• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Harman Kentmere 200 officially released 2025/05/08


Agreed.

The main reason I make contact sheets is for cataloging. I always have, and I always will. I could see if you had years and years worth of negatives and decided you’d like to start doing contact sheets, that it may seem insurmountable.

Second reason is as you said, shows how the negatives will print, how much work they might need dodging, burning etc. this is critical for me who although I do scan everything too, the ultimate goal is to print my best work in the darkroom. The contact sheet goes with me into the darkroom when it’s time to print.
 
Processed my first roll last night and while I didn't nail development time right off the bat, I'm very happy with the results. Sharp, finer grain than Kentmere 400, and a little higher contrast. Hoping to get into the darkroom tonight to see how it prints.
 
albireo said:
There is nothing special/unique about Kentmere film's contrast or lack thereof.
Click to expand...

We are talking past each other. I don't use "flat" as a derogatory. Both Kentmere 400 and Tri-X 400 are capable of producing good negatives in harsh lighting conditions. As is most 400 speed negative film. That's all I meant by flat, in comparison to films that only record a narrow brightness range when developed normally.

I prefer to use "flat" films in harsh lighting and "contrasty" films in flat lighting. I understand that changing development is another way to affect this. Sorry if the wording is misleading.

retina_restoration said:
But I did find that tonal separation in the mid-to-high end was lacking compared to FP4 or Delta 400, so perhaps this mediocre tonal separation is what people are perceiving as a lackluster of contrast?
Click to expand...

That may be a more accurate way to say it, though less in common parlance.
 
I developed successfully a Kentmere 200-120 in Adox XT-3, 1+2, 13 Min.. The image looks flat, but the negatives are more contrasty than the poor image shows.

 
Sanug said:
I developed successfully a Kentmere 200-120 in Adox XT-3, 1+2, 13 Min.. The image looks flat, but the negatives are more contrasty than the poor image shows.

View attachment 398454
Click to expand...

The negatives look good, pity about the city...

Couldn't you have run your tests somewhere more photogenic, e.g. Cologne?
 
Those look like excellent negatives - eminently printable.
 
I just received my five rolls of 120. now I have to decide which camera to load up. I actually think I'm going to like this film.
 
Sanug said:
I developed successfully a Kentmere 200-120 in Adox XT-3, 1+2, 13 Min..

View attachment 398454
Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing these negatives. Contrary to what is mentioned on Ilford's website, the base appears to have a tint in the above picture. Can you confirm? Clear base would have made this film a potentially good choice for reversal processing.
 
Raghu Kuvempunagar said:
Contrary to what is mentioned on Ilford's website, the base appears to have a tint in the above picture.
Click to expand...

You'll see a degree of base fog on many B&W 120 films that are coated on clear bases unless you use something like PQ Universal that is ultra low fog when used for film development. This is not a fault, but a feature of certain side-effects of developers chosen to be finer grained and sharper, especially with specific emulsion structures.
 
I've had a chance to shoot a roll of the new film.
I've included a link to a video I posted regarding the results. If you're interested you can find the video here.
 

Attachments

  • Kentmere 200_06.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 131
  • Kentmere 200_05.jpg
    997.9 KB · Views: 123
  • Kentmere 200_04.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 121
  • Kentmere 200_03.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 131
  • Kentmere 200_02.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 128
  • Kentmere 200_01.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 135
Here are the wet prints from the Kentmere 200-120 and the contact sheet. Camera was a Rolleicord V.









 
I shot a roll of this, today. Slightly hazy afternoon sunlight. Incident meter, indicated 1/250, f 11.2. Took 4 6x17 images with my Fujica G617. 1/250 @ f11. Developed in XTOL stock, 68°F for my default 8 minutes (my standard for Tri-X) constant agitation with Jobo. Negatives are drying look like my other negatives. Which is good IMHO. The old Kodak books would call the negatives "brilliant" nice snappy images.

BTW no prewash

(Of course the camera is 40 years old, at least, not absolutely sure of the shutter but makes lovely Fujichrome images)

Harman is doing all the right things. People went nuts for Phoenix, now this. These nice cash injections are what keeps the capital markets happy.

Of course I can't frame worth a hoot with the G617, guessing focus, 68 year old brain. I have more film will try some more tomorrow with a trusty GW690III, rangefinder focusing and frame lines

I think it's a very nice 200 speed conventional film. Well done!

(Still a TMX and TMY-2 fan!!)
 
Sanug said:
Here are the wet prints from the Kentmere 200-120 and the contact sheet. Camera was a Rolleicord V.

View attachment 398640

View attachment 398641

View attachment 398642

View attachment 398643

View attachment 398644
Click to expand...

Looks good! Do you already know if you can detect any obvious differences between this and Kentmere 100 or 400?

I don't mean contrast of course, as you can match that across the three. Anything else that made you go 'wow, this is something I didn't get with 100 or 400'
 
The K200 has more halations than K100 or even K400. It is not an issue with 120, but the effect is strong in 135. I will show some scans soon.

The halation may look nice if you have high contrast and intend to have a glow around the lights with a still sharp image. At low contrast scenes you may not see any halation at all. For night scenes with lamps in the field it may become annoying.
 

This is what I have found also, the halation is definitely more pronounced than many other black and white films. I don’t mind halation much of the time, but it could be a problem now and then. I suspect though that it will be seen as a feature, much like the Cinestill films.

BTW, so far I like how Kentmere 200 handles people pictures. I would use it specifically for this purpose.
 
Some quick scans without post processing despite of reducing size and a little sharpening.

Asahi Pentax ME super, SMC Pentax-M 2,8/40 and 1,7/50
Adox XT-3, 1+2, 13 Min., Ilford agitation
Plustek Opticfilm 7300





 
Halation seems present, but certainly not excessive. Most Foma films in 35mm show more pronounced halation than this. Otherwise I can't tell much other than that the film evidently captures pictorial images just fine.
 
This new film and it's sample foto's shown here seems perfectly ok for many situations. I checked my latest fomapan 400 scans shot on my Oly XA2 on halation effect (example attached) and it seems equal to me. And I didn't care seeing this then so I will not mind for it with Kentmere 200 usage too. It's a better priced film and if I want the very best I'll purchase Dellta or Tmax for sure at a much higher price. Not everyone can be afford shooting 50 or 100 rolls of Tmax 400 every year( think of students or streetsweepers ;-) )
 

Attachments

  • 20250221 - FOMA400_31.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 121

I think halation works nicely in the shot you posted, and Foma 400 has a really peculiar (and to me, interesting) red-extended spectral response that none of the Harman line of films have. Developed well, Foma 400 is IMHO gorgeous in 120, and I suspect also in LF.

I don't think Foma 400 is in any way or form an alternative or competitor to the Kentmere line.

Whether Kentmere 200 can completely supplant Foma 200 in 35mm and 120 for many of us, that's another question. I'm curious to find out. Based on the examples I've seen so far (some great ones in this thread) - seems like a good film, but it won't replace Foma 200 for me.
 
I shot a roll of Kentmere 200 in 35mm this week. It was overcast condition, so not conditions that would produce halation. This is the closest thing, and I think the image came out well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register