Kentmere 400 VS Tri-X 400

[Andrew O'Neill]

Liking this budget film, more and more...

 

[retina_restoration]

Harman is not going to produce the Kentmere films in sheet sizes — there's no motivating reason to do so. They'd only be cannibalizing the demand for FP4 and HP5.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Harman is not going to produce the Kentmere films in sheet sizes — there's no motivating reason to do so. They'd only be cannibalizing the demand for FP4 and HP5.

Yup. Same reason why they won't bring back D400 in sheets sizes, too.

 

[Peter Schrager]

Andy this may or may not be relevant because we are talking about 120 film here but shoot some trix
320 in sheet film and it will blow you away. I've used them all and the Kodak product ; which is not the same as the older version is outstanding.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Andy this may or may not be relevant because we are talking about 120 film here but shoot some trix
320 in sheet film and it will blow you away. I've used them all and the Kodak product ; which is not the same as the older version is outstanding.

I'm not criticising Tri-X. I've shot it in sheet film. It's lovely... I just can't afford it, now that I'm on a teacher pension...

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm not criticising Tri-X. I've shot it in sheet film. It's lovely... I just can't afford it, now that I'm on a teacher pension...

I'm not sure who can afford Tri-X in sheet film sizes. It's double the price of most anything else on the market.

 

[Chunga]

K400 has become my go to 120 film as well. Love the price and results. Using L110 I get negatives with great shadow detail when shot at 200.
For 35mm I'm still with Tri-X. Especially after the K400 price increase in 35mm earlier this year. That was unfortunate to see.

 

[pentaxuser]

My conclusions reflect yours, Andrew, so no discernible difference except for the price

pentaxuser

 

[retina_restoration]

By the way, regarding price: a roll of Tri-X 120 here in the US is $9.00 and the Kentmere 400 is $7.00, so it's a very different pricing scenario for us here in the USA vs Canadia.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

By the way, regarding price: a roll of Tri-X 120 here in the US is $9.00 and the Kentmere 400 is $7.00, so it's a very different pricing scenario for us here in the USA vs Canadia.

That is quite different. I believe we get gouged on the Tri-X as there is no official distributor for Kodak up here. Amplis is our distributor for Ilford, hence the affordable price for Ilford films...

 

[pentaxuser]

Harman is not going to produce the Kentmere films in sheet sizes — there's no motivating reason to do so. They'd only be cannibalizing the demand for FP4 and HP5.

Can you say why this makes sense for sheet film when they presumably are cannibalising the demand for FP4+ and HP5+ in 135 and 120?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[loccdor]

Love Kentmere 400 for medium format pushed to 800 to give it a little more bite. The quality control is so much better than any other budget B&W film.

For 35mm, I'm usually shooting 50 or 100 speed films.

 

[Alan9940]

I'm not sure who can afford Tri-X in sheet film sizes. It's double the price of most anything else on the market.

I would bet that not one of us "regular folk" here shoot 8x10 color, but Tri-X 8x10 is less than half the price of, say, Portra 400. But, yeah, it's pretty expensive compared to the Ilford. Oh, how I miss those days back in the early '80's when I bought 50 sheet boxes of 8x10 Tri-X for $50! Those were the days...

 

[koraks]

Can you say why this makes sense for sheet film when they presumably are cannibalising the demand for FP4+ and HP5+ in 135 and 120?

Compare the volumes for sheet film and roll film. You'll find that it goes something like this:
135>>>>>>>>120>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4x5>>>>>>>>>8x10>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5x7>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>special formats

The result is that there's a lot more room for diversification in brands and product types in the 135 & 120 range. For sheet film, the numbers get so low that you end up with very unattractive manufacturing parameters: i.e. inefficiently small production runs and/or very long shelf life, and either way a significantly higher price, which in turn pushes down demand, only exacerbating the situation.

@Andrew O'Neill the music, is that a free spin on/cover of the Floyd's 'Us and Them'? Sorry for the offtopic; just wondering...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Compare the volumes for sheet film and roll film. You'll find that it goes something like this:
135>>>>>>>>120>>>>>>>>>>>>>>4x5>>>>>>>>>8x10>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>5x7>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>special formats

The result is that there's a lot more room for diversification in brands and product types in the 135 & 120 range. For sheet film, the numbers get so low that you end up with very unattractive manufacturing parameters: i.e. inefficiently small production runs and/or very long shelf life, and either way a significantly higher price, which in turn pushes down demand, only exacerbating the situation.

@Andrew O'Neill the music, is that a free spin on/cover of the Floyd's 'Us and Them'? Sorry for the offtopic; just wondering...

Yes, it's a cover of Us and Them. From Youtube music library... Ordinary Men

 

[Ben 4]

I'm having trouble getting over $7 a roll as a budget film—but I guess that's where we are in 2025!

 

[retina_restoration]

That is quite different. I believe we get gouged on the Tri-X as there is no official distributor for Kodak up here. Amplis is our distributor for Ilford, hence the affordable price for Ilford films...

Yeah, I'm sorry to hear that things like Tri-X (and Tmax, I'm sure) cost so much more for Canadians (I was born in Ontario) in 2025.

Funny thing is that 3 years ago, the premium Ilford 120 films were all under $9.00 a roll here in the States but the Kodak films were all $11.00 or more! Now, it's the complete opposite — a roll of Delta 400 is now $12.50 (even HP5 is $9.95 or more), whereas Tmax 400 is $8.80 per roll.
I have a cache of 120 Ilford films in the fridge right now, so I'm good. But I'm no longer buying Ilford as long as it's $10 or more per 120 roll. Ten bucks a roll is my limit, at least until they're all priced over ten.

But more importantly, Andrew — thank you for that test/review you did. Information like that is extremely valuable and greatly appreciated.

 

[MattKing]

That is quite different. I believe we get gouged on the Tri-X as there is no official distributor for Kodak up here. Amplis is our distributor for Ilford, hence the affordable price for Ilford films...

There is no "official" Kodak local distributor anywhere in the world.
Kodak still film goes from Eastman Kodak through Kodak Alaris into each country.
And then existing distributors, who are already set up to serve existing retail distribution chains for products of all sorts - groceries, clothing, appliances, retail pharmacy supplies, etc. take it from there and get it to the retailers.
Beau Photo has in the past bought their Kodak "amateur" film from distributors that serve the grocery and retail pharmacy markets, because the minimum order quantities are more favorable for Beau.
There really isn't enough of a Canadian market for a dedicated supplier like Amplis to take it on, because Amplis isn't set up to service places that aren't specialty photo outlets.
In the USA, the market is big enough to support general purpose distribution entities also supporting specialized retail.