Kentmere 100 & 400 in 120 format

[GregY]

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?

i don't remember it being orange.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Now that these films have been out for awhile, I wonder what people think about them. I've shot a brick of the Kentmere 100 and I'm wondering how FP4 or some other equivalent might have improved on my results.

If it matters, I always shoot film at about half the box speed, so my EI for Kentmere 100 has been about EI 64 or EI 50, and I stand process in Rodinal. My goto films in 120 were always Tri-X and Plus-X before I packed my film cameras away a decade ago. What I see in my Kentmere 100 negatives, shot at EI 50, is consistently satisfying.

I know the Kentmere line is pitched at beginners and students. Can someone summarize for me what I am giving up by shooting Kentmere?

Sanders, there was a thread in 2009, post 42 is mine and a couple of posts later Simon Galley from Ilford replied.

Kentmere film "?" Maybe Mr. Galley will know.

What are the sensitivity? Maybe we could have some more characterisic informations? like spectral sensitivity, granularity, etc Thanks :)

www.photrio.com

In short, Ilford only had quality film products and as they themselves would not sell their films under another brand name, they were effectively unable to gain a foothold in emerging film markets. They needed something that could be sold into cheaper markets. I myself first encountered Kentmere film in my darkroom when friends turned up after trips to a couple of South American countries. Then when on trip in Spain and coming across Kentmere 100 in a Seville photoshop, I bought their entire 135 stock, and started using it. Came home with about 50 rolls of Kentmere 100 divided up between my wife and I in cabin luggage, but that is another story.

Back home in Australia, it was not yet available, but I thought it was the bees knees and bought some more from Spain, directly from the Seville Photoshop. Eventually it came to Australia and I used more for some time. As my photographic interests have moved more to 4x5" cameras, Kentmere got dropped and FP4+ reigns supreme.

With regard to the differences between FP4+ and Kentmere 100 in 35mm, they are there but it's more about the look of the films being different from each other. As far as quality is concerned, I don't think there is anything in it. Roughly speaking I've gone through around 125 rolls of 135 Kentmere 100 over a the years with everything developed in D76 1:1.

At the time I was doing quite a lot of 35mm portraiture work, using a Nikkor f/1.4 85mm lens close up and 1 stop down from wide open in flat(ish) light; 4 stops between highlight and shadow, the Kentmere film grain structure really looked good on prints. FP4+ looked slightly smoother, really good as well, but the grain structure just wasn't the same. The models, and myself, preferred the ever so slightly different grain structure of the Kentmere 100 film on darkroom paper.

Sorry it's not 120 format.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, there was a thread in 2009, post 42 is mine and a couple of posts later Simon Galley from Ilford replied.

Mick, thanks for the reference -- worth the read. Browsing the thread, it reminded me of what a pleasure it was to have Simon Galley around these forums. Simon was a reliable source of information and good cheer, wasn't he?

 

[Mick Fagan]

Sanders, he certainly was. I, along with possibly quite a few other members of this forum, had personal exchanges, which he initiated. I also received some quite handy literature, which, from his viewpoint; he sent all the way to the Antipodes.

Yes, I do miss him.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Sanders, he certainly was. I, along with possibly quite a few other members of this forum, had personal exchanges, which he initiated. I also received some quite handy literature, which, from his viewpoint; he sent all the way to the Antipodes.

Yes, I do miss him.

The papers eulogize the celebrities who pass but we are left to mark in our individual memories the absence (to death or retirement) of people like Simon Galley who could speak with authority on film photography. Three who come readily to mind: Ron Mowray (AKA Photo Engineer), the Kodak alum who grounded so many conversations in these forums. Ken Hansen, who sold so many Rolleiflexes and Leicas to all of the great (and aspiring) film photographers of the past century. And Milton, the former darkroom manager at B&H, who was a walking encyclopedia of darkroom knowledge. I photographed Milton once — he didn't allow it usually but he was curious about the camera (a Hapo 66 folder) and suffered it that one time. I wish I knew his last name.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I posted a video on Kentmere 400's AH layer here

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I posted a video on Kentmere 400's AH layer here

Andrew, thanks for the video — much appreciated. I am glad that you were able through empirical assay to put the lie to the lower-silver-content canard.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kentmere 400's anti-halation is probably largely the dyed base (much like Verichrome Pan) - it quite definitely has a visually obvious light pipe effect - which allows for the elimination of expensive components/ layers if you are prepared to deal with the effects. As ever, people need to realise that there are good reasons why other films are much more expensive - it's the Pareto principle in action.

 

[Donald Qualls]

people need to realise that there are good reasons why other films are much more expensive

But then, if you've been shooting Fomapan for years, Kentmere gives a nice alternative in the same price range.

 

[mshchem]

Interesting about the different thicknesses of the base.

 

[pentaxuser]

It took a little over a decade to get this stuff in 120... I wonder if we'll ever see it in 4x5? Probably not...

You may know of this reason already but in case you don't. Andy, I appear to have an answer from the end of the Harman Photo cryptic announcement thread. Have a look at retina-restoration's reply It appears to be related to the difference in the base used compared to those bases used for films that will support( in the physical rather than economic sense of the word) such as HP5

I admit to not fully understanding why nor it would seem did Ilford understand why as it apparently tried to coat the Kentmere emulsion onto sheets and failed Apparently Kodak had the same problem but appeared to solve it so maybe the real answer is that Ilford would have to "re-jig" its machinery to make it work and presumably do not consider this to be a viable proposition


So, yes, it appears as if the problem took Ilford by surprise as well which given its knowledge of the requirements for sheet film take me a little by surprise

pentaxuser

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

You may know of this reason already but in case you don't. Andy, I appear to have an answer from the end of the Harman Photo cryptic announcement thread. Have a look at retina-restoration's reply It appears to be related to the difference in the base used compared to those bases used for films that will support( in the physical rather than economic sense of the word) such as HP5

I admit to not fully understanding why nor it would seem did Ilford understand why as it apparently tried to coat the Kentmere emulsion onto sheets and failed Apparently Kodak had the same problem but appeared to solve it so maybe the real answer is that Ilford would have to "re-jig" its machinery to make it work and presumably do not consider this to be a viable proposition


So, yes, it appears as if the problem took Ilford by surprise as well which given its knowledge of the requirements for sheet film take me a little by surprise

pentaxuser

Very interesting. Thank you!

 

[pentaxuser]

Very interesting. Thank you!

There have been a few more replies on this in the Harman cryptic announcement thread if you are interested

pentaxuser