Harman Kentmere 200 officially released 2025/05/08

MattKing said:

One phenomena that I have observed to be common is that many relatively inexperienced film users tend to equate negatives that look attractive to the naked eye - nice, clear, visibly contrasty appearance - with "good" negatives.
As a result, there are a lot of people out there who are aiming for negatives that I would consider to be over developed and too contrasty.
A very clear base may help offset that problem a bit, because t will make a negative appear more contrasty to the naked eye, while not being so overly contrasty when it comes time to scan or print it.

Click to expand...

Yes, especially for scanning, I want the blacks in the films to only be as dense as absolutely necessary for tonal range. Negs that are perfect for digitizing look "flat" to the eye and would be a little annoying to print in the darkroom, though I was never a master darkroom printer, to say the least.

MattKing said:

One phenomena that I have observed to be common is that many relatively inexperienced film users tend to equate negatives that look attractive to the naked eye - nice, clear, visibly contrasty appearance - with "good" negatives.
As a result, there are a lot of people out there who are aiming for negatives that I would consider to be over developed and too contrasty.
A very clear base may help offset that problem a bit, because t will make a negative appear more contrasty to the naked eye, while not being so overly contrasty when it comes time to scan or print it.

Click to expand...

I would tend to agree, especially among the younger photographers. I find the ones I know see my negatives, or even negatives from a lab and think they're under developed. I've also seen a lot of what I would consider well/skilfully developed negatives scanned by labs and result in poor contrast images where the blacks look sloppy. The bottom line is that those new to the hobby, or at least those who haven't yet learned much about developing, printing (or scanning and editing) don't know how to get the best from what we more experienced folk would view as a "good" negative.

I remember my teacher at school looking at my first developed roll, which looked great to my eyes and saying it was over-developed with too much contrast. He pointed out that the photos would be difficult to print and we'd have to go low contrast with the VC paper. I still have those negs, and they are actually much easier to scan! But objectively speaking are still over-developed.

My theory, probably completely unfounded, is that newcomers have a 'romantic' idea of black and white film photography mostly informed by the hyper-dramatic images of some old school street photographers. Think old Magnum war photography, poorly lit rooms, chalky highlights, overly dodged or burned details. Think also that Japanese photographer whose name now escapes me who absolutely cooked his negatives and/or prints to get those black/whites images with nothing in between.

The above is considered cool, both the images, and the mannerism around them. The photo-reporter doing gritty, dramatic 'realism', depicted several times in the movies too. Think Dennis Hopper with 10 Nikon F and 2 Leicas hanging from his neck, or the bespectacled war photographer in Full Metal Jacket.

I suspect many newcomers hold some of the above and more as examples and role models to aspire to, but often ignore that the results these people had were due to full control of the entire exposure-developing-printing/scanning chain (often also aided by an experienced master printer producing the final results).

So many people are after the above, but their only option, once they get started, is to drop their rolls at the local 'Whisky Bro Bearded Film Lab' who will only seldom return the negatives to them, and will instead send an email back with a dropbox folder of quickly made Noritsu scans which will look nothing like the images of the Japanese photographer. Add to this that very few people in this age group own Photoshop or Lightroom or perhaps even a laptop or a desktop computer, and you'll see how the 'this film is FLAT!' rubbish might have come about on instagram and reddit.

The above - again, entirely unfounded - would also explain a little why young photographers are so obsessed with 'pushing' film. This concept of 'pushing' is used on social media almost as if 'pushing' were a pro, arcane technique which will unleash the true powers of film - almost like 'overclocking' a computer's CPU. Take a walk on reddit or instagram and you'll soon find out that 'pushing HP5+ to 1600' is considered the default mode of use. People who use HP5+ at box speed are looked at with suspicion. People who pull HP5+ to 200 in high contrast settings are crucified and blessed with holy water to rid them of the disease. What push does of course, by ways of reduced exposure and increased development time, is getting them close to those 'deep blacks' with little or no intervention on their side, and the deep blacks will pop out immediately on their phone screens once they'll open those dropbox folders. These high contrast images are eye catchers when you doom-scroll on instagram too, and will perhaps attract more feedback than low-contrast images if one's attention span is low. Black and white images on social media have to compete with colour images. I wonder if to make it, they must hit people immediately with drama and strong contrasts.

