Kentmere 100 & 400 in 120 format

[removedacct1]

This morning I did another test of the new 120 format Kenmere, this time using the 400 speed version and comparing it with Delta 400. I used my Hasselblad and loaded the two films in two backs so I could make the exact same photographs on each film type. Both films were developed in FA-1027 for 15 minutes. I metered both for 250 ASA and bracketed a bit. Both of these images were from the middle frame of the bracket and received the exact same exposure (probably equivalent to 200 ASA). Here is a sample showing a screen shot of the same image shot on both films: Delta 400 on the left and Kentmere 400 on the right. (These are not raw scans; they've been edited to fit my typical workflow aesthetic, but both received exactly the same editing treatment)
Both films dry very flat and are easy to scan. The Kentmere has a fairly heavy grey base color that's quite a bit darker than the Delta, but its not significantly different.

Delta (left) Kentmere (right)

There is more "sparkle" in the Delta image, and the shadow information has better presentation (though both films registered a similar amount of shadow detail). The grain of Delta is finer and less conspicuous than the Kentmere, as you'd expect, but the Kentmere grain is sharp and pleasant in appearance. In a way, the Kentmere has a more "Tri-X" feel to it than the Delta - also something to be expected. Both films have excellent sharpness, but the Delta has better separation of values, especially notable in the lower range.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy more of the Kentmere 120 in the future, as my all-purpose everyday film.

Here is a raw scan right out of the scanner. (Kentmere on the left, Delta on the right) Scans were adjusted to match the overall contrast, and to account for Kentmere's darker base color. (I like to start with a flat scan to edit from)

 

[Don_ih]

I bought a pack of 10 Kentmere 400 in 120 as soon as released. I already know the film is good - Ilford (Harmon) doesn't make anything bad. And it was at a good price.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Love it. I find Kentmere 400 to be just a wee bit too grainy, but 100 sure seems to hit a sweet spot between unabashedly FILM-y and yet fairly sharp and clean. So far, I really like how 100 handles highlights, particularly with skin tones.

 

[Craig]

Love it. I find Kentmere 400 to be just a wee bit too grainy, but 100 sure seems to hit a sweet spot between unabashedly FILM-y and yet fairly sharp and clean. So far, I really like how 100 handles highlights, particularly with skin tones.

Have you compared Kentmere 100 to FP4?

 

[Dusty Negative]

Have you compared Kentmere 100 to FP4?

I have shot FP4 before, but it's been a while. Just from memory, I would say FP4 displays less visible grain. But, also just from memory, FP4 was less contrasty.

 

[GregY]

I have shot FP4 before, but it's been a while. Just from memory, I would say FP4 displays less visible grain. But, also just from memory, FP4 was less contrasty.

Dusty is this from your memory of both....of Kentmere in 135.... or have you gotten your hands on some? As far as i can tell, Paul Barden's photo of the chair is the goods. Anything else is pure speculation.
If I could only have one film it would be FP4+....... based on having used it in 35,120,4x5,5x7,8x10......& looking down the road figuring Ilford may well outlast Kodak.
Based on Paul's photo, I think i'll like the Kentmere 100. I'm not likely to try the 400 as I prefer Tri-X and TMY-2 to Ilford HP5+.
If i get some nice light in the next few days I'll run the K100, process in Pyrocat HD ....& print some. I'm looking to see how it responds when there's light, sparkle & contrast....rather than when it's overcast.
I do agree with those who anticipate it will be a good product based on Ilford's history of overall QC.

 

[aparat]

I had a chance to work with the new Kentmere films in 120 format and I am impressed. Those are budged-priced films (I paid $4.99) but they perform better, in my opinion, than their low price would otherwise indicate, with well-formed curves and film speed that actually matches very closely the ISO values printed on the box.

One thing that surprised me a bit was the somewhat high, for an 120 film, B+F density, which was very similar to that of the 35 mm versions of the films (approx. 0.28-0.32 for Kentmere 100, and 0.28-0.34 for Kentmere 400, developed in D-76). It would probably be lower in other developers.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Dusty is this from your memory of both....of Kentmere in 135.... or have you gotten your hands on some? As far as i can tell, Paul Barden's photo of the chair is the goods. Anything else is pure speculation.
If I could only have one film it would be FP4+....... based on having used it in 35,120,4x5,5x7,8x10......& looking down the road figuring Ilford may well outlast Kodak.
Based on Paul's photo, I think i'll like the Kentmere 100. I'm not likely to try the 400 as I prefer Tri-X and TMY-2 to Ilford HP5+.
If i get some nice light in the next few days I'll run the K100, process in Pyrocat HD ....& print some. I'm looking to see how it responds when there's light, sparkle & contrast....rather than when it's overcast.
I do agree with those who anticipate it will be a good product based on Ilford's history of overall QC.

