Kentmere 100 > MORE Grey Mid-Tones Than FP4 ?

[Henning Serger]

Hallo Matt,
hopefully we will kill some myths and meanwhile completely outdated statements. I will try my very best:

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.

That's more theory than reality in the current market situation. You need really lot's of money to buy that service. Making specific emulsions and producing them is very expensive. And no one has that money, especially not our "usual repackaging suspects". That are mostly (Lomography is the exception) very small companies, often only 1-3 employee firms.
Fact is that you currently will not find any BW film made by Harman for a customer / rebranding firm that is based on that contract model. It doesn't exist on the market.

The real question is whether Harman will re-brand anything that already has their name(s) on it.

They indeed do with their Kentmere products. That isn't a secret at all. But they do not with all their Ilford branded products.

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.

This is long outdated info! It was already outdated when I visited Ilford and Simon was my tour-guide. Lots has changed in the industry and at Ilford since then. Harman is offering Kentmere film for many years now to other companies for rebranding.

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.

Yes, Ilford products are exclusively offered as Ilford products, and nothing else. No rebranding at all.
But Kentmere films are offered to other firms for rebranding. Therefore we have Kentmere also available as AgfaPhoto APX 100 / 400, Rollei RPX 100 / 400, Fotoimpex CHM 100 / 400 (by the way, that is also officially confirmed by Fotoimpex as they give the Kentmere developing times for the CHMs), Oriental 100 / 400. And there are very strong indicators that Ultrafine Extreme is also Kentmere (same halo-effects, which are typical for the Kentmeres).
That is all well known in the industry for years, no secret at all. And countless very experienced photographers have done side-by-side tests of the films and got the same results.
When Lupus Imaging has sold out their last original Agfa Leverkusen films and started with the AgfaPhoto APX New films (the repackaged Kentmeres), a small photo chemistry manufacturer asked me for help as they had a personal bottleneck at that time. I tested the films in their developers. The test films I was given were the Kentmeres, as Lupus said the APX New 100 / 400 will be exactly Kentmere 100 / 400.
It is finally really the time to end wasting time with this Kentmere rebranding topic. The facts are on the table, and for a very long time now.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[pentaxuser]

Henning, it raises the question of whether Ultrafine is simply rebranded Kentmere or not. This seemed to be the general consensus but I suspect the answer is that Ultrafine film is not Kentmere as Ultrafine has a 120 version but Kentmere does not.

Can you clarify this?

Just as a comment it would seem that if IlfordPhoto is happy to rebrand its Kentmere range and Kentmere is a 100% made Ilford film then you would think that the same policy would apply to Kentmere as it is a 100% Ilford made film. It does suggest that IlfordPhoto is adhering to the letter of its own statement about not rebranding any Ilford film but is ignoring the spirit of the statement by simply calling a range of its own film by another name which allows it the freedom to rebrand it

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[JPD]

Henning, it raises the question of whether Ultrafine is simply rebranded Kentmere or not. This seemed to be the general consensus but I suspect the answer is that Ultrafine film is not Kentmere as Ultrafine has a 120 version but Kentmere does not.

The Rollei RPX 100 and 400 also come in 120. Couldn't it be that both the Ultrafine and Rollei 120 films come from the same coating runs? Same with the Rollei RPX sheet films that are on the same substrate as the 120 films. Harman could certainly make Kentmere in 120 and sheets if they wanted to, but there isn't much difference if they are already availablt through other brands. And Harman would probably have used a thicker substrate for the Kentmere sheet films, but decided not to. Maybe because they would compete with the Ilford sheet films, that aren't that big sellers to begin with.

 

[Henning Serger]

@JPD:

Correct.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[JPD]

@JPD:

Correct.

Best regards,
Henning

And it wouldn't surprise me if the contracts say that the rebranded films must be sold at a lower price than the Harman films. Price and the perceived quality go hand in hand when it comes to respected brands.

Like Bormental said:

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...

Those who want cheaper films buy the rebranded ones. The shops make money, and the customers also buy more chemicals and paper from them, and Harman sell more film and other products as well, plus that they still have their loyal Ilford and Kentmere users.

