29
Taija71A
Registered User
 
Taija71A is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 17
Re: Kentmere Films... ARRRGH!!! ^$*#~&#[email protected]*
_____

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.

__________
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2012   #30
kossi008
Photon Counter
 
kossi008's Avatar
 
kossi008 is offline
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Dresden, Germany
Age: 52
Posts: 927
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...
__________________
Photon Counter
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 04-17-2012   #31
Fotohuis
Registered User
 
Fotohuis's Avatar
 
Fotohuis is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: the Netherlands, sometimes Ukraine
Posts: 1,807
Both with very nice results. Good job!
__________________
"De enige beperking in je fotografie ben je zelf"



  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #32
RicD
Registered User
 
RicD is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 3
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #33
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua's Avatar
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,021
I would say Kentmere 400 grains could be more "Harsh" than Tri-x. Great film though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #34
Jake Mongey
Registered User
 
Jake Mongey's Avatar
 
Jake Mongey is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Age: 19
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrich View Post
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
__________________
Should probably spend less time talking more time shooting but unfortunately I dont have to leave my desk to talk
www.jmongeyphoto.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #35
mpaniagua
Registered User
 
mpaniagua's Avatar
 
mpaniagua is offline
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake Mongey View Post
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
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #36
Jon Buffington
Registered User
 
Jon Buffington is offline
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 47
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.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #37
johnf04
Registered User
 
johnf04 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Age: 68
Posts: 364
Two photos taken with Kentmere 100 developed in Rodinal 1:50. The cameras were an Agfa Agfaflex IV, and a Yashica Pentamatic.



  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #38
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,185
Quote:
Originally Posted by RicD View Post
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:

  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #39
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 59
Posts: 4,589
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





__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-07-2016   #40
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 377
Elsewhere on this forum, it was mentioned Kentmere 400 was recently reformulated.

True?

If yes, when? And what changed?

Thanks!
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:32.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.