6 Developers & Kentmere 200

[relistan]

If that means you're considering doing an A/B comparison of the two, I for one would be very interested in seeing what you find!

Same!

 

[MattKing]

What?????

Yep.
It is the same for US retailers who buy small quantities - minimum order rules often make it more economic to buy at the New York retailer retail prices than to buy it from one of many wholesale suppliers.
Volume, volume, volume.

 

[dcy]

So, about prices — the roll of Kentmere 200 cost me $7.00 at B&H, and I recently bought both TMX and TMY for $7.80 and $9.00 a roll (120) respectively. Here in the US, I can spend a mere 80 cents more and get Tmax 100, so for me there's no real motivation to work with the Kentmere films, other than testing them.

If you shoot 35 mm, the Arista re-brand of K100 and K400 are $6.50 and $7 respectively, while TMX and TMY are $11.

Interesting that for both TMax and Kentmere-branded Kentmere the 120 version is cheaper than 35 mm.

 

[dcy]

If Kentmere (or Fomapan or Lucky, etc) represents a bargain to you, that's fine. But it is often very true that when you pay more for a certain product, you are getting a better product, hence "YGWYPF". Sometimes the cheaper product involves accepting certain compromises, and not everyone is willing to work within those parameters.

I should go buy Orwo NC400. That thing is more expensive than Ektar! It has to be amazing!

And I will say it: Kentmere 100 is inferior to Fomapan 100, based on my personal experience, yes. Fomapan 100 has better value separation, better sharpness and a better spectral response, and it also has better anti-halation properties.

Interesting. This is the first time I see someone write the sentence "Kentmere xxx is inferior to Fomapan xxx". --- I mean... I do know that many people prefer Fomapan for various reasons. It's just that I usually read it in the form of "Kentmere is a technically superior film, but I like the vintage look of Foma" or similar.

 

[thinkbrown]

I should go buy Orwo NC400. That thing is more expensive than Ektar! It has to be amazing!

Rather off topic but I am quite fond of the results I get from the orwo NC films. Definitely wouldn't pay full retail but given I got several bricks when freestyle was clearing it out at $5/roll....

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If that means you're considering doing an A/B comparison of the two, I for one would be very interested in seeing what you find!

I went through my hoard but could only find Fomapan 400 and 320 (both in 4x5 and 120), and no 100... Went online, and picked some up at Studio Argentique, (in Quebec). $9.99 per roll. It's $9 for a roll of Kentmere... So, for a loonie less, will the Kentmere product perform just as well as the Fomapan? Tune in next time to find out!

 

[Peter Schrager]

I went through my hoard but could only find Fomapan 400 and 320 (both in 4x5 and 120), and no 100... Went online, and picked some up at Studio Argentique, (in Quebec). $9.99 per roll. It's $9 for a roll of Kentmere... So, for a loonie less, will the Kentmere product perform just as well as the Fomapan? Tune in next time to find out!

Horses for courses. The foma is a damn good film if you know how to use it..the kentmere are not available in L.F.. WHERE is the comparison?
Just saying...

 

[thinkbrown]

I'm very curious to see the results. I get good results from both foma 100 and Kentmere 100 in 120, but I tend to not shoot foma as much due to how difficult it is to deal with the curling after development

 

[npl]

I went through my hoard but could only find Fomapan 400 and 320 (both in 4x5 and 120), and no 100... Went online, and picked some up at Studio Argentique, (in Quebec). $9.99 per roll. It's $9 for a roll of Kentmere... So, for a loonie less, will the Kentmere product perform just as well as the Fomapan? Tune in next time to find out!

Fomapan is, or was, sold in the US as Arista EDU. May be cheaper than ordering Foma film (I don't know, I'm in Europe )

edit : https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1190984-REG/arista_190361_edu_ultra_100_black.html

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Horses for courses. The foma is a damn good film if you know how to use it..the kentmere are not available in L.F.. WHERE is the comparison?
Just saying...

