Harman Kentmere 200 officially released 2025/05/08

[albireo]

never shot foma200, but foma100 has a nice green dye when developed and halations are well present

Zero halation issues for me for hundreds and hundreds of Foma 200 and Foma 100 rolls in 120.

The official spec sheet for both Foma 100 and Foma 200 confirms the presence of a anti halation layer for their 120 and LF product, but not for the 35mm:

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-200

and

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-100

Base
The following bases are used for manufacturing the particular sorts of the film:
- 120 rollfilm - a clear polyester base 0.1 mm thick, furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing.
- 35 mm film - a gray or gray-blue cellulose triacetate base 0.125 mm thick,
- sheet film - a clear polyester base 0.175 mm thick furnished with an antihalo colour backing which will decolourize during processing.

Both do NOT have an anti halation layer only in 35mm, and it shows quite clearly when you use both their 120 and 35mm products IME.

 

[albireo]

For those of us interested in hints about the spectral response of this film, a youtuber has posted - interestingly, only for a split second - a three way comparison of a colour chart with Kentmere 100 vs 200 vs 400 in ID11 stock.



Here is the key frame

The three charts look to me pretty similar, which would suggest the new film has a standard panchromatic response just like its siblings and no unusual ortho- or red-extended sensitivity at least in principle.

 

[Lachlan Young]

new film has a standard panchromatic response

It would make no sense to use anything other than a standard panchro dye like the rest of the Kentmere range - I think people are indulging in pie-in-the-sky thinking at the price it is if they wanted otherwise. Harman are not going to undercut Ortho+ or SFX. Same with those demanding Kentmere in sheets.

official spec sheet for both Foma 100 and Foma 200 confirms the presence of a anti halation layer for their 120 and LF product, but not for the 35mm

The emulsions aren't thick enough/ complex enough to suffer from major internal reflections - and the layer/ dyed base will deal with any back reflection/ light piping sufficiently. Foma 200 is '200' only under quite limited circumstances, so whether its a fair point of comparison is a difficult question.

The other area that needs to be considered is that if Kentmere 200 has epitaxial characteristics or similar highly controlled grain growth techniques incorporated into the emulsion(s), it may (like Delta) exhibit significantly more visible granularity with even quite slight overexposure.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks, and from that video, the Kentmere grain comparison:

 

[albireo]

It would make no sense to use anything other than a standard panchro dye like the rest of the Kentmere range - I think people are indulging in pie-in-the-sky thinking at the price it is if they wanted otherwise. Harman are not going to undercut Ortho+ or SFX. Same with those demanding Kentmere in sheets.



The emulsions aren't thick enough/ complex enough to suffer from major internal reflections - and the layer/ dyed base will deal with any back reflection/ light piping sufficiently. Foma 200 is '200' only under quite limited circumstances, so whether its a fair point of comparison is a difficult question.

The other area that needs to be considered is that if Kentmere 200 has epitaxial characteristics or similar highly controlled grain growth techniques incorporated into the emulsion(s), it may (like Delta) exhibit significantly more visible granularity with even quite slight overexposure.

Thank you for your expert insights, Lachlan! Very instructive

 

[Prest_400]

Just ordered 10 rolls in 120 and looking forward to trying them out. Were you able to locate spectral sensitivity? I'm wondering how far it sees into the red.

There is a video of one of the youtubers that tried with a R72, and no near IR capability found.

Too early to say, but purely based on the youtubers' samples, I'm seeing extremely strong halation in 120 for this product. Much worse than Kentmere 100 and 200, which don't have a clear base.

I noticed some halation in the leaked Kosmofoto shots, even in a small size, but also that might depend on the camera and lens used. Of course, some characteristics and charm must come from it being a Kentmere and not Ilford branded product; otherwise there is FP/HP and the Deltas as higher tier performance.

The Spanish channel Dispara film has some interesting comparisons
For reference, some interesting screenshots (1440p monitor)
Grain:

"Sharpness", this is an interesting one as, K200 appears less resolving vs K400 and HP5.

 

[loccdor]

The sharpness comparison here looks too extreme to me, it might be a film flatness issue.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The images posted by losmophoto looks good. I do like Rollei superpan 200, they're better in quality than both Kentmere 100 and 400. so this will be interesting.

I wouldn't say the quality is better, but maybe just different between the two. I have had zero issues with Kentmere 100 and rather like it for some things or as a cheaper film to test a camera out. As to the subject of halation or light-piping...................I rather like it for certain things like outdoor portraits and landscapes. I wouldn't use it for street work or architecture.

 

[brian steinberger]

There is a video of one of the youtubers that tried with a R72, and no near IR capability found.

I noticed some halation in the leaked Kosmofoto shots, even in a small size, but also that might depend on the camera and lens used. Of course, some characteristics and charm must come from it being a Kentmere and not Ilford branded product; otherwise there is FP/HP and the Deltas as higher tier performance.

The Spanish channel Dispara film has some interesting comparisons
For reference, some interesting screenshots (1440p monitor)
Grain:

View attachment 398201

"Sharpness", this is an interesting one as, K200 appears less resolving vs K400 and HP5.
View attachment 398202

This sharpness test makes no sense. Everyone is in the exact same position. Would not have been possible to take that picture on three separate films at the exact same moment. It must be simulated.

 

[cptrios]

This sharpness test makes no sense. Everyone is in the exact same position. Would not have been possible to take that picture on three separate films at the exact same moment. It must be simulated.

I thought the same thing, but then noticed they're shots of a still photo. Could be a focus issue...or maybe it is just a soft film. There's a place for that!

 

[pentaxuser]

Foma 200 is '200' only under quite limited circumstances, so whether its a fair point of comparison is a difficult question.