Just a few scattered thoughts, please carry on. Nice video from the Naked Photographer.

An actual fast film (like Kentmere 400), properly exposed and developed, gives a nice full-toned image - that's probably where most of the "flat" idea comes from, especially with reference to photos printed for newspaper reproduction and the current spread of supposedly fast films that are actually slow films marketed for underexposure and overdevelopment. Aviphot 200 shot at 400 and pushed gives some pretty soot-and-chalk results.

albireo said:

Take a walk on reddit or instagram and you'll soon find out that 'pushing HP5+ to 1600' is considered the default mode of use.

Click to expand...

Yeah - I think the "push" idea on social media is almost like being in command. As in, I got this great image by forcing this film to behave how I want. But, you know, it does offer a very ready distinction from digital, at least in their eyes.

Post #102 touched on the actual answer IMO. It's 2025, hybrid workflow is by large the most predominant way of shooting film. Some people here don't always realise that most B&W film users in this day and age don't have a darkroom and scan their film. And it's a common thing to hear among photographer who scan that a relatively high contrast negative is quicker/easier to scan, althought it's not an absolute rule and some prefers the opposite. Also if you do cyanotype or other alt process you may like denser negs, as some users explained here.

Different outcomes, different gear, different people, different negatives. Enlarging is not the only way to get a positive and what works for that don't automatically apply to other workflows. And even then, you may not aim for the same density using a condenser vs a diffusion head..

Ivo Stunga said:

In the lab use scenario there is a reason: cost. Labs can and do charge extra for Push and Pull. Like 60% more in some cases. In this case, true ISO 200 film has a place under the sun.
Oc course, one can shoot K100 @200 and ask for a standard development time targeting EI 100, and have a tad underexposed negatives for no additional cost.

Click to expand...

If you shoot the 400 film at 200, there is no reason to change anything about the processing, so there is no extra cost. Just drop the film at the lab as you would if you had shot it at 400. The only reason to ask for a pull process would be if you wanted lower contrast.

The notion one should pull process a film given an extra stop of exposure is incorrect.

I’m not saying the 200 film shouldn’t exist. Presumably it will be slightly finer grained than the 400 film, and if there is a market, great. All I’m saying is it doesn’t fill any kind of significant gap unless it has a wildly different characteristic curve, which it almost certainly doesn’t.

MattKing said:

One phenomena that I have observed to be common is that many relatively inexperienced film users tend to equate negatives that look attractive to the naked eye - nice, clear, visibly contrasty appearance - with "good" negatives.
As a result, there are a lot of people out there who are aiming for negatives that I would consider to be over developed and too contrasty.
A very clear base may help offset that problem a bit, because t will make a negative appear more contrasty to the naked eye, while not being so overly contrasty when it comes time to scan or print it.

Click to expand...

Probably. I think this is why HP5 in particular is seen as “low contrast at box speed”. Admittedly I do prefer it at 800, but that’s more of a practical and aesthetic choice. However, looking at the negatives directly is often very meh. Between base plus fog (which can high, especially as it gets older) the negs can look boring, yet still print just fine. The clear base of Kentmere 200 does make the negatives look more pictorial from the start.

Further thought… No matter how you get to a “final” image, it takes time, consistency, and honing of your photographic senses to understand just what in the world is going on between tripping the shutter and viewing the result. Sooo many variables, and understanding the negative seems to be the first and biggest of them. Honestly, if I were starting over again I would limit myself to single grade #2 and #3 paper for a while just to understand what “normal contrast” even means, or used to mean.

Whether Kentmere 200, or any film for that matter, makes modern hybrid photography easier is up for debate. But it is certainly being marketed as providing the solution to a major complaint in the film community.

AZD said:

Further thought… No matter how you get to a “final” image, it takes time, consistency, and honing of your photographic senses to understand just what in the world is going on between tripping the shutter and viewing the result. Sooo many variables, and understanding the negative seems to be the first and biggest of them. Honestly, if I were starting over again I would limit myself to single grade #2 and #3 paper for a while just to understand what “normal contrast” even means, or used to mean.

