Kentmere 100 & 400 in 120 format

[MattKing]

Harman is silent on this point in its online description. But if correct, I would see the absence of an antihalation layer as a benefit, not a cut corner. Cheaper AND better?

Isn't it better to be able to choose halation, or not, using filtration?
The films that have sub-standard halation control make it more difficult to achieve "sharp" results in contrasty light.

 

[Craig]

Harman is silent on this point in its online description. But if correct, I would see the absence of an antihalation layer as a benefit, not a cut corner. Cheaper AND better?

Depends on what you do. I shoot many trains and the anti halation layer helps suppress secondary reflections from the train headlights. I haven't shot Kentmere on a train yet, but a film with a poor anti-halation layer can give a double image of the headlights on the negs.

 

[Craig]

I'm trying to understand why the world doesn't simply abandon the Ilford line for the Kentmere films.

Size for one, as Kentmere films are only available in 35mm and 120. If you shoot large format you need something else.

 

[MattKing]

I expect the Kentmere 100 has similarities to the approach used in Verichrome Pan - less effective anti-halation means more exposure latitude, at the expense of resolution and acutance.

 

[Roger Cole]

Harman is silent on this point in its online description. But if correct, I would see the absence of an antihalation layer as a benefit, not a cut corner. Cheaper AND better?

Kentmere isn't lacking an AH layer. It has one, it's just (supposedly) not as effective as on Ilford branded films.

 

[foc]

I think the car manufacturer VW is very smart. (and a good analogy) They offer 3 brands, Audi, Volkswagen, and Skoda aimed at different price points in the market.

A lot of the mechanical underpinning and parts are shared throughout the range, keeping production costs down. A smart business concept.

Harman is doing something similar with the Ilford & Kentmere brands.

 

[koraks]

Opinions grounded in experience are welcome.

Alright, for what it's worth, I've gone through about a 100ft roll of Rollei RPX400 (and a handful of initial single 36 exp rolls to try it out), which is the same product as Kentmere 400. I've also shot a lot of Ilford HP5+, especially in recent months, but over the years it's something I've used on and off. I've never bothered to compare both in a very strict technical sense; unless I'm looking for something very specific, I find technical testing rather boring and I'd prefer to just go out and make images. So that's what I did with both of these films, which I've shot 'around the house' as well as when traveling. My impressions are the following:
* Both are excellent products free of notable defects etc. Reliable performers.
* The Kentmere/Rollei 400 seems a little slower than HP5+. HP5+ I don't hesitate to shoot at box speed, the Kentmere I'd rate maybe half a stop slower as it tends to get a little thin in the shadows otherwise.
* The grain on HP5+ seems slightly tighter, finer and more regular than the somewhat coarser Kentemere/Rollei, but the difference is very slight.

I can't say much about things like spectral sensitivity etc. because I never looked for differences. My overall impression is that I find the higher cost of HP5+ worth it. I just think it's a (slightly) better product. But that's an entirely subjective opinion. And if somehow HP5+ would be taken away from me, leaving me with only Kentmere 400, I wouldn't waste much time mourning the loss.

 

[albireo]

I would be careful with this statement that "RPX400 = Kentmere 400" in 120. I do not fully trust what Maco does with that RPX brand.

I have used loads of RPX400 in 120 in the OLD packaging (black box, red lettering). I had reached pretty consistent results and obtained beautiful negatives by using exactly the same workflow I used for Kentmere 400 in 35mm (at the time, Kentmere 400 in 120 wasn't available). So, back then, probably RPX400=Kentmere 400.

Fast forward to a couple of months ago, I placed an order for a new batch of RPX400 from Maco. This came in a NEW packaging (white box, black lettering). I have developed and exposed a few rolls from this set using exactly the same workflow I had 'perfected' on the old RPX400/Kentmere 400 batches. The results are shockingly bad: underexposure, overdevelopment, large grain. Poor sharpness. Something is very off.