Can you expand on the above "quite limited circumstances" and describe circumstances when it is not 200

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[brian steinberger]

I thought the same thing, but then noticed they're shots of a still photo. Could be a focus issue...or maybe it is just a soft film. There's a place for that!

Oh I see that now. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[pentaxuser]

Of the three plain light grey comparisons in #91 the Kentmere 200 looks as if it is the least grainy to my eyes and to a lesser extent this seems replicated in the swimmers/bathers scene

pentaxuser

 

[Milpool]

Although Foma uses the ISO designation, it is not clear whether or not they use the ISO speed criteria. If they do, their charts can be interpreted to show the 200 and 400 films do not achieve those nominal speeds (unless they have a special purpose high speed / low gamma developer for use in-house specifically for speed determination). The best case scenarios for the 200 film appear to be slightly higher than 160 (that’s pretty close to 200), closer to 125 in ID-11.

 

[albireo]

The grain is looking more like a 400 speed film to me in the shots I am seeing.

Could be because people have yet to dial it in properly and are underexposing it and/or overdeveloping.

Check out this video at around the 1:27 mark . He has Kentmere 200 negatives side by side with 100 and 400. He claims he exposed all at box speed.



His Kentmere 200 negatives exposed at box speed look noticeably thinner than his Kentmere 100 and 400 ones. Check the frame in the middle for instance. Kentmere 200 seems to show noticeably less detail in those trees in the background w.r.t the same frame in the 100 and 400 - even accounting for the difference in base density.

We'll need to wait for proper densitometric tests of course, but one has to wonder whether this film might have been slightly uprated wrt its true sensitivity to give more 'deep blacks' to the 'Kentmere is FLAT!' crowd.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Although Foma uses the ISO designation, it is not clear whether or not they use the ISO speed criteria. If they do, their charts can be interpreted to show the 200 and 400 films do not achieve those nominal speeds (unless they have a special purpose high speed / low gamma developer for use in-house specifically for speed determination). The best case scenarios for the 200 film appear to be slightly higher than 160 (that’s pretty close to 200), closer to 125 in ID-11.

Having tried both Foma 200 & 400, I think the following is what's going on:

Foma 400, if exposed under flare free conditions to a step wedge, will deliver what the data sheet says (ie 160-200+), but it has sufficient internal halation/ turbidity that real-world usage demands a bit of underexposure & a higher aim contrast in processing;

Foma 200 uses a form of high aspect ratio crystal structures which, if my understanding is reasonably correct, in their less highly evolved forms will only deliver more optimal grain/ sharpness characteristics if slightly underexposed & developed to a higher contrast index. I think Foma 200 owes some background DNA to investment/ knowledge sharing in the Foma X-ray range in the 1990s.

but one has to wonder whether this film might have been slightly uprated wrt its true sensitivity to give more 'deep blacks'

Or, it was designed to operate in a relatively specific way at a higher-than-what-we-would-call-'normal'-average-gradient-today because it has other intended purposes than being Kentmere 200 - and/ or a sharper toe shape, which will cut off shadows faster below threshold. One of the rather defining characteristics of Kentmere films is that they (intentionally) seem to have fairly narrow performance windows (i.e. from about a Kodak defined 'normal' 0.55 CI to about the old Ilford 'cold cathode normal' 0.7 G-bar/ average gradient).

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Kentmere 200 has been introduced just to keep Andrew O'Neill occupied in his darkroom!
Who knows what mystic concoctions he will brew up to test this new film?
Whatever they are , they will be interesting!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I also ordered a few rolls of 120. I'll play around with it after I return from Japan!

 

[MattKing]

Place-keeper used to create this thread.

 

[mshchem]

I have some coming from B&H, don't need more film but want to support Harman. I love film!

 

[AZD]

I’ll definitely pick some up. I like the clear base (as with Adox CHS 100) and I think with most people scanning their film it will immediately look “higher contrast”. Glad it doesn’t have far red sensitivity, that’s just not something I like, and the reason I avoid the various flavors of Aviphot. Grain looks good. I’d love to see some darkroom prints but will probably have to wait for that.

 

[Milpool]

If that’s what they’re doing I think it is quite misleading (at best). Leaving aside the fact it wouldn’t satisfy the ISO speed criteria, it isn’t even a useful way of determining a practical exposure index. After all halation is quite a different thing than veiling flare.

In the case of the 200 film, if you are correct I could understand Foma perhaps recommending an EI of 200 for say “optimal sharpness and granularity” but not characterizing it as ISO 200.

Anyway, if you get a chance to try some of the new Kentmere I’d be interested in your take. I don’t see the point of this film but I guess if they can sell it they might as well.

Having tried both Foma 200 & 400, I think the following is what's going on:

Foma 400, if exposed under flare free conditions to a step wedge, will deliver what the data sheet says (ie 160-200+), but it has sufficient internal halation/ turbidity that real-world usage demands a bit of underexposure & a higher aim contrast in processing;

Foma 200 uses a form of high aspect ratio crystal structures which, if my understanding is reasonably correct, in their less highly evolved forms will only deliver more optimal grain/ sharpness characteristics if slightly underexposed & developed to a higher contrast index. I think Foma 200 owes some background DNA to investment/ knowledge sharing in the Foma X-ray range in the 1990s.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Here is a photo from Freestyle Photo's promotional email of Kentmere 200...

Halation ?
Feel free to discuss.

 

[blee1996]

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

 

[oxcanary]

Ilford have released Kentmere 200. This film promises higher contrast and is DX coded. The lineup now competes directly with Fomapan. Some tests like the contrast/speed/grain balance, one is not keen on the grain