Whether Kentmere 200, or any film for that matter, makes modern hybrid photography easier is up for debate. But it is certainly being marketed as providing the solution to a major complaint in the film community.

Click to expand...

Marketers be marketing.

Seriously though, understanding the negative has been blown waaaay out of proportion to the editing/printing stage. Making a “perfect” negative is simple. Ten minutes of basic sensitometry (and/or following the directions) demonstrates that, but unfortunately mountains of repeated misinformation and peddled gobbledygook have made made the “art of the negative” something it just isn’t.

Milpool said:

Marketers be marketing.

Seriously though, understanding the negative has been blown waaaay out of proportion to the editing/printing stage. Making a “perfect” negative is simple. Ten minutes of basic sensitometry (and/or following the directions) demonstrates that, but unfortunately mountains of repeated misinformation and peddled gobbledygook have made made the “art of the negative” something it just isn’t.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
95% of what your negatives present to you is baked in once you've fired the shutter. Sure, proper development is important, but the choices we make about how and what we use to develop negatives with plays a very small role in the outcome. There is plenty of misleading, overblown nonsense on the Web that tries to sell "silver bullet" solutions to nonexistent problems in regard to the creation of good negatives. Take everything you read with a large pinch of sulfite.

qqphot said:

Yes, especially for scanning, I want the blacks in the films to only be as dense as absolutely necessary for tonal range. Negs that are perfect for digitizing look "flat" to the eye and would be a little annoying to print in the darkroom, though I was never a master darkroom printer, to say the least.

Click to expand...

Sort of.
In my experience, most negatives that scan well also print well in the darkroom, and the reverse applies as well.
In my experience, the only circumstances where there are clear differences are at the periphery:
- with clearly under-exposed or under-developed negatives, it may be easier to obtain an acceptable final result from scanning and post processing; and
- with clearly over-exposed or over-developed negatives, it may be easier to obtain an acceptable final result from darkroom printing.
Which is why the preference for push processing and under-exposure among those who exclusively develop and scan is so surprising to me.
I'm by no means a master printer, but I've made a lot of prints over many years, for a lot of different purposes, and have helped a fair few photographers learn more about printing.

All this talk about over/under exposed and over/under developed negatives and what they should look like. Doesn’t anyone do proper contact sheets anymore? That is the simplest way to determine personal EI and proper development time for each N, N+ etc. My contact sheets verify each time that my exposure and development is correct, or atleast really close.

Now if you’re not into printing your negatives in the darkroom then I guess it’s a free-for-all.

brian steinberger said:

All this talk about over/under exposed and over/under developed negatives and what they should look like. Doesn’t anyone do proper contact sheets anymore? That is the simplest way to determine personal EI and proper development time for each N, N+ etc. My contact sheets verify each time that my exposure and development is correct, or atleast really close.

Now if you’re not into printing your negatives in the darkroom then I guess it’s a free-for-all.

Click to expand...

At the current price of $1.40 CDN an 8x10 sheet of Ilford RC Multigrade paper (in the 100 sheet packs) I can see why the interest in contact proof sheets may be waning.

retina_restoration said:

95% of what your negatives present to you is baked in once you've fired the shutter. Sure, proper development is important, but the choices we make about how and what we use to develop negatives with plays a very small role in the outcome. There is plenty of misleading, overblown nonsense on the Web that tries to sell "silver bullet" solutions to nonexistent problems in regard to the creation of good negatives. Take everything you read with a large pinch of sulfite.

Click to expand...

I have to say you're surprisingly invested in this thread for someone who has sworn not to buy this lowly, student-level, upper-midtone-crippled product.

In any case, in regards to what you wrote above (my boldface), I think it depends, like most things, on your workflow.

If you scan, and you aim to do minimal post-processing, the role of development choices in shaping up your image is huge.

If you scan, and you apply liberal amounts of curves, local contrast adjustments, dodge/burn, levels, sepia, AI tools to smudge the grain, vignetting etc - just stick to Pyrothis Pyrothat 1+1+100 and call it a day.

albireo said:

I have to say you're surprisingly invested in this thread for someone who has sworn not to buy this lowly, student-level, upper-midtone-crippled product.

