Kentmere 100 > MORE Grey Mid-Tones Than FP4 ?

[DF]

Just shot my first roll of Kentmere 100 and it appears, if I'm not mistaken, yet much to my liking, more grey tones, then FP4.
Is K100 in fact, more mid-tone-less contrasty then FP4?

 

[wyofilm]

I like Kentmere 100. I don't shoot much of it because it only comes in 35mm.

 

[JPD]

I like Kentmere 100. I don't shoot much of it because it only comes in 35mm.

Have you tried Rollei RPX 100? It's said to be very similar to Kentmere 100.

 

[Bormental]

Yes! Yes! Yes! I am so glad to see someone else who noticed and prefers the look of this so-called budget film. I cannot point my finger at something this specific (like midtones) but there's something dreamy and calm about its look.

 

[Bormental]

I like Kentmere 100. I don't shoot much of it because it only comes in 35mm.

I firmly believe that Ultrafine Extreme is rebranded Kentmere. (@Henning Serger any comments here?). Same development times for all developers, same look. If you want "120 Kentmere" go for Ultrafine Extreme 400. Sadly, it's currently out of stock.

 

[wyofilm]

Have you tried Rollei RPX 100? It's said to be very similar to Kentmere 100.

No, I haven't. I might need to as the on criticism of Kentmere 100 is that it doesn't come in larger formats.

 

[wyofilm]

I firmly believe that Ultrafine Extreme is rebranded Kentmere. (@Henning Serger any comments here?). Same development times for all developers, same look. If you want "120 Kentmere" go for Ultrafine Extreme 400. Sadly, it's currently out of stock.

That is nice if true (I have no reason to believe it isn't.)

 

[wyofilm]

Yes! Yes! Yes! I am so glad to see someone else who noticed and prefers the look of this so-called budget film. I cannot point my finger at something this specific (like midtones) but there's something dreamy and calm about its look.

I was using it as 'throw away stock' to test things out, but the more I looked at the more I came to appreciate its look.

 

[Prest_400]

Haven't tried K100. K400 is good and glad to have it to feed my P&S. I rather interchangeably order Kentmere or APX. Both are made by Harman and possibly are the same product (ie. APX is Kentmere), by that rule I was quite satisfied by the rolls of APX100 I've shot.

 

[JPD]

Rollei RPX 100 is made by Harman so it's probably Kentmere as well. But it's a secret, of course. RPX 100 comes in 120 and sheets as well as 135, which is nice.

Rebranding films is nothing new. Voigtländer and Zeiss Ikon had their own films for a couple of decades, but I doubt they had their own coating facilities.

 

[Bormental]

I looked at RPX and based on scans people post online, indeed it looks very, very similar to Kentmere/Ultrafine. I am kind of amazed that Rollei version exists. It is available for much less money from other rebranders. I never seriously considered this brand. Their films always compete with Ilford/Kodak's best on price, but I know it's a rebrand of something cheaper, so why bother...

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot almost everyday when I do my daily walk so for me price is a factor. I've been shooting UL 100 and 400 in 35mm and 120 for years as my walk around film, for travel or other work I use Tmax 100 and 400 in 35mm and 120mm while I use Foma 200 and 400 in 4X5. I dont shoot Tmax 400 in 4X5 as I don't want to buy a 50 sheet box. I recently switched back to Foma 200 in all formats as UF price has climbed in price to the point that price is no longer a factor. If I win the lottery I will shoot Tmax in all formats.

 

[davela]

Interesting comments. I've been favoring Kentmere 100 a lot lately too. I don't think it's the same as Ultrafine, which I also use. Kentemere seems to have moderate contrast compared some other economy brand black and white films. Ultrafine seems to have more contrast, but for which some subjects can be an asset. Kentmere has gone up in price notably and recently though.

I develop Kentmere in HC110 these days. Does anyone have a recommended developer for Kentmere?

 

[Paul Howell]

Over time the posted development times for Kentmere and UF has gone their own ways. I think UF is a custom emulsion coated by Harman, maybe an older emulsion in the vaut. I use MCM 100 for UF, 100 and 400, with PF closed by COVID19 I switched back to D76 1:1 which works well for UF. I have about 4 rolls of UF 400 120 then will buy Foma 200.

 

[Grim Tuesday]

I've sometimes felt that Kentmere has too many grays at the expense of contrast. But that's probably just me. I adore Ultrafine 400 and 100 though. I called UF Warehouse once and they told me that they can't tell me what it is, but it's not an emulsion used by any other films right now. Are they telling the truth? Who knows. But that points to it not being Kentmere or Pan, as most myths say. Either way, it's a great film.

 

[NB23]

Is too much midtones good?

HP5 regularly gets criticized and then Loved for its long midtones. It must be a schizophrenic trait of the masses.

HP5 is a top notch film. Total master pro look, always.

K400 has extra long grays. Good film. But lacks the HP5 bite.

 

[Bormental]

I've sometimes felt that Kentmere has too many grays at the expense of contrast. But that's probably just me. I adore Ultrafine 400 and 100 though. I called UF Warehouse once and they told me that they can't tell me what it is, but it's not an emulsion used by any other films right now. Are they telling the truth? Who knows. But that points to it not being Kentmere or Pan, as most myths say. Either way, it's a great film.