The same can be said about Kentmere, and most other films. I'll be using roll film for the comparison.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I tried a couple of rolls of Kentmere 200 and while it's a fine enough film I won't go out of my way to buy it. I like Kentmere 100 and 400 real will. Kentmere 400 will do everything the 200 will, in my view. If there was some special trait that Kentmere 200 had I might have a different view, but it doesn't and I don't. I like Foma 100 in sheet film, but while Foma 100 is really nice in 120 roll film I stay away from it because it's just a plain bitch to work with, scanning or wet printing, due to that blasted pig tail curl it has. I actually just stocked up on a small quantity of Delta films, but with TMX/TMY films running the prices they are (here in the USA) I'm starting to think about buying one of those mini freezers and really stocking up.
I don't want to highjack here so might just start another thread as to the speculation for the REALLY lower prices of TMX/TMY/TRI-X. Maybe there is already a thread on this topic? I personally think it's great marketing, but I'm sure the price will start to rise as more folks get hooked on Kodak B&W films. Smart marketing with tariffs kicking in.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks @John Wiegerink, I appreciate your input. I as well prefer Kentmere 400 out of the three. And as far as the price of Kodak films up here, I just wish someone would take on the role of distributor. I would, if I had the money and the will... besides, if I did take it on, I would probably use the film for myself, and end up losing money, just like when I had to sell all those blasted chocolate almonds to raise money for my high school grad, but ended up eating $80 worth. Mom was NOT pleased!

 

[retina_restoration]

Thanks @John Wiegerink, I appreciate your input. I as well prefer Kentmere 400 out of the three. And as far as the price of Kodak films up here, I just wish someone would take on the role of distributor. I would, if I had the money and the will... besides, if I did take it on, I would probably use the film for myself, and end up losing money, just like when I had to sell all those blasted chocolate almonds to raise money for my high school grad, but ended up eating $80 worth. Mom was NOT pleased!

/me ponders how many boxes of chocolate almonds one would have to eat, at the time Andy was in high school, to consume $80 worth. Hmmmm.

 

[retina_restoration]

I usually read it in the form of "Kentmere is a technically superior film, but I like the vintage look of Foma" or similar.

People often speak in vague terms like that, but it's not very helpful, really. If someone wants to discuss a film's traits in such terms as "has a vintage look" they really ought to be more specific and state what traits qualify as "a vintage look", or it's pretty meaningless, IMO. Not much better than saying "I liked it!".

Although I did not perform technical tests to support my remarks (I don't own a densitometer, for example), I can say with confidence that K-pan 200 lacked sharpness, exhibited poor tonal separation, especially in the higher values, and had an odd spectral response compared to Fomapan. I don't doubt that Kentmere products have much better quality control than the Foma films and are undoubtedly more reliable (Though I cannot say that in my personal experience, Foma films have been any less reliable), but consistency and the absence of manufacturing flaws alone does not make a film superior.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

/me ponders how many boxes of chocolate almonds one would have to eat, at the time Andy was in high school, to consume $80 worth. Hmmmm.

Two boxes, containing 20 each... And we won't get into the time I was a Dickie Dee ice cream vendor, in the Summer of '77...

 

[albireo]

The results are OK, but as with the other K-pan films, I find it lacks definition/tonal separation, especially in the higher values, and suffers a serious lack of sharpness. I had to apply way more sharpening than I normally would to get the image to look decent. In general, it took much more fussing in post to get it to look okay. Take a look.

Thank Retina - I did take a look and what really stands out is the (IMO) pretty unpleasant halation, which seems to be much stronger in the 200 than in the 100 and 400 counterparts. It really does look like a quirkier film than the other two in this respect. And in passing, given people have been talking about Foma 100, I have found that the Foma products in 120 have a surprisingly effective anti-halation layer, and so in terms of halation control at the very least, this Kentmere 200 seems to be a way more temperamental film than Foma 100 and 200 in 120.

Having said that - apart from the halation, I don't see much left from the original film either in this example or in your Tmax or Delta examples on Flickr that would allow me to say that Delta or Tmax are so superior, in general. This is probably due to your signature post-processing routine, which is extremely consistent across films used. In those scenes where halation doesn't play a big role, I honestly wouldn't be able to reproducibly pick your Tmax/Delta examples over your Kentmere ones in a properly run ABX blind test.

