Kentmere 400, latest samples

p.giannakis said:
Out of curiosity, what makes you say so? Has something changed with Tri-x? I haven't shot any for a few years now.
Click to expand...
Dourbalistar has answered your question quite well - thanks Dourbalistar ;) ; what is now sold under the Tri-X name is a poor 200 ISO film which any other 400 BW film (Fomapan 400 excepted) film will beat off as for speed and tones richness. It has nothing to do with the "heritage" Tri-X and fool would be the photographer who'd think he's buying "the real thing" because of the silly price and the yellow packaging. Not buying that crap any longer is the only reasonable option. For someone wanting to get some excellent classic grain 400 BW film and not wanting to play with all the budget films available (although two of them, Kentmere 400 and Ilford PAN 400, are very good indeed), one solution : Ilford HP5+.

Thanks again to Dourbalistar for all those very nice Kentmere 400 examples. :)
 
p.giannakis said:
Thanks Dourbalistar - i haven't shot the old Tri-X, only the more recent 400TX.
Click to expand...

Highway 61 said:
Dourbalistar has answered your question quite well - thanks Dourbalistar ;) ; what is now sold under the Tri-X name is a poor 200 ISO film which any other 400 BW film (Fomapan 400 excepted) film will beat off as for speed and tones richness. It has nothing to do with the "heritage" Tri-X and fool would be the photographer who'd think he's buying "the real thing" because of the silly price and the yellow packaging. Not buying that crap any longer is the only reasonable option. For someone wanting to get some excellent classic grain 400 BW film and not wanting to play with all the budget films available (although two of them, Kentmere 400 and Ilford PAN 400, are very good indeed), one solution : Ilford HP5+.

Thanks again to Dourbalistar for all those very nice Kentmere 400 examples. :)
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kind words, Highway 61. :)

Like Pan, I've never tried the "old" Tri-X, me being a relative newcomer to film photography. However, even though I can't compare, I shy away from judging film in terms of good or bad, better or worse. Perhaps the new 400TX isn't the same as the "old" Tri-X, but personally, it's nice to have options to choose from. Every film is different and unique, and frankly, worse for me would be not having Tri-X at all. I mean, we've already seen dwindling options for color film, like the recent loss of Fuji Pro400H. :(

So, all that said, I prefer to evaluate different film stocks in terms of whether or not I personally like a particular film or not. I so far, I think I like Kentmere 400. :D
 
Highway 61 said:
Dourbalistar has answered your question quite well - thanks Dourbalistar ;) ; what is now sold under the Tri-X name is a poor 200 ISO film which any other 400 BW film (Fomapan 400 excepted) film will beat off as for speed and tones richness. It has nothing to do with the "heritage" Tri-X and fool would be the photographer who'd think he's buying "the real thing" because of the silly price and the yellow packaging. Not buying that crap any longer is the only reasonable option. For someone wanting to get some excellent classic grain 400 BW film and not wanting to play with all the budget films available (although two of them, Kentmere 400 and Ilford PAN 400, are very good indeed), one solution : Ilford HP5+.

Thanks again to Dourbalistar for all those very nice Kentmere 400 examples. :)
Click to expand...

Do you know when the new formula of 400TX was introduced as you mentioned above? Thanks.
 
kiemchacsu said:
Do you know when the new formula of 400TX was introduced as you mentioned above? Thanks.
Click to expand...

My understanding is 2004-05 when Kodak reformulated all of its classic B/W emulsions, including motion picture films. I recall it having something to do with the use of mercury in the manufacturing (not the end product).

Though for Highway 61 to say that 400TX is "a poor 200 ISO film" is a bit harsh! 400TX is a lovely film; it is slightly finer-grained than the old Tri-X Pan 5063* and that is the only substantive difference I've seen.

That I prefer Kentmere 400 to TX comes down to price. If TX400 were close to the same cost I would gladly shoot it all day every day.

*5063 was the edge code since the 1960s and thus makes it easy to identify the changeover as the 2005 and later version has only "400TX".
 
kiemchacsu said:
Do you know when the new formula of 400TX was introduced as you mentioned above? Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Kodak released the "new" 400TX in 2007, as noted in Post #40 above. Some more details on Wikipedia:
In 2007, Tri-X was extensively re-engineered, receiving the new designation 400TX in place of TX or TX400, and became finer-grained. The amount of silver in the film stock was reduced.
Click to expand...

hap said:
Nice shot. Not sure I would like it any better if the transmission lines "disappeared".
Click to expand...

Thank you, hap!
 
bluesun267 said:
Though for Highway 61 to say that 400TX is "a poor 200 ISO film" is a bit harsh! 400TX is a lovely film; it is slightly finer-grained than the old Tri-X Pan 5063* and that is the only substantive difference I've seen.
Click to expand...
Well I would pull off the "poor" if this can comfort you ;) yet now this is a 200 ISO film indeed, this is obvious when you develop it yourself, and this has been confirmed by someone here having performed sensitivity tests for several 400 box speed films (you will find that thread back pretty easily).

Expose it @200 and develop it @400 (i.e., normally, as if you had exposed it @400) and it will be fine (although very different from what the real Tri-X was, with no special character any longer).
 
I am comforted by your retraction Highway 61 :)

I develop TX400 with Rodinal 1:50 usually and I would say 320 ISO is closer to the truth, but I don't do sensitometric tests or anything like that as I experience blurred vision and peripheral numbness when such things are in my immediate vicinity.

I recall the original Agfa APX 400 (pre-2005) was really more like a 200 speed film (as is Fomapan 400). I would not put TX in the same category as those two, based on my user experience. But it begs the question, with more than one 400 film (present and past) failing to meet box speed, what is so hard about manufacturing true 400 speed film?
 
The type of developer used may have an impact on the "true" ISO of different films, so there are certainly some variables at play. Like I said, I try not to judge films as good or bad, just nice to have different options available. In any case, back to the topic at hand, more recent Kentmere 400 image samples! ;)

Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.


2021.05.15 Roll #276-06153-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top