Kentmere 400 VS Tri-X 400

[John Wiegerink]

"Fixed income" In other words it has been fixed so that we don't have much income.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank you for doing this comparision [ and the next against Ilford films]. I had never thought about Kentmere 400 as an alternative.

 

[koraks]

currently about $37/gram

That doesn't sound right. $37/oz sounds more likely?

 

[MattKing]

That doesn't sound right. $37/oz sounds more likely?

And more importantly, how much silver is in each roll or sheet?
And how much does that amount/roll or amount/sheet compare to the cost of the substrate, the various other chemical components, the labor costs, the cost of backing paper (for 120), spool, cassette (for 35mm) etc.?

 

[Peter Schrager]

And more importantly, how much silver is in each roll or sheet?
And how much does that amount/roll or amount/sheet compare to the cost of the substrate, the various other chemical components, the labor costs, the cost of backing paper (for 120), spool, cassette (for 35mm) etc.?

good question Matt!!

 

[John Wiegerink]

That doesn't sound right. $37/oz sounds more likely

And more importantly, how much silver is in each roll or sheet?
And how much does that amount/roll or amount/sheet compare to the cost of the substrate, the various other chemical components, the labor costs, the cost of backing paper (for 120), spool, cassette (for 35mm) etc.?

True, probably a very small amount. In our Capitalistic society a manufacture or more likely a retailer will look for any excuse to raise prices and justify it. The cost of silver might just be one reason? That's what makes Capitalism work so very well, until nobody or at least the majority of folks don't have the funds to buy their products anymore.

 

[john_s]

The government statisticians produce regular inflation figures which grossly underestimate real price increases (here in Australia, probably the same elsewhere).

But film prices are obviously affected by the diminished economies of scale.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Curious to hear if anyone else uses Kentmere 400 as their "main" film...and which developer you use?

 

[retina_restoration]

Curious to hear if anyone else uses Kentmere 400 as their "main" film...and which developer you use?

I gave it up after testing half a dozen rolls and went back to Tri-X and Tmax 400. I found Kentmere often lacked value separation in the upper tones and I found that hard to accommodate.

 

[thinkbrown]

Curious to hear if anyone else uses Kentmere 400 as their "main" film...and which developer you use?

I can't really say I have a single "main" film, but I do shoot an awful lot of Kentmere 400 in 120 and 35mm. I'm really partial to how it looks and I honestly think I prefer it to hp5.

I settled on D96 as my go-to developer, though I've recently been experimenting with rodinal for my 6x7 and 6x9 negatives.

 

[loccdor]

It's my main fast film in 120... I use 510-pyro 1+100 for 17 minutes for an 800 push for the most part. Also tried a 45 minute 510-pyro 1+100 semi-stand with gentle turns at the 15th and 30th minute and that worked well to control the contrast at 1600.

Mostly I've been using it in old folding cameras whose lenses need to be stopped down heavily.

 

[john_s]

I gave it up after testing half a dozen rolls and went back to Tri-X and Tmax 400. I found Kentmere often lacked value separation in the upper tones and I found that hard to accommodate.

Would that lack of upper tone contrast be similar to that (often complained about) of HP5+? Personally I don't see that problem with HP5+ but I'm doing mostly portraiture so maybe that's why. I have some Kentmere400 to try.

 

[mshchem]

Curious to hear if anyone else uses Kentmere 400 as their "main" film...and which developer you use?

I bought a bunch of the Kentmere 400, in 135-36 from B&H probably 12-15 months back, was 5 USD/roll. I still have a bunch. I use XTOL stock with a Jobo type machine. The Kentmere has been AOK. I remember the Tri-X of the 70's grain like crushed rock. The current Kentmere films are quite good.
My best films are TMX and TMY-2.
I'm still a Kodak fan, but forget what they're asking for sheet film, then there's Ilford and Foma, FP-4 being a go to, to be honest I don't shoot much sheet film, I should as I have plenty of equipment.

Kentmere 400 is an excellent film!

 

[koraks]

Curious to hear if anyone else uses Kentmere 400 as their "main" film...and which developer you use?

Only briefly - I.e. a single bull roll of 135 (as RPX400, which afaik is the same thing?). Mostly pyrocat. I found it a perfectly fine and usable film. I eventually "upgraded" to HP5+ because I like it a little bit better, but I'd be hard pressed to express objectively in what sense.

 

[Agulliver]

I am currently using Kentmere 400 pushed to anything from 1600 to 3200 for my B&W gig photography. I am finding it much better than expected for that purpose, having shot some at box speed about 10 years ago and finding it lacking compared to HP5+

Given the astronomical cost of Tri-X here in the UK (often nearly double the price of Kentmere 400) I know I won't be shooting much Tri-X even though I used to love the stuff.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Kentmere 400 is visibly considerably better than Fomapan 400 in many aspects. TX400, HP5+, Delta 400 and TMAX 400 are all visibly sharper, finer grained and have much more potential for useful highlight/ gradient manipulation without halation issues. These are all greater than Just Noticeable Differences (JND) that would be used as an analytical perceptual comparator in a well controlled set of comparisons .

If someone is truly claiming that current TX400 is equalled by K400, it says more about the (rather startling) limitations of their imaging chain than about the characteristics of the materials in question. It does illustrate that a lot of people with strongly contrarian (to the manufacturers) opinions about certain budget materials largely don't have the baseline comparative analytical wherewithal to hold any meaningful opinions about them, and that (on the other hand) for an awful lot of end users the budget materials are more than adequate for the actual level of their real-world imaging capabilities. The seeming bump in useful speed (compared to some 400 speed materials) relates to some of the causes of the halation and sharpness limitations.

