Kentmere 100

[John Wiegerink]

I'm beginning to really like this film. I bought 15 rolls of 120 the first chance I had and put it through D-76 1+1 with excellent results. It might have a lighter layer of anti-halation, but I find it works great in an old folding Kodak and my Minolta Autocord. I'll scan a few negatives when I can and post them here. Oh, and I like the price also!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I need to start playing around with that film...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I need to start playing around with that film...

Yes Andy, I'm sure you would be able to wring the good and the bad out of the film. So far I see a lot of good in it and very little bad. It does have a slightly darker base color/fog to it. At least it's darker in D76 1+1. I'm scanning some right now and it's a dream to scan since it has very little curl to it. I'm going to try Pyrocat-HDC next, but D761+1 for 11:30 @ 68f works fantastic with this film. With the two cameras I used I just did the "Sunny 16" thing on a bright sunny day with a few clouds. I used ISO 100 as my setting and things look to be very good. Next roll or two will be with my spotmeter.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes Andy, I'm sure you would be able to wring the good and the bad out of the film. So far I see a lot of good in it and very little bad. It does have a slightly darker base color/fog to it. At least it's darker in D76 1+1. I'm scanning some right now and it's a dream to scan since it has very little curl to it. I'm going to try Pyrocat-HDC next, but D761+1 for 11:30 @ 68f works fantastic with this film. With the two cameras I used I just did the "Sunny 16" thing on a bright sunny day with a few clouds. I used ISO 100 as my setting and things look to be very good. Next roll or two will be with my spotmeter.

I wonder if its on the same base as the 400 version? It too has a darker base colour and higher base fog. Maybe I'll take a couple of rolls over to Japan with me...

 

[John Wiegerink]

I wonder if its on the same base as the 400 version? It too has a darker base colour and higher base fog. Maybe I'll take a couple of rolls over to Japan with me...

I just ordered some Kentmere 400 from Freestyle and see that the Kentmere 100 in 120 is out-of-stock. I haven't shot the 400 yet, but I'd say it is more than likely the very same base. I did notice that I have a couple of "cresent" marks on my negatives from some ornery reels.

 

[JerseyDoug]

I bought a few rolls of the 35mm 400 version a while ago and finally got around to using some of them. As others have mentioned, the film dries flat which makes for easy scanning. But pulling it out of the cassette in the changing bag the exposed film has a significant curl. It was bad enough that a couple of times I kinked it starting it onto the Hewes reel. I can't remember any of my other 35mm film stocks being this bad. Regardless, I liked the results well enough to buy a 100' roll. I hope that, not being spooled as tightly as in a 35mm cassette, it will be easier to handle. We'll see.

 

[relistan]

It's very nice in both 120 and 35mm. I have shot both that and the 400 in 120 and am pleased. It seems to be a similar straight line curve to the Delta films, but with traditional grain. As mentioned, a bit lighter on anti-halation as well. I get it for €5.50 at the local shop, which suits me fine.

 

[relistan]

Here are some examples:
This is Kentmere 100 35mm in my Zorki 4 with Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.5/35mm:


Kentmere 400 120 in my Pentacon Six TL with Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/50mm:

 

[John Wiegerink]

I bought a few rolls of the 35mm 400 version a while ago and finally got around to using some of them. As others have mentioned, the film dries flat which makes for easy scanning. But pulling it out of the cassette in the changing bag the exposed film has a significant curl. It was bad enough that a couple of times I kinked it starting it onto the Hewes reel. I can't remember any of my other 35mm film stocks being this bad. Regardless, I liked the results well enough to buy a 100' roll. I hope that, not being spooled as tightly as in a 35mm cassette, it will be easier to handle. We'll see.

Yes, my Hewes 120 reels didn't like it, but my Honeywell Nikor reel took it like it was butter.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Here are some examples:
This is Kentmere 100 35mm in my Zorki 4 with Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.5/35mm:


Kentmere 400 120 in my Pentacon Six TL with Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/50mm:

Yes, I remember those shots and must say those are similar to my results as far as tonality goes. Delta 100 is one of my favorite films, so that's probably why I like this stuff. Oh, and it's cheap too.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Here are a couple of shots from the 4th of July at the lake. The first two were taken with a 1915 Kodak folding No.1 with a Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Cooke f6.3 lens in an Optimo shutter. The last three are with my Minolta Autocord TLR. No meter, just Sunny 16 at either f8 or some at f11. That old Kodak with the Cooke triplet lens did a fine job for a 108 year old camera. I do have to set the focus stop a little different since the Kodak front focuses slightly. I should add that these were scanned on my Nikon LS8000 and are straight scans with no processing or sharpening.