 

[Henning Serger]

And it wouldn't surprise me if the contracts say that the rebranded films must be sold at a lower price than the Harman films. Price and the perceived quality go hand in hand when it comes to respected brands.

No, that is most definitely not the case. Because it would hurt Harman technology financially. Kentmere films are "tiny margin" products. There is no room for such a price differentiation.They would have to give the films away with a loss if the rebranders should sell them at even lower prices and still make a profit by themselves. That doesn't work.
The former Ilford before the management buy-out in 2004/05 had some big rebranding deals which lead to the situation that the rebranded stuff was significantly cheaper than the orginal films. It was a very big problem for Ilford hurting their financials significantly. At my factory visit Simon explained that they will never do that mistake again.

Here in Germany the Kentmeres have been significantly cheaper than their rebranded siblings (with the exception of Fotoimpex CHM 100 and 400). Then the situation changed partly after the recent Ilford price increase. APX and CHM are a bit cheaper, RPX remains more expensive than the originals. The reason is probably quite simple: The currently still cheaper rebranded stock is older stock ordered long before the price increase. When the rebranders place their next order at Harman they will have to pay more, and will have to raise their prices accordingly.

RPX in 120 is much more expensive here than FP4+ and HP5+. And FP4+ and HP5+ are the much better films.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Tom Kershaw]

RPX in 120 is much more expensive here than FP4+ and HP5+. And FP4+ and HP5+ are the much better films.

I sometimes struggle to see the rationale behind rebranded films, especially when better quality options are available at lower or similar prices.

 

[Henning Serger]

I sometimes struggle to see the rationale behind rebranded films, especially when better quality options are available at lower or similar prices.

Tom,
the rationale is almost always exclusively on the seller's side: (Very) small film distribution companies without any own production capabilities want to make additional income. Margins in film distribution are tiny, it's a brutal and hard business. And with an own brand you have in general higher margins compared to just selling other brands (therefore at least understandable to have your own brand).
The problem is that unfortunately lots of rebranding companies are doing misleading marketing to sell their more expensive rebranded stuff and give wrong information about it (this "own emulsion" nonsense for example, or selling the same film labelled as different film in several different boxes, with different data sheets and at different prices).

For the photographers it doesn't make sense at all. You buy at higher prices for the rebranded stuff, but don't get better quality. And as most of us photographers have a certain, limited budget for films, we also only can buy significantly less film if we go for rebranded films.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[foc]

I sometimes struggle to see the rationale behind rebranded films, especially when better quality options are available at lower or similar prices.

+1.
I wonder if it is sometimes a vanity product that they (the rebrander) hope, maybe, will secure some loyalty to the rebranded name.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

+1.
I wonder if it is sometimes a vanity product that they (the rebrander) hope, maybe, will secure some loyalty to the rebranded name.

A good point. I experienced a rather bizarre production defect with one of the "psuedo-rebrand" films which means that I will now actively avoid the entire product range.

 

[JPD]

No, that is most definitely not the case. Because it would hurt Harman technology financially. Kentmere films are "tiny margin" products. There is no room for such a price differentiation.They would have to give the films away with a loss if the rebranders should sell them at even lower prices and still make a profit by themselves. That doesn't work.
The former Ilford before the management buy-out in 2004/05 had some big rebranding deals which lead to the situation that the rebranded stuff was significantly cheaper than the orginal films. It was a very big problem for Ilford hurting their financials significantly. At my factory visit Simon explained that they will never do that mistake again.

Here in Germany the Kentmeres have been significantly cheaper than their rebranded siblings (with the exception of Fotoimpex CHM 100 and 400). Then the situation changed partly after the recent Ilford price increase. APX and CHM are a bit cheaper, RPX remains more expensive than the originals. The reason is probably quite simple: The currently still cheaper rebranded stock is older stock ordered long before the price increase. When the rebranders place their next order at Harman they will have to pay more, and will have to raise their prices accordingly.

RPX in 120 is much more expensive here than FP4+ and HP5+. And FP4+ and HP5+ are the much better films.

Best regards,
Henning

Thanks, Henning, for the very good explanation!