Harman Kentmere 200 officially released 2025/05/08

[MattKing]

Moderator's Note: threads merged

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Halation can be a feature instead of a bug, since many photographers have been "educated" about the merit of halation by Cinestill.

Or simply like the effect and atmosphere it creates. Just like lens flares

 

[bernard_L]

(post #6)

The picture examples that I saw there remind me of Ferrania P30. Blocked shadows. "Reminiscent of the classic Cineccita era" etc, etc.
I'll stay with FP4, thank you.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks, that was an informative video.

the 'Kentmere is FLAT!' crowd.

To be honest, that's one of the things I appreciate about Kentmere.

We already have the option of shooting Kentmere 100 with a 1 stop push if we want more contrast. And there are slower films similarly priced with high contrast and much more resolving power (I bought 50 rolls of Adox Scala-50/HR-50 at a lower price than they are selling Kentmere).

If the contrast remained similar to their other films, I could see the use of adding it to their line. I think they may have made a mistake in listening to customer feedback from people who only ever shoot at box speeds and use standard development.

But, maybe that's who they're marketing this film to anyway. That's okay.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The picture examples that I saw there remind me of Ferrania P30. Blocked shadows. "Reminiscent of the classic Cineccita era" etc, etc.
I'll stay with FP4, thank you.

A little, but the spectral response looks a bit different according to the checkerboard. I'll find out soon enough, since I placed a 5 roll of 120 order. I want to try it with Pyrocat-HDC and Adox FX-39II. I'm thinking that FX39II might be a very good match with this film.

 

[Lachlan Young]

If the contrast remained similar to their other films, I could see the use of adding it to their line. I think they may have made a mistake in listening to customer feedback from people who only ever shoot at box speeds and use standard development.

I don't think that had much to do with why they launched it. It does make sense when combined with the gradient of the Phoenix emulsion, and then masking added to all that.

That it's a saleable product on its own is, I think, merely a byproduct. The more they can make by selling research byproducts, the faster they'll get to a fully operational colour neg film.

 

[albireo]

We already have the option of shooting Kentmere 100 with a 1 stop push if we want more contrast.

Locddor, contrast is a variable of (film, developer) and not of (film). We have the option of shooting [insert film] and [overdevelop wrt spec sheet | underdevelop wrt spec sheet] if we want [more contrast | less contrast].

There is nothing special/unique about Kentmere film's contrast or lack thereof.

Please, please ignore the Reddit crowd on this. There, people think 'contrast' is something baked in the film, and drone endlessly about 'this film is low contrast' 'that film is high contrast'.

Here's data that shows that there's nothing inherently 'flat' or 'low contrast' about certain films. Let's pick Kentmere 400 because it has this silly 'flat at box speed' reputation..



You might be already familiar with him. He tests most films against TriX. He builds D/E curves, looks at spectral response, prints the negatives on paper and examines grain rendition and other stuff. He uses D76 1+1 for all his tests and develops 'by the book'.

Developing Kentmere in D76 1+1 by the book should result in a 'flat' image according to the keyboard photographers on reddit.

Look at the curves at 3:43. Red is Kentmere 400, Blue Tri-X

Here's a screenshot for convenience

'Contrast' is measured as the slope (the first derivative) of the D/E curve sampled in its linear portion. As you can see, there is nothing especially 'flat' in the slope of Kentmere 400 curve in D76 1+1 based on the above. I'd say the slope is roughly comparable to Tri-X's, and I can't recollect anyone ever saying Tri-X is 'flat a BOx SPeeD!" or other similar inanities. Incidentally, Kentmere 400 seems to have a beautiful linear portion of the curve, even more linear than Tri-X based on this data.

By the way, the above findings agree with my own observation having shot a few hundred Kentmere 400 rolls in 35mm and 120.

I think they may have made a mistake in listening to customer feedback from people who only ever shoot at box speeds and use standard development.

This is what I was hinting at in a post made before they released this, but @Lachlan Young has convinced me otherwise. I was wondering if they have decided based on market research that most cheap film users don't develop their own film and therefore mostly ignore the role of development-related variables in altering the negative. I was speculating that perhaps most people drop their Kentmere rolls at a local or mail lab, get the scans back, and find them too 'flat' and a new product with different 'spec sheet' contrast point decisions would sell well to these customers. What you suggest follows from there.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Please, please ignore the Reddit crowd on this. There, people think 'contrast' is something baked in the film, and drone endlessly about 'this film is low contrast' 'that film is high contrast'.