Recollection of a roll of FP4 I shot prior to the pandemic; current experience with a roll of Kentmere 100 in 120. I'll scan a negative as soon as I can get a moment to set up my scanning rig.

 

[Roger Cole]

This morning I did another test of the new 120 format Kenmere, this time using the 400 speed version and comparing it with Delta 400. I used my Hasselblad and loaded the two films in two backs so I could make the exact same photographs on each film type. Both films were developed in FA-1027 for 15 minutes. I metered both for 250 ASA and bracketed a bit. Both of these images were from the middle frame of the bracket and received the exact same exposure (probably equivalent to 200 ASA). Here is a sample showing a screen shot of the same image shot on both films: Delta 400 on the left and Kentmere 400 on the right. (These are not raw scans; they've been edited to fit my typical workflow aesthetic, but both received exactly the same editing treatment)
Both films dry very flat and are easy to scan. The Kentmere has a fairly heavy grey base color that's quite a bit darker than the Delta, but its not significantly different.

Delta (left) Kentmere (right)

There is more "sparkle" in the Delta image, and the shadow information has better presentation (though both films registered a similar amount of shadow detail). The grain of Delta is finer and less conspicuous than the Kentmere, as you'd expect, but the Kentmere grain is sharp and pleasant in appearance. In a way, the Kentmere has a more "Tri-X" feel to it than the Delta - also something to be expected. Both films have excellent sharpness, but the Delta has better separation of values, especially notable in the lower range.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy more of the Kentmere 120 in the future, as my all-purpose everyday film.

Here is a raw scan right out of the scanner. (Kentmere on the left, Delta on the right) Scans were adjusted to match the overall contrast, and to account for Kentmere's darker base color. (I like to start with a flat scan to edit from)

It may just be my monitor, but it looks to me like the Delta one has ever so slightly more contrast and that may be what's mostly responsible for the differences, especially the impression of slightly more sharpness. All in all the Kentmere seems VERY impressive for about 55% of the cost of the Delta. The difference from HP5+ is slightly less as expensive than Delta 400 but not significantly so, and WAY less than TMY II or Tri-X.

I've moved to 100% Ilford for black and white (aside from an occasional roll of Arista branded Foma because I still have it in my fridge) mainly because of Kodak's prices for sheet film. The 120 (I've just about stopped shooting B&W in 35mm except for my little half frame H35) I could afford, albeit I'd wince every time I bought some, but Kodak has priced themselves out of sheet film as far as I'm concerned, and I like to be able to standardize across formats as much as possible. Granted I can't do that with Kentmere either but the price is very appealing for Ilford quality. I've also not been terribly happy with TXT since the 2007 change, though I was a big fan of old Tri-X for decades prior. The way it performed in Diafine was fantastic for low light but the new version just doesn't do nearly as well in that, and all in all acts more like a T grain film to me than a conventional one (though not as much so as TMY II of course.)

 

[TheYoungPretender]

These have begun to come in stock in the EU.

Film stock	Maco	Fotoimpex	Retrocamera	Ars-Imago
Kentmere 100	6.95	6.79	6.71	5.50(OOS)
Kentmere 400	6.95	6.89	6.71	5.50
Ilford HP5	7.14	6.95	7.18	6.70
Ilford FP4	7.10	6.89	7.18	6.70

 

[aparat]

I guess it might be interesting to see how Kentmere 100 and 400 compare to Ilford FP4 Plus and HP5 Plus, respectively. Bear in mind, this comparison is not ideal, as the Ilford films I tested are the 35mm variants. I would say, Kentmere compares very favorably, at least in a film test, and these emulsions are not simple low-quality variants of the Ilford pair - they are sufficiently different in a quantitative test. What they do share, though, is the fact that both are excellent choices for everyday photography. They can be even thought of as interchangeable, at least in terms of film speed and their overall response to exposure and development. No, they are not the same, but I can see people using Kentmere more often in place of their more expensive cousins.

 

[pentaxuser]

If I could only have one film it would be FP4+....... based on having used it in 35,120,4x5,5x7,8x10......& looking down the road figuring Ilford may well outlast Kodak.

Dug the foxhole yet?

pentaxuser

 

[GregY]

Dug the foxhole yet?

pentaxuser

You completely lost me there.... no photos wars north of the 49th

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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...