In any case, in regards to what you wrote above (my boldface), I think it depends, like most things, on your workflow.

If you scan, and you aim to do minimal post-processing, the role of development choices in shaping up your image is huge.

If you scan, and you apply liberal amounts of curves, local contrast adjustments, dodge/burn, levels, sepia, AI tools to smudge the grain, vignetting etc - just stick to Pyrothis Pyrothat 1+1+100 and call it a day.

Click to expand...

If you analog print & "aim to do minimum _________ the role of development ...in shaping your image is huge"

brian steinberger said:

Doesn’t anyone do proper contact sheets anymore?

Click to expand...

Most people who shoot film don't, no.

brian steinberger said:

All this talk about over/under exposed and over/under developed negatives and what they should look like. Doesn’t anyone do proper contact sheets anymore? That is the simplest way to determine personal EI and proper development time for each N, N+ etc. My contact sheets verify each time that my exposure and development is correct, or atleast really close.

Now if you’re not into printing your negatives in the darkroom then I guess it’s a free-for-all.

Click to expand...

I don’t think very many people shooting film make darkroom prints (or inkjet prints for that matter).

brian steinberger said:

All this talk about over/under exposed and over/under developed negatives and what they should look like. Doesn’t anyone do proper contact sheets anymore?

Click to expand...

We had a thread about that. Some people do. I can tell by looking at a negative if it'll enlarge well. Contact sheets would be great if paper was cheaper.

Now that I have a darkroom, I'm planning to contact print hundreds of rolls going back several years.

pbromaghin said:

Now that I have a darkroom, I'm planning to contact print hundreds of rolls going back several years.

Click to expand...

I have a contact printer with 16 weird UV (Argon?) rich bulbs, Arkay Speed Dodge printer. It will expose Azo in under 3 seconds. Was used in the old days for industrial/commercial work from large format negatives. I remember questioning why it was so short of an exposure. Then I thought how awesome it would be if I was making a couple hundred copies.

Makes me think maybe I need to get out some of my negatives and get busy. Maybe next winter

brian steinberger said:

Doesn’t anyone do proper contact sheets anymore? That is the simplest way to determine personal EI and proper development time for each N, N+ etc. My contact sheets verify each time that my exposure and development is correct, or atleast really close.

Click to expand...

I agree.

Don_ih said:

Contact sheets would be great if paper was cheaper.

Click to expand...

That's one factor. Of course, for many people shooting film, another factor is that they don't have a darkroom, trays, chemistry, a suitable light source nor the experience to make contact prints, as they simply have never dealt with any of this and likely never will. For me, personally, I've more or less stopped making contact sheets because I didn't like having to go in the dark, get the trays out etc as opposed to just putting the film into a scanner holder, enjoy the sunlight streaming into the south-facing windows and overall being able to assess my negatives in a pleasant atmosphere in terms of exposure, detail, color etc. These days I inkjet print an index sheet for 120 and 135 rolls and file that with the negatives. It serves the same purpose as the old-fashioned contact sheet, but it's more flexible and quicker to make.

koraks said:

It serves the same purpose as the old-fashioned contact sheet, but it's more flexible and quicker to make.

Click to expand...

If you're already mainly using a darkroom, a contact sheet takes 4 minutes to make. It also immediately shows you which negatives will print easily and which ones will not. Scanning levels out the deficiencies of the negatives.
if you're already scanning, making a printout contact sheet to keep with negatives is a great idea. I tried it a long time ago. But I don't make many traditional contact sheets, either.

koraks said:

IDK what they're doing wrong.

Click to expand...

my guess is at least 60% of those saying "that film is flat" never even tried that film, but they are just reporting something they read somewhere.
Plus, with digi workflow you can have all the contrast you need in a couple of clicks, so i frequently chuckle when i read those things.

I was taught to make contact sheets in the mid 80s but other than in my darkroom classes at school, I confess to never having made one. Inspection of the negative, if necessary with a loupe or magnifying glass, gives a good indication of whether it's going to print well.

These days, my default would be to scan the entire roll and select a few good images to print.

I'd say very few people bother with contact sheets these days.