Well. If I reverse HR-50, I get nice, balanced slide.
If I reverse HP5+ I get very flat and boring rendering that I don't want to even touch.
If I reverse Delta 3200 - I get even flatter and duller result.
If I reverse P30, I get very strong contrast...

If all variables are the same except film, then contrast characteristics ARE baked into the film - at least in some scenarios.

 

[albireo]

Well. If I reverse HR-50, I get nice, balanced slide.
If I reverse HP5+ I get very flat and boring rendering.
If I reverse Delta 3200 - I get even flatter result.
If I reverse P30, I get very strong contrast...

If all variables are the same except film, then contrast characteristics ARE baked into the film - at least in some scenarios.

I have no idea or no interest about reversing, sorry. I was specifically talking about standard negatives for inversion.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

There's nothing to muddle by speaking the truth. The world is a nuanced thing.

I have 0 interest in traditional workflow, please don't apply traditional darkroom techniques and conclusions to alt processes :F

 

[Milpool]

This is all amusing. The film is not filling any void but people are already upset. There are plenty of B&W negative film options covering basically the same ground.

 

[argent_negre]

Well. If I reverse HR-50, I get nice, balanced slide.
If I reverse HP5+ I get very flat and boring rendering that I don't want to even touch.
If I reverse Delta 3200 - I get even flatter and duller result.
If I reverse P30, I get very strong contrast...

If all variables are the same except film, then contrast characteristics ARE baked into the film - at least in some scenarios.

I thought, but my experience is scarce, that contrast was controlled, when reversing, by exposition. The more light, the lower the contrast. What I mean is that there still is a variable, when reversing.

 

[Agulliver]

This is what I was hinting at in a post made before they released this, but @Lachlan Young has convinced me otherwise. I was wondering if they have decided based on market research that most cheap film users don't develop their own film and therefore mostly ignore the role of development-related variables in altering the negative. I was speculating that perhaps most people drop their Kentmere rolls at a local or mail lab, get the scans back, and find them too 'flat' and a new product with different 'spec sheet' contrast point decisions would sell well to these customers. What you suggest follows from there.

This is only anecdotal but I know several younger film photographers and not a single one of them develops their own film. Three give me their B&W films for development, the rest (who don't live conveniently close) use labs.

Kentmere 200 would certainly fill a void in the market for those who do not develop their own films. Those of us who do develop, K100 and K400 can cover the range from 50-1600 with push and pull processing.

There's also the idea that this might appeal to people wanting something with better QC than Fomapan 200 in 120.

Anyway...it's another new film. Not one I am in a hurry to try as I have plenty of B&W 120 film, but I am glad it's on sale and I hope it finds it's intended market.

 

[albireo]

There's nothing to muddle by speaking the truth. The world is a nuanced thing.

I have 0 interest in traditional workflow, please don't apply traditional darkroom techniques and conclusions to alt processes :F

Ivo, whether we like it or not most people have historically purchased negative film for wet printing in a darkroom and more recently for scanning and inverting in a hybrid workflow.

Manufacturers have 'baked into' their pdf film tech docs development recommendations suitable for producing a printable negative in - I'd assume- what are believed to be simple/standard printing conditions. Historically, target gamma was I believe .6-7 depending on manufacturer. This is not a film-dependent constant. It's [film,dev] recommendation.

These recommendations are not ideal for everything - for example if you print with a condenser head you might find the job easier if you negatives have a low-ish contrast index eg. something in the region of .5/.55)

Lately with scanning and people doing hybrid photography, the job of people writing the pdfs is more complicated. A negative developed to achieve a CI ~. 55 and suitable for condenser head enlarging might end up being considered 'too flat' if scanned with a Noritsu and slapped on Instagram.

What I'm trying to say I guess (apologies, I'm on the move, will clarify later) is that CI at box speed is a manufacturer recommendation and perhaps some manufacturers are starting to provide development times that 'bake in' more contrast because this is what newer users like to see out of the box.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

This is all amusing. The film is not filling any void but people are already upset. There are plenty of B&W negative film options covering basically the same ground.