 

[bluechromis]

Here are some examples:
This is Kentmere 100 35mm in my Zorki 4 with Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.5/35mm:


Kentmere 400 120 in my Pentacon Six TL with Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/50mm:

Nice ones.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Here are a couple of shots from the 4th of July at the lake. The first two were taken with a 1915 Kodak folding No.1 with a Taylor, Taylor & Hobson Cooke f6.3 lens in an Optimo shutter. The last three are with my Minolta Autocord TLR. No meter, just Sunny 16 at either f8 or some at f11. That old Kodak with the Cooke triplet lens did a fine job for a 108 year old camera. I do have to set the focus stop a little different since the Kodak front focuses slightly. I should add that these were scanned on my Nikon LS8000 and are straight scans with no processing or sharpening.

As you can see, these are slightly over exposed, but the developing times seem very close for a bright sunny day. They would look somewhat better by tweaking the contrast up a bit, but I want to show straight out of the scanner.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

I've exposed about two hundred feet each of Kentmere 100 & 400 in 35mm and both perform admirably at box speed. It doesn't push as quite as well as their premium films, with +2 being the practical limit.

It sounds like you'd be better served by the 400 speed in the lighting conditions you described.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I've exposed about two hundred feet each of Kentmere 100 & 400 in 35mm and both perform admirably at box speed. It doesn't push as quite as well as their premium films, with +2 being the practical limit.

It sounds like you'd be better served by the 400 speed in the lighting conditions you described.

This was just a quick look-see as to how the film performed. No metering also has probably made a big difference. I just loaded another roll into my Zeiss Super Ikonta C and will do all my metering at box speed. I'm going to wait for my order of Kentmere 400 120 to get here before I do any formal testing of either. I have heard some folks say that the old Ultrafine Extreme film from the Warehouse was Kentmere 100 and 400, but I don't know about that. I don't remember that Ultrafine Extreme had this dark of a base+fog?
I do know that I will be using this film much more in the future, especially in 120.

 

[koraks]

@John Wiegerink there's a good chance @Bronson Dugnutt 's reply was not directed at you, but was a response to a post I deleted. Just FYI.

 

[John Wiegerink]

@John Wiegerink there's a good chance @Bronson Dugnutt 's reply was not directed at you, but was a response to a post I deleted. Just FYI.

Yes, I thought it was directed at me. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Yes, I thought it was directed at me. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Whoops, I generally quote my replies but didn't in that instance.

I bought 10x of each speed in 120 when it launched and have shot about half of it, mostly in a Pentax 645N. It is excellent.

 

[VinceInMT]

I’ve been shooting Kentmere 100 for a while now and am happy with it. However, the one thing I noticed was that the film was more sensitive to heat in my Beseler 23C and if not “tempered” would pop out of focus. I ended up buying a heat absorbing glass.

 

[John Wiegerink]

My enlargers are in storage until our move is complete, but I’ll keep the “popping “ thing in mind. All I know is that it is one of the very few films I can scan on my Nikon LS 8000 where I don’t have to use the glass carrier. I love it so far for scanning.

 

[relistan]

Nice ones.

Thanks!

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Color separations are good way to finish a whole roll. 4 sets of trichromes plus 4 standard shots is pretty manageable for 16 frames of 645. I wish I'd remembered to try some stereo pairs.

I opted for 400 today to help offset the filter factor. My Pentax 645N overexposes the blue channel by at least one stop... I wonder if all of them do that.

The first of the four --

3x Pentax 645N 70mm f/2.8, aperture priority
Kentmere 400, D-19 6'
V800 negative scan

Not exactly a compelling subject but at least my D-19 is still active

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Kentmere 400 seems to behave similarly to a tungsten balanced color film with this camera's meter and filter set insofar as color separations are concerned. The three frames of this composite were scanned with the same curve.

 

[relistan]

I opted for 400 today to help offset the filter factor. My Pentax 645N overexposes the blue channel by at least one stop... I wonder if all of them do that.

I would expect it to be more likely the spectral sensitivity of the film or the mismatch of your filters to each other. But could be a combination of all of the above.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

Attracted by its low price, I recently shot a test roll of Kentmere Pan 100 in my OM-2n. I developed in D-76 1:1, and I gotta say, I'm underwhelmed with the results.

The negs came out heavy, much denser than my usual Tri-X, Double-X, FP 4 Plus, etc., negs. And while the grain is indeed pretty fine, sharpness is lacking and contrast/gradation is muddy. I scanned the negs at 2400dpi (and yeah, I love the lack of curl) and despite postprocessing futzing, the images are kind of meh:



If I were a real film burner, I might consider using this film sometimes for "less critical" work. But I don't shoot much - maybe ten rolls of film a year - so I'm going to stick with my old standbys. Don't get me wrong: we NEED an emulsion that costs half of what Tri-X is going for now, and I can see how this film would be great for students and casual shooters. But I'll keep shooting my old faves.