I have not performed a rigorous test, but I have a feeling that whatever is in those white RPX 400 boxes is different from what it was before. I have gotten rid of the rest of the rolls and in the future I will only be purchasing real Kentmere 400 in 120, just to be sure.

 

[koraks]

Ah, thank you for adding this; I was not aware of this.

I have used loads of RPX400 in 120 in the OLD packaging (black box, red lettering). I had reached pretty consistent results and obtained beautiful negatives by using exactly the same workflow I used for Kentmere 400 in 35mm (at the time, Kentmere 400 in 120 wasn't available). So, back then, probably RPX400=Kentmere 400.

I should make explicit then that this is the RPX400 that I talked about above. It's been some time since I last used it; when I did, it was the black packaging with red lettering. The 100ft roll came in a plastic box with the same color scheme, as opposed to the more usual metal tins. I don't know if this has also changed.

I have no experience with the product apparently now sold in the white packaging. My experience also extends only to the 135 product, not 120.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I think the car manufacturer VW is very smart. (and a good analogy) They offer 3 brands, Audi, Volkswagen, and Skoda aimed at different price points in the market.

A lot of the mechanical underpinning and parts are shared throughout the range, keeping production costs down. A smart business concept.

Harman is doing something similar with the Ilford & Kentmere brands.

To use your analogy: I’ll buy the Audi for the leather, or save some cash with the VW if vinyl will do, and save even more with a Skoda‘s bare metal. The tradeoffs are apparent.

What are the tradeoffs when I move downmarket from Ilford to Kentmere? If both deliver comparable results, then why pay a premium for the Ilford?

Does it really come down to the antihalation layers?

I take Koraks’ observation that grain might differ. But even here it’s not clear, as he is comparing an older 35mm emulsion to a newer 120 emulsion on a different substrate.

 

[koraks]

he is comparing an older 35mm emulsion to a newer 120 emulsion on a different substrate.

For clarity, I'm comparing 35mm to 35mm. What I said about 120 was that I had not used it; maybe I wasn't clear on that - my apologies if so. I don't shoot a whole lot of 120 to begin with.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

For clarity, I'm comparing 35mm to 35mm. What I said about 120 was that I had not used it; maybe I wasn't clear on that - my apologies if so. I don't shoot a whole lot of 120 to begin with.

Koraks, sorry, I misunderstood. The thread is about the new Kentmere 120 films and I assumed we were all talking about the same product.

 

[koraks]

The thread is about the new Kentmere 120 films

My apologies; you're right; I'm not sure how I missed the restriction to 120!
Well, for what it's worth, you know my experience with the 135 versions of the 400 films. I expect they extend to 120, but no guarantees.

 

[pentaxuser]

For example:

“Drawing many attributes from ILFORD stocks such as FP4, Kentmere Pan 100’s price point, coupled with its wide and forgiving exposure latitude, make it an ideal film for those new or returning to film photography as well as students and budget conscious photographers.”

Source:

Kentmere 100 120

Medium format, ISO 100, black & white film ideal for those new or returning to film photography as well as budget conscious photographers. Medium speed ISO 100 Fine grain and good sharpness Broad tonal range with ‘medium’ contrast Wide and forgiving exposure latitude Also available in 35mm...

www.ilfordphoto.com

Yes that was all I could find as well. This kind of description I feel is largely marketing speak. It ticks the boxes for beginners in terms of price, wide latitude etc but once you start to really wonder what it means in the court of "film inquiry" I feel it becomes clear that what Ilford has uttered is a "man for all seasons" statement

If it meets your needs and has no disadvantages for your shots then why pay more for attributes that may exist but that you have no need for.

pentaxuser

 

[Rolleiflexible]

If it meets your needs and has no disadvantages for your shots then why pay more for attributes that may exist but that you have no need for.

Sure but that begs the question: What attributes differ? FP4 is nearly twice the price of Kentmere 100. What does the extra cost buy?

Seen strictly as a marketing question: Will Kentmere increase Harman’s market share by picking off Foma buyers? Or will it cut into Harman’s margins by cannibalizing Ilford’s market share?

I would think that it is in Harman’s interest to be explicit about the attributes that distinguish the one from the other to make the consumer’s choice apparent. Photrio is probably the most knowledgeable group of film consumers around. If we can’t readily see a meaningful difference in the two films, then who will?

 

[MattKing]

To ask the question, you could use the contact form on Harman/Ilford's website or reach out to @Harman Tech Service here on Photrio.

 

[GregY]

Sure but that begs the question: What attributes differ? FP4 is nearly twice the price of Kentmere 100. What does the extra cost buy?

Seen strictly as a marketing question: Will Kentmere increase Harman’s market share by picking off Foma buyers? Or will it cut into Harman’s margins by cannibalizing Ilford’s market share?

I would think that it is in Harman’s interest to be explicit about the attributes that distinguish the one from the other to make the consumer’s choice apparent. Photrio is probably the most knowledgeable group of film consumers around. If we can’t readily see a meaningful difference in the two films, then who will?

Good questions Sanders. I believe it will increase Ilford's market share. Most consumers aren't as picky or knowledgeable as forum participants. First I believe many buy on price point. Secondly, if you have there are X # of 120 films on the market.....if you offer 2 different boxes, you're likely to sell more. Then I'm sure many don't know that Ilford owns/produces Kentmere. Last of all if I'm in a foreign country for example and am running out of film, i'll be happy to get the images i want with whichever film i can find......regardless of grain size/tonal character etc.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

To ask the question, you could use the contact form on Harman/Ilford's website or reach out to @Harman Tech Service here on Photrio.

I could. But it's not important to me. For now, I am using Kentmere. It does what I need it to do, and it's a lot cheaper than Ilford's film. So in my case, they've cannibalized a possible FP-4 customer. But maybe that's a good thing for Harman. Maybe Harman's profit/roll on Kentmere is greater than on Ilford, and it serves Harman's financial interest for the market to migrate from Ilford to Kentmere.

I don't sit on the Harman board so it doesn't really matter to me. But I am curious about how the company decided to offer a film that seems largely to replicate their flagship product, for a much lower price.

 

[Don_ih]

But I am curious about how the company decided to offer a film that seems largely to replicate their flagship product, for a much lower price.

To compete against Foma?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Less effective AH layer, and the one that really makes sense for the lower price, lower silver content. So far I'm liking the 400 version. I still need to try out the 100 of which I have several 120 rolls. I really would love to see a spectral sensitivity graph though, but I have a feeling it'll be similar if not the same as HP5. In the late 90's, I had a box of very cheap sheet film from Freestyle... Arista, I believe it was called. I drew up characteristic curves from it and they were identical to HP5's. I'm wondering if it was actually Kentmere films rebranded as Arista... Maybe I need to make new curves....

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

one way of looking at things!


Kentmere/Arista/Ilford.

Many years ago Freestyle rountinely used Ilford and Kentmere products.

TB

 

[MattKing]

Many years ago Freestyle rountinely used Ilford and Kentmere products.

In those days, Kentmere was a separate company making its own products. Since then, the Kentmere brand was purchased by Harman, who shut down the Kentmere manufacturing site. Harman had earlier purchased the license to use the Ilford brand and the lease for the Ilford manufacturing site from the reciever for the old Ilford. Any product with the Kentmere name is now made by Harman using the same people and on the same equipment as anything with an Ilford brand.

 

[GregY]

In those days, Kentmere was a separate company making its own products. Since then, the Kentmere brand was purchased by Harman, who shut down the Kentmere manufacturing site. Harman had earlier purchased the license to use the Ilford brand and the lease for the Ilford manufacturing site from the reciever for the old Ilford. Any product with the Kentmere name is now made by Harman using the same people and on the same equipment as anything with an Ilford brand.

I sure miss the old Kentmere Kentona graded FB paper...

 

[juan]

Me too.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

I sure miss the old Kentmere Kentona graded FB paper...

Was Kentona the orange coloured paper?
Cannot remember what Fb paper I used but it was one of the best I have used.

Kentint!! Orange paper?