There is a ± unique attribute to it in 135: that clear base.
To my best knowledge, there's only one other PAN emulsion on clear base: Adox CHS 100II

contrast was controlled, when reversing, by exposition. The more light, the lower the contrast. What I mean is that there still is a variable, when reversing.

It can be controlled by traditional darkroom techniques that have an impact on contrast, namely:
- dev time ( -# 0 +# or pull - normal - push);
- dev concentration (higher = more contrast);
- agitation frequency (more frequent = more contrast).

I don't agree to the premise that "You must shoot Film x at EI x" for it to be compatible with reversal. Any film under the sun is pushable and pullable in reversal, landing a contrast you prefer.
It's just that films present themselves either contrasty or flat when reversed for 1st time with "common parameters" - and you must bend the processing to your liking: either increase or decrease contrast.
P30 benefits from weaker developer and 5 inversions every 2 minutes, but HP5 - from constant agitation and stronger developer. You just have to walk the walk and see for yourself what works and what doesn't, changing just one parameter at a time.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

What I'm trying to say I guess (apologies, I'm on the move, will clarify later) is that CI at box speed is a manufacturer recommendation and perhaps some manufacturers are starting to provide development times that 'bake in' more contrast because this is what newer users like to see out of the box.

It's OK, I'm just providing a somewhat different perspective, a nuance if you will.
I can 100% agree that the contrast of a film isn't a FIXED parameter. But a deviation to either side right out of the box exists - that's my experience at least.

 

[pentaxuser]

This is only anecdotal but I know several younger film photographers and not a single one of them develops their own film.

I suspect that the description of "not developing their own film" covers the vast majority of users. Those on this forum who develop, test, use N N- N+, experiment with chemicals etc may even be the minority of members on this forum. Yes they are the regular respondents on the forum but as such represent, I imagine, a small percentage of the total membership here

pentaxuser

 

[Agulliver]

In the recent Ilford survey they found that 72% of respondents had developed their own film in the last 12 months...but that group may be skewed in that you're more likely to be aware of and complete the survey if you're into film photography. That said, I do think that a heck of a lot of film users including those who could process B&W easily don't do so. Which is where a seemingly unnecessary 200 Kentmere might find a market. And of course it might have other useful properties.

 

[koraks]

That said, I do think that a heck of a lot of film users including those who could process B&W easily don't do so.

If the argument here somehow relies on the reasoning that they don't develop their own film and thus, it would be useful to have a film that produces a certain contrast with standard (whatever that might be) development, thrn I think it's a confused line of thinking. The people who don't process their own film for the most part accept scans made for them (not by them) which are auto-balanced. So whatever contrast negative goes in really doesn't matter much.

The whole positioning of a film with a certain, supposed "native contrast" is just very odd and seems to be rooted in wishful marketing speak more so than in any objectively verifiable part of the material world.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

In my use case I don't observe a set "native contrast", but an inclination towards flat or contrasty.
And by "Standard development" I mean PQ Universal 1+5 for 10min with 3-5 agitations per every minute for each and every film, and seeing what direction needs to be taken next time around to improve things.

This would be an equivalent of developing all BW material in the same developer for the same time and operating with contrast enhancement or reduction via development techniques, instead of searching for "contrast enhancing" or "speed enhancing", or "low acutance"... developers. If any given lab just uses one developer for all BW films, will the rendered contrast be equal across the board?

There must be some source for this confusion/reality.

 

[albireo]

If the argument here somehow relies on the reasoning that they don't develop their own film and thus, it would be useful to have a film that produces a certain contrast with standard (whatever that might be) development, thrn I think it's a confused line of thinking. The people who don't process their own film for the most part accept scans made for them (not by them) which are auto-balanced. So whatever contrast negative goes in really doesn't matter much.

The whole positioning of a film with a certain, supposed "native contrast" is just very odd and seems to be rooted in wishful marketing speak more so than in any objectively verifiable part of the material world.

Yes and no.

A huge "complaint" about Kentmere 400 on social media populated by younger film photographers is that the film has a "flat" contrast.

This indicates that there are certain processing conventions, certain "standards" let's say, observed by whoever performs the processing and scanning, yes even the scanning, of this film for these users, that are informing the social media aware user base.