Of course if, as you say, getting there requires much more fiddling with Kentmere than with Delta, I see your point.

Coincidentally - I planned on buying some Kentmere 200 to try it out but HP5+ in 120 can currently be found for 7 euro 50 here in Europe, a few cents more than Kentmere. So the Kentmere can wait. Also, I still have some K100 in 120 which I quite like.

One thing I've observed in my limited use of Kentmere 100 and 400: HC110 works much better with them than sulphite developers and Xtol.

 

[pentaxuser]

Dickie Dee ice cream It sounds like the kind of name the producers of the risque "Carry-On" comedy films of the late 50s and 60s in the U.K.

There would inevitably be a line in the film issued by whoever was playing the brazen blond starlet about getting a quick Dickie Dee

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

Thank Retina - I did take a look and what really stands out is the (IMO) pretty unpleasant halation, which seems to be much stronger in the 200 than in the 100 and 400 counterparts. It really does look like a quirkier film than the other two in this respect. And in passing, given people have been talking about Foma 100, I have found that the Foma products in 120 have a surprisingly effective anti-halation layer, and so in terms of halation control at the very least, this Kentmere 200 seems to be a way more temperamental film than Foma 100 and 200 in 120.

The halation properties of K-pan 200 are a bit extreme for my liking, but I can certainly see how someone would want to embrace that trait and work with it. It's not a flaw if you don't perceive it as a flaw!

Having said that - apart from the halation, I don't see much left from the original film either in this example or in your Tmax or Delta examples on Fickr that would allow me to say that Delta or Tmax are so superior, in general.

In the examples I posted, I can see a difference in how the very high values separate: the transition from a pale leaf surface to the specular highlights in a drop of water on that leaf are very subtle indeed. If I had used Delta 100/400 the separation of these subtle high values would have been much more distinct. If you look at the roof of the yurt in the example, the tones are very "waxy" (muddy) even after careful post-processing. I was unable to bring any kind of "spark of definition" to the high values without distorting the look of the whole image.

I have one more roll of K-pan 200 left, and I will likely do an A/B comparison with one of the Tmax or Delta films. I think the differences will be very obvious.

This is probably due to your signature post-processing routine, which is extremely consistent across film used. In those scenes where halation doesn't play a big role, I honestly wouldn't be able to reproducibly pick your Tmax/Delta examples apart from your Kentmere ones in a properly run ABX blind test.

Fair enough. I do have a very well-established work flow when it comes to finishing my images — I know what I like — but my point was that I found it far more difficult to get a finished image I liked from the K-pan 200 negatives. But I was able to extract a reasonably nice image from those negatives, but the results didn't entirely hit the target, for me.

Of course if, as you say, getting there requires much more fiddling with Kentmere than with Delta, I see your point.

Someone has said that the choice of Xtol may not have been ideal for this film, so next time I will use something from the PQ family of developers and see if that makes a difference. It's possible that Hydroquinone is more Kentmere-friendly than Ascorbate.

Coincidentally - I planned on buying some Kentmere 200 to try it out but HP5+ in 120 can currently be found for 7 euro 50 here in Europe, a few cents more than Kentmere. So the Kentmere can wait. Also, I still have some K100 in 120 which I quite like.

If you can buy HP5+ for only "pennies more" than Kentmere, I agree that there's no reason to choose K-pan over HP5+

One thing I've observed in my limited use of Kentmere 100 and 400: HC110 works much better with them than sulphite developers and Xtol.

I don't use HC-110 (never liked it) but I do have PMK and Pyrocat HD, among others. I might mix up some good old D-76 for the next roll.

 

[retina_restoration]

Two boxes, containing 20 each... And we won't get into the time I was a Dickie Dee ice cream vendor, in the Summer of '77...

So, forty individual boxes of chocolate almonds??! FORTY?? Ahh to be a teenager.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So, forty individual boxes of chocolate almonds??! FORTY?? Ahh to be a teenager.

Yup. I held off for a week, but the smell of chocolate was too overpowering...