 

[removedacct1]

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...

I'd certainly invest in the K100 in 5x7 and 8x10! Ilford, are you listening??

 

[aparat]

I have gone back to my files and dug up an Ultrafine Extreme 100 negative in 120 size. I checked the B+F density, and it is 0.28 (developed in D--76), so it looks like it is a very similar base to that of the Kentmere 100. I suppose there was some consensus at the time that Ultrafine Extreme was Kentmere, or at least similar to it.

It is so refreshing to test a film that performs as well as the Kentmere 100 and 400, despite their affordable price. I've tested a bunch of budget films lately, and most of them do not reach their box speed, with some being way off the mark. Some of these budget films have various other quirks, such as an odd spectral response, emulsion defects, packaging issues, etc., Kentmere 100 and 400 are not among them. Yes, they are economically priced, but they closely resemble their "professional" cousins.

 

[removedacct1]

It is so refreshing to test a film that performs as well as the Kentmere 100 and 400, despite their affordable price. I've tested a bunch of budget films lately, and most of them do not reach their box speed, with some being way off the mark. Some of these budget films have various other quirks, such as an odd spectral response, emulsion defects, packaging issues, etc., Kentmere 100 and 400 are not among them. Yes, they are economically priced, but they closely resemble their "professional" cousins.

I had set my expectations low when testing the Kentmere 120 films, but the results are really quite impressive. There's nothing "cheap" about these films. And yes, they perform well at box speed, unlike many other films that have appeared lately (yes, I'm looking at YOU, CatLabs "pro" 320)

 

[Anon Ymous]

These have begun to come in stock in the EU.

Film stock	Maco	Fotoimpex	Retrocamera	Ars-Imago
Kentmere 100	6.95	6.79	6.71	5.50(OOS)
Kentmere 400	6.95	6.89	6.71	5.50
Ilford HP5	7.14	6.95	7.18	6.70
Ilford FP4	7.10	6.89	7.18	6.70

Aren't these supposed to be budget films? I don't see much of a price difference.

 

[GregY]

In Canada K100 is $8.50. and FP4 is $11.84....pretty much a 30% difference in cost.
You wouldn't find me changing film buying practices for 15 euro cents.....

 

[warden]

I can see people using Kentmere more often in place of their more expensive cousins.

Hopefully Ilford will be rewarded with new 120 customers that appreciate lower priced films without the headaches of lower quality or mystery rebranding nonsense offered by storefronts like you-know-who. I’d hate to see Ilford cannibalize their own higher end film sales volume. I’m sure they have had those risk assessments internally.

 

[MattKing]

Dug the foxhole yet?

pentaxuser

You completely lost me there.... no photos wars north of the 49th

Most likely a reference to the comment about Ilford (actually Harman) outlasting Kodak.

 

[aparat]

Hopefully Ilford will be rewarded with new 120 customers that appreciate lower priced films without the headaches of lower quality or mystery rebranding nonsense offered by storefronts like you-know-who. I’d hate to see Ilford cannibalize their own higher end film sales volume. I’m sure they have had those risk assessments internally.

Yeah, I guess they must have thought this through. I also really like the whole branding approach, with the magenta and cyan color schemes and the modern, dare I say, hip kind of look, esp. compared to the old branding. Perhaps they are hoping to target the younger crowd with these products? Somehow all those rebranded films (e.g., JCH Street Pan 400, Rollei Retro, Film Photography Project, CatLABS, Lomography, etc.) sell well enough, so maybe they're trying to get a slice of that particular pie? I only wish there were more 120 film cameras available for newcomers. It's not easy for a complete beginner to buy into medium format these days, with only used cameras available, most of which need some kind of service up front.

 

[Roger Cole]

Aren't these supposed to be budget films? I don't see much of a price difference.

There's a much bigger difference on this side of the Atlantic, at least comparing prices at the one place I see that seems to have it. $4.99/roll vs $7.99:

Products

The Film Photography Project informs, engages and inspires film enthusiasts of all levels. While promoting the viability of vintage cameras and film.

filmphotographystore.com

 

[GregY]

Most likely a reference to the comment about Ilford (actually Harman) outlasting Kodak.

....maybe.....i still don't get the obscure connection to foxholes.....

 

[Craig]

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...

Although I'd rather see Delta 400 in sheets again. They have the conventional films covered with HP5, but Ilford doesn't have a tabular film in 400. I'd rather buy a 400 sheet film at the Delta price point than TMY.