Kentmere 400....what exactly is it?

[Agulliver]

I've used many B&W films in the last 47 years or so.

I came across a chap elsewhere who was utterly convinced that Kentmere 400 is effectively the same as Ilford HP4 from the 1970s. Having used HP4 when I first started photography, and HP5 and then HP5+ I don't think that Kentmere bears any real resemblance to HP4. What think the population of Photrio?

 

[DeletedAcct1]

It's Kentmere 400, nothing else.
Trust what Ilford says, you're not dealing with Rollei...

 

[Ian Grant]

Technology has moved on. Kentmere 400 is not based on HP4 which was an awful lack lustre film.

Ian

 

[xkaes]

Here's your answer:

Hp5+ and Kentmere 400

The Kentmre 400/120 is about 1 Euro cheaper than the Hp5+/120, is it a good idea to save the Euro and go for Kentmere?

www.photrio.com

 

[M-88]

If my memory serves me well, Kentmere Photographic was a separate company with its own film production line, which was acquired by Harman in mid-2000s. What we know as Kentmere 100 and Kentmere 400, were their in-house films, which after being acquired by Harman, are still manufactured and sold. As for their likeness to old Ilford films, I don't think they have anything to do with those. Ilford Pan 100 and Ilford Pan 400, which are sold in third world countries as cheap black and white negative films, have far more in common with FP4 (sans +) and HP5 (also sans +) respectively, than any Kentmere film.

 

[MattKing]

The Kentmere production lines acquired by Harman had to be closed down shortly after the acquisition, due to a host of problems with condition, incredibly outdated materials and machinery, and serious breaches of environmental impact regulations.
Harman moved all production of the lines they continued to market to the same production line as the Ilford branded products.
The "recipes" were modernized in order to work appropriately on the Harman equipment, with materials used by Harman.
The Kentmere films are less expensive for Harman to make - some of the biggest savings come from having less robust anti-halation measures built in.
The Kentmere papers may also be less expensive to make - certainly the line is much more limited.
There was one product that could not be continued, despite the desire to do so - Kentmere's wonderful POP product. It was dependent on equipment and materials that couldn't be modernized.
Basically, Harman got the Kentmere brand, and along with it additional entry into a market - educational users mainly - that benefited them.

 

[Agulliver]

Thanks, what y'all are saying matches with my experience and what I have heard from Harman. The guy elsewhere was so insistent that Harman had told *him* that Kentmere 400 was Ilford HP4. I guess he was trolling.

 

[Ian Grant]

The Kentmere production lines acquired by Harman had to be closed down shortly after the acquisition, due to a host of problems with condition, incredibly outdated materials