My theory is that they're abusing the term "emulsion". There's probably inexpensive/negligible alterations you can do between production runs of the same emulsion to create "new" formulas for re-branders. With the film market being the size it is, I find it hard to believe Warehouse generates enough volume to support R&D + production for an exclusive emulsion. I do not use much K400, but I do a ton of K100 and UFE100 in 35mm because they're very closely priced, and can't tell them apart.

 

[grain elevator]

What does "more grey tones" mean in terms of curve shape? Are you sure you're not just developing it to a lower contrast than you did FP4+?

 

[Bikerider]

That is nice if true (I have no reason to believe it isn't.)

It is not likely to be true because I understand Ilford do not sell film destined to be branded as anything else than their own Ilford or Kentmere.

If they were to rebrand with the edge markings for another film, they would have to set up a separate production line. Also if it was selling a 120 version why isn't Ilford themselves selling a 120 Kentmere? Sorry but rebranding doesn't add up.

 

[MattKing]

Harman actually advertise on their website their toll coating services. If you want them to make some film for you, just bring your specifications and they will help design it and manufacture it to the resulting specifications. You want different curve shapes, different spectral sensitivities, different speeds, they will do their best to help you get what you want.
Their systems are quite flexible and they can make relatively small runs at relatively reasonable cost.
Eastman Kodak will do the same, but their minimum orders are much higher.
The real question is whether Harman will re-brand anything that already has their name(s) on it.
Several years ago one of the directors, Simon Galley, posted here that the policy at Harman was that they would not sell their own films - either Ilford or Kentmere branded - with any other names on them.
In June of 2019 I reached out to Harman Tech Service by way of Photrio Conversation (private message).
They were happy to confirm that their policy remained unchanged with respect to Ilford branded film - they will not permit those films to be sold under different names. I took that to include the Ilford Pan films which we don't see much of here.
With respect to Kentmere branded film, they pointed out how many things had changed since Simon had left Harman and the ownership changed. They were unwilling to either confirm or deny that Kentmere films were available for re-branding.

 

[Bormental]

Exactly, several re-brands here are listed as "similar to Kentmere 100/400". In my mind we have a fairly overwhelming evidence of Kentmere 100/400 films being repackaged in the similar fashion to Foma. Anybody can set up a camera on a tripod, shoot a test scene on 3-4 "Kentmere suspects", load them into the same Paterson tank and look at the results. I've done it with predictably identical results for Ultrafine 100. IIRC I used ID-11 at the time.

 

[Paul Howell]

For what ever it's worth, Rolli Retro, Kentmere and Ultrafine 100 all have the same D76 stock development times, 9 minutes, all lack the anti halation layer.

 

[Henning Serger]

Just shot my first roll of Kentmere 100 and it appears, if I'm not mistaken, yet much to my liking, more grey tones, then FP4.
Is K100 in fact, more mid-tone-less contrasty then FP4?

No.
You can create almost identical characteristic curves = same tonality with both films if a developer is used giving the same curve shape, like e.g. DD-X. It is all a matter of the correct developing technique = correct developer (for the intended purpose), developing time, dilution, agitation.
To get optimal results you need knowledge. You need to know how film processing really works and which parameter has which influence on the end result. Best method for that is evaluationg the characteristic curve und using a very good densitometer (like Heiland TRD-2: https://heilandelectronic.de/trd_2/lang:en).
The problem is that unfortunately 99% of the BW photographers refuse to learn these very important basics. And then comments occur like "this film is more contrastier than that film" (no, it is not generally, you just have developed it too long and / or with too much agitation), or "this film has better midtones than the other" (no, the other film will also have very good midtones if developed properly).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Bormental]

I think this also is exacerbated by manufacturer data sheets offering recommended development times for different assumed contrast. Yes, they usually include something like "the numbers above are just a starting point" but once those numbers migrate to MDC the assumed "data sheet contrast" goes mainstream and becomes "character of the film". They don't even agree on how to measure contrast either, i.e. G-bar vs CI

 

[MattKing]

Exactly, several re-brands here are listed as "similar to Kentmere 100/400". In my mind we have a fairly overwhelming evidence of Kentmere 100/400 films being repackaged in the similar fashion to Foma. Anybody can set up a camera on a tripod, shoot a test scene on 3-4 "Kentmere suspects", load them into the same Paterson tank and look at the results. I've done it with predictably identical results for Ultrafine 100. IIRC I used ID-11 at the time.

During Verichrome Pan's final years of production, Kodak used the exact same emulsion for Verichrome Pan roll films and Plus-X roll films. The difference in the two films was found in the fact that Plus-X had different anti-halation. That resulted in Verichrome Pan being more tolerant of exposure errors.
There are a number of other differences that one can design into films that can still result in common developing times.
For several developers, T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 have the same Kodak recommended developing times - that was probably intentionally designed in as a benefit.
All of which is not to say that two different films are not just different re-brands of the same film.
It is to say that two films that share a lot may be far from identical.
And two sets of matched development recommendations are far from definitive proof.