Currently I am printing our three month European trip of 2014, which was spent in Germany Spain Germany. During that trip I had the chance to pick up some Kentmere 400 film in the centre of Seville. I knew my NP400 days would be coming to an end so I was thinking about the direction I would be going in, this was my first play with Kentmere 400.
While I use and will continue to use FP4+ it is not my travel film, I need the speed of 400 films, which as a matter of interest, I almost always end up using at 320 ASA after conducting my own tests.
I have extensively used HP5 and HP5+ since HP5 was introduced, I have minimal use of Tri-X 320 personally, although working in a lab/studio complex it was pretty much our standard film, but I couldnt afford Kodak film for personal use, so I worked out how to get the best from HP5+ and was very content, until I discovered Neopan 400.
Neopan 400 has a very nice tonal range, better in my eyes and with my technique than HP5+. Ilford FP4+ is possibly better in both its grain structure and its tonality and is my first go to film for 4x5 work. In fact, a short while ago when the Australian dollar was around parity with the USD I picked up 1,000 sheets of FP4+, which should see me good in that format for some time.
Getting back to the replacement for my dearly loved and recently departed NP400, I am currently seeing Kentmere 400 as the replacement film. Why? As mentioned earlier, I am currently printing my holiday pictures. I decided to concentrate on Germany first, followed by Spain, in other words printing in a chronological order. As I picked up the Kentmere in Seville, I started shooting it immediately in the manner of one roll of Kentmere, followed by a roll of NP400, followed by a roll of Kentmere, you get the picture. The idea was to sort of foolproof myself from a possibly bad situation.
I rated the Kentmere at 320 ASA, same as the NP400 and developed both in D76 1+1 separately upon getting home. Prior to bulk developing my Kentmere film, I used one roll cut into three test rolls to work out a good developing strategy; I was very impressed with what I was seeing. Bulk holiday prints are also being done in a chronological order, meaning that Im printing one roll of NP400 followed by a roll of Kentmere 400.
Yesterday I laid out sixty 12.7cm x 20.3cm (5x8) on our tables from the Spanish part of our trip. The prints from the two films are indistinguishable from each other, in both tonality and look. In the darkroom there is almost no difference in printing technique, except for a 1/8th difference in density required to bring the same subject shot on the two films at the same time to look identical. All printing is being done at grade 3½ for normal subjects, and on grade 2½ on the white buildings one sees in Spain. While all of my prints are being done at or near full frame on the aforementioned paper size, I did do an extreme enlargement of the same subject that was shot on the two films. I enlarged so that the image on the baseboard was 1m on the long measurement, then took a sectional print on 20.3 x 25.4cm paper. I was very pleased, as apart from a 3/8 stop density adjustment, nothing else was required to produce two virtually identical prints.
I think that the Kentmere 400 film, is a jewel in Ilfords range that is currently under estimated by many people. The fact that I believe it was introduced as a film that could be manufactured and sold more cheaply than Ilfords two main conventional B&W films, allowing Ilford to enter into a lower priced market without cheapening their hero films, is wonderful news to us photographers who actually purchase new film.
I cannot supply samples as I dont have any means to scan prints, which in some ways is a pity. Another factor I have found out, is that print scans generally dont do justice, although they arent too bad. Apart from that, I have picked up a new model to work with and shooting, developing and printing, will have precedence for the next couple of months if things work out well for both of us.
Mick.