It might, for instance, be that most younger lab tech are using the same Noritsu and Frontier machine, have learned to operate these machines and their software using the same YouTube video, and for speed sake (they probably have to process hundreds of roll per day if they're a biggish establishment) they use pretty much the same postprocessing steps.

Whatever they do, whether lazy or basic quick and dirty, or whatever we want to call it, has generated a reputation for a) contrast being a feature of the film stock and b) kentmere 400 being "flat".

I really don't think that most of the busy lab tech are tweaking the scans they return to the customer to optimal, or custom contrast. Unless one perhaps pays for premium service.

I really don't think that your relativist argument that none of the properties of film, exposure and development matters when the film is scanned works at all, Koraks.

If anything, it's even more difficult to establish film behaviour from wet lab prints, as, as you know, with paper, enlarger lens, flare etc a whole host of non linearities not present when scanning come strongly into play.

 

[koraks]

A huge "complaint" about Kentmere 400 on social media populated by younger film photographers is that the film has a "flat" contrast.

IDK what they're doing wrong. I shot 100ft of that stuff and never found it lacking in contrast. It's a totally normal 400 speed film that mostly lives up to what it's supposed to be.

Some people are clueless at what they're doing - which is fine. But some then blame it on the product. That's short-sighted, and ultimately mostly affects themselves.

As to non-linearities: they differ qualitatively as well as quantitatively across workflows and as such you just can't say that they're quantitatively always bigger or smaller in a scanning workflow.

There's a lot of rubbish being dealt out and it's not in the film itself.

 

[qqphot]

I've had the opportunity to shoot a roll of Kentmere 200 (120) yesterday. I shot it at box speed and developed according to the published instructions in DD-X. I have not done any densitometry; I just wanted to see how it responded when used "normally." I'll probably play with it further. For what it's worth it doesn't seem like a 100 or 400 speed film "re-labeled" as 200 at all, not that I expected it to. Negatives quite dense with good shadow detail at 200 in DD-X, though of course everyone's meters, shutters, and workflow are different. Of course this says nothing about inherent properties of the film's contrast since the end result depends on my exposure, development, scanning, and the curve applied in lightroom.

I don't normally flit around from one film to another because I've standardized on Delta 100 for the most part, but I can see it being an alternative for variety.

kentmere 200 experiments by eric volpe, on Flickr

 

[albireo]

I've had the opportunity to shoot a roll of Kentmere 200 (120) yesterday. I shot it at box speed and developed according to the published instructions in DD-X. I have not done any densitometry; I just wanted to see how it responded when used "normally." I'll probably play with it further. For what it's worth it doesn't seem like a 100 or 400 speed film "re-labeled" as 200 at all, not that I expected it to. Negatives quite dense with good shadow detail at 200 in DD-X, though of course everyone's meters, shutters, and workflow are different. I don't normally flit around from one film to another because I've standardized on Delta 100 for the most part, but I can see it being an alternative for variety.

kentmere 200 experiments by eric volpe, on Flickr

I think this looks really good!

Can I ask a quick question, how does the base colour/density compare to Delta 100, visually?

 

[retina_restoration]

IDK what they're doing wrong. I shot 100ft of that stuff and never found it lacking in contrast. It's a totally normal 400 speed film that mostly lives up to what it's supposed to be.

Some people are clueless at what they're doing - which is fine. But some then blame it on the product. That's short-sighted, and ultimately mostly affects themselves.


There's a lot of rubbish being dealt out and it's not in the film itself.

I concur. I didn't find Kentmere 400 to be in any way "lacking" in contrast. 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?

And yeah, there's a lot of cluelessness when it comes to folks exposing and developing film at home. Five minutes of looking on the internet will reveal just how bizarre some folks approach their film work, using all manner of unconventional techniques ("I read about it on the web!!") and misinterpreting/misapplying what they read. Loads of nonsense to be found.

I applaud Harman for extending their catalog of Kentmere products - it will encourage those on a budget and/or learning film photography for the first time to embrace these affordable materials as they pursue their learning. Kentmere is a fine product and can deliver decent results. I determined that it didn't have a lot to offer me, but that doesn't mean it's not a good product that has a place in the market. Anything that improves the long term survivability of Harman/Ilford is fine by me.