 

[John Wiegerink]

Two boxes, containing 20 each... And we won't get into the time I was a Dickie Dee ice cream vendor, in the Summer of '77...

I got help with my chocolate almond bars! My mother was addicted to chocolate so I didn't have to roam far from home. Her excuse was, "well, it's for a good cause ". Andy, you sure are lucky you never opened a Tim Hortons franchise. They would be burying you in a piano crate like they did William Howard Taft.
Back to Kentmere 200. I did my last two rolls in two different developers. The first was Xtol-R ( Adox XT-3-R) and ID-11 1+1. I really didn't, nor did I expect to, see much difference in the negatives. It really wasn't meant to be a comparison since I also used two different light meters. I rated it at ISO125 and that seemed to be just fine for my style of metering. If all things were the same I think both developers would be very close in the end results.

 

[MattKing]

And as far as the price of Kodak films up here, I just wish someone would take on the role of distributor.

Any existing distributor in Canada could easily elect to specialize in the product, and use their existing distribution infrastructure to expand sales to retailers. Kodak Alaris would be happy to deal with them that way.
It is a Catch 22 situation - the market is small, so no existing distributor wants to devote capital to promoting to retailers and warehousing.
And any attempt to expand the market has to compete with the high volume, low mark-up retailers in the USA.
There Eastman Kodak can't deal directly with such a specialized distributor. They lack people and infrastructure, and their contractual obligations prohibit that. Kodak Alaris has those rights, plus the necessary infrastructure.

 

[Craig]

It is a Catch 22 situation - the market is small, so no existing distributor wants to devote capital to promoting to retailers and warehousing.
And any attempt to expand the market has to compete with the high volume, low mark-up retailers in the USA.

It's not just Kodak, years ago when I worked for a camera store the retail price of a piece of equipment from B&H, including shipping, import charges etc was less than the wholesale price from the Canadian distributor.

Even if we sold at cost, it was cheaper for the customer to buy and import it from a big NY store.

 

[dcy]

Although I did not perform technical tests to support my remarks (I don't own a densitometer, for example), I can say with confidence that K-pan 200 lacked sharpness, exhibited poor tonal separation, especially in the higher values, and had an odd spectral response compared to Fomapan.

You've mentioned tonal separation and spectral response twice. What I find interesting is that tests with a densitometer say that Kentmere films are the ones with better tonal separation and accurate spectral response. That appears to be true both in general, but also specifically for Kentmere 100 vs Fomapan 100 that you mentioned in your earlier comment.

The following plots are from the YouTuber "The Naked Photographer". Here's his comparison of Fomapan 100 vs Tri-X and here's Kentmere 100 vs Tri-X.


Plot 1: Fomapan 100 in red, Tri-X in blue. Notice Fomapan's shoulder, giving poorer separation of the highlights --- I'm not saying it's "poor"... I just mean "less good".

Plot 2: Kentmere 100 in red, Tri-X again in blue. Notice that Kentmere gives a near perfect straight line, with a fantastic toe, no shoulder, and steady tonal separation from end to end.

Next, here's the scene he photographed.

Shot 1: Fomapan 100 on the left, Tri-X on the right. Foma 100's spectral response is pretty good, unlike other Foma films which are relatively poor, but you do notice the dark flesh tone (top-left color box) being darker than other colors that should all have been equally dark.

(edit: Yes, Foma is overdeveloped; but we're talking about spectral response here)

Shot 2: Kentmere 100 on the left, Tri-X on the right. Kentmere 100, like other Kentmere films, has a full panchromatic response, certainly no worse than Tri-X.

 

[dcy]

The halation properties of K-pan 200 are a bit extreme for my liking, but I can certainly see how someone would want to embrace that trait and work with it. It's not a flaw if you don't perceive it as a flaw!

Agreed!

While I don't like halation in color films, I actually quite liked the halation in Kentmere 200, based on the samples that I saw online. It's a particular look. I wouldn't go with it all the time, but I can totally see myself keeping a roll of K200 in the fridge explicitly for that purpose.

The only reason I don't plan to buy K200 on a regular basis is that it's a bit more expensive for me because there isn't an Arista rebrand for it yet.