For the record, I've used dozens of rolls of Kentmere 400 in 135 and 120, and while a perfectly adequate film (and good by the standards of many films of 50 + years ago whose characteristics are often creatively mis-remembered or just plain invented out of whole cloth by their post-facto restrospective fandoms), you can see the limitations rather clearly. Nevertheless it is an excellent material for use within its range of competence (for lack of a better way of putting it, it's designed for a pretty tightly defined 'normal' usage without exposure or process heroics, thus why you get a Tri-Xish curve shape) and if you find yourself needing a photographic notepaper within how your practice works (i.e. just take the picture without worrying if it's worth the film) and aren't making huge prints (e.g. 3x off 6x7 or a 50x120 Noblex) it's plenty good enough. It just isn't equivalent in finite technical quality to current TX400, that's all.

 

[retina_restoration]

Kentmere 400 is visibly considerably better than Fomapan 400 in many aspects. TX400, HP5+, Delta 400 and TMAX 400 are all visibly sharper, finer grained and have much more potential for useful highlight/ gradient manipulation without halation issues. These are all greater than Just Noticeable Differences (JND) that would be used as an analytical perceptual comparator in a well controlled set of comparisons .

If someone is truly claiming that current TX400 is equalled by K400, it says more about the (rather startling) limitations of their imaging chain than about the characteristics of the materials in question. It does illustrate that a lot of people with strongly contrarian (to the manufacturers) opinions about certain budget materials largely don't have the baseline comparative analytical wherewithal to hold any meaningful opinions about them, and that (on the other hand) for an awful lot of end users the budget materials are more than adequate for the actual level of their real-world imaging capabilities. The seeming bump in useful speed (compared to some 400 speed materials) relates to some of the causes of the halation and sharpness limitations.

For the record, I've used dozens of rolls of Kentmere 400 in 135 and 120, and while a perfectly adequate film (and good by the standards of many films of 50 + years ago whose characteristics are often creatively mis-remembered or just plain invented out of whole cloth by their post-facto restrospective fandoms), you can see the limitations rather clearly. Nevertheless it is an excellent material for use within its range of competence (for lack of a better way of putting it, it's designed for a pretty tightly defined 'normal' usage without exposure or process heroics, thus why you get a Tri-Xish curve shape) and if you find yourself needing a photographic notepaper within how your practice works (i.e. just take the picture without worrying if it's worth the film) and aren't making huge prints (e.g. 3x off 6x7 or a 50x120 Noblex) it's plenty good enough. It just isn't equivalent in finite technical quality to current TX400, that's all.

You’re not wrong, but ouch! lol

 

[albireo]

often creatively mis-remembered or just plain invented out of whole cloth by their post-facto restrospective fandoms

The rest of your Rantmere 400 post kind of passed me by, but I must admit the sentence above is a fantastic name for my next proto-punk band!

 

[thinkbrown]

I think it's pretty non-controversial to say that tri-x is measurably a better film than Kentmere 400. It's a higher end product that's received decades of r&d from Kodak.

That out of the way, I think Kentmere 400 provides substantially better value. I bought my last brick earlier this year from b&h at ~$6/roll, while tri-x 400 currently costs approximately $9/roll. It's a better film, but I absolutely don't believe it's 50% better.

 

[retina_restoration]

I think Kentmere 400 provides substantially better value. I bought my last brick earlier this year from b&h at ~$6/roll, while tri-x 400 currently costs approximately $9/roll. It's a better film, but I absolutely don't believe it's 50% better.

A less expensive film doesn't offer "better value" if it's not capable of achieving the goals of the user. I found the Kentmere films substantially less capable of delivering the results I wanted, compared to the more costly alternatives. If I have to pay 50% more to get that last 10% of performance I want, I'm fine with that.

 

[GregY]

A less expensive film doesn't offer "better value" if it's not capable of achieving the goals of the user. I found the Kentmere films substantially less capable of delivering the results I wanted, compared to the more costly alternatives. If I have to pay 50% more to get that last 10% of performance I want, I'm fine with that.

Indeed. Me too.

 

[thinkbrown]

A less expensive film doesn't offer "better value" if it's not capable of achieving the goals of the user.

Maybe someday I'll find a situation where Kentmere isn't capable enough for the photos I'm trying to take, but after a decade of shooting it hasn't happened yet.

It's much more common that I'm the part of the equation holding my work back

 

[ags2mikon]

I have the four horseman of the apocalypse The 970, 980, 985 and the VH-R. And in all 4 of them Tri X comes out better than Kentmere 400. My favorite is TMY-2 But is it ever expensive in 4x5. Does anyone have an idea how long Kentmere 400 lasts? I still have some TMY-2 that is 15 years old and is still good.

 

[braxus]

I will continue to buy Tri-X in the future, regardless of price. Because when I buy, its only for 5 or less rolls. I dont often shoot film (or pictures for that matter), so it doesnt really matter much to me. And because of my 300-400 roll stash of films in my freezer, I have plenty to choose from. Shooting 400 speed film is very few compared to shooting very slow films for me. You shoot way more than I do Andy, even when you use large format. Im more of a selective shooter, only taking pics of things that I find interesting. Im not like a lot of Youtube shooters shooting random (and quite boring) shots of nothing really interesting. If it doesnt seem interesting to me, I often pass taking a pic. Not always, but most of the time. Hence Tri-X for me, though I do like to try other films too.

 

[ucsugar]

Curious to hear if anyone else uses Kentmere 400 as their "main" film...and which developer you use?

I'm a very frequent user in 120. Becaue I don't have a bad feeling when I have an uninspired day and "waste" a roll, and I don't have a bad feeling when I have a good day and didn't chose a "better" film.

I develop in XTOL (XT3) replenished, 20°C, 9:30 rotation or 11:00 with 4 inv/min. Development times unchecked but ok for my eye.