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?
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?
Size for one, as Kentmere films are only available in 35mm and 120. If you shoot large format you need something else.I'm trying to understand why the world doesn't simply abandon the Ilford line for the Kentmere films.
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?
Opinions grounded in experience are welcome.
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 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.
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.
The thread is about the new Kentmere 120 films
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
I sure miss the old Kentmere Kentona graded FB paper...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?