Is Kentmere a delicate film?

I've only shot one roll of Kentmere 100 and I really liked the results I got. The only issue is, there was a scratch in the emulsion through several frames. I shot it on a camera that I have shot with before and after the Kentmere with so scratching to Kodak or Ilford film.

Is Kentmere just a more delicate film and that's what you get for paying less? Or was it just a bad roll of film I got? My sample size of 1 is pretty limiting.

It's unlikely to be the film, most likely just bad luck and a bit of dirt. I've shot a lot of poorly hardened films and never had an issue with scratches in cameras. Ilfords film hardening is about the best there is.

Ian

I have exposed 2 rolls of Kentmere 100 and about 30 rolls of Kentmere 400.

The first time I used Kentmere 1200 was 4 years ago in Spain when I picked up some Kentmere 400 in Seville, took all of their stock. Also took 2 rolls of the 100.

Exposed in Spain and Germany then processed when back in Australia, nary a scratch on any of the emulsions then and none of subsequent rolls purchased.

Mick.

Never had it scratch but I have had Kentmere 100 rip off the spool with no force whatsoever, so delicate is probably the right word! That or cheaply produced.

I shot and developed bulks of Kentmere. It is normal film.

Is Kentmere a delicate film?

No

We use bulk loaded Kentmere for our student photographers in a bunch of battered K1000's, never had any issues with scratches that could be traced back to students dropping the washed film on the floor or using a squeegee or the occasional dirty cartridge felt, I banned all sponges and squeegees from the darkroom but the damn things still pop up from time to time. So no Kentmere film is hardened just like Ilford (not too surprising since the same equipment or at least the same process in the same factory makes both).

FWIW, I'll add that I've also used a fair amount of Kentmere with no issues at all (other than "operator errors" ).

saman13 said:

I've only shot one roll of Kentmere 100 and I really liked the results I got. The only issue is, there was a scratch in the emulsion through several frames. I shot it on a camera that I have shot with before and after the Kentmere with so scratching to Kodak or Ilford film.

Is Kentmere just a more delicate film and that's what you get for paying less? Or was it just a bad roll of film I got? My sample size of 1 is pretty limiting.

Click to expand...

If you have a "bad roll" you could only identify if you buy a 122ft roll kentmere.With a single 135 -36 film I would like to state :

- 60% bad dirty equipment
- 20% caused from bad development
- 19,7% issues caused during archival
- 0,3% bad manufacturing.
Exeptions P30 Ferrania : You should count with "factor 100"....
So let us rate P30 to :
- 30% manufacturing.

Is kentmere100 more cheap with 1/1
less quality ???? Because you asked in concern of scratches ?
First you have to buy several hundred rolls
better several 1000 rolls to find differences.(in regard of statistic accumulations)
I would like to speculate : Is there a difference between 0,3 % or 0,308%
in regard of litle cheaper production?

with regards

saman13 said:

I've only shot one roll of Kentmere 100 and I really liked the results I got. The only issue is, there was a scratch in the emulsion through several frames. I shot it on a camera that I have shot with before and after the Kentmere with so scratching to Kodak or Ilford film.

Is Kentmere just a more delicate film and that's what you get for paying less? Or was it just a bad roll of film I got? My sample size of 1 is pretty limiting.

Click to expand...

I am not sure if it is helpful, but during my testing of developers I ran about 10 rolls of this film through 5 different developers and I liked them all, no scratches or any other complaint. Frankly, I do not understand why this film is considered "entry level". The only outlier was with H&W Control developer (non commercial) which gave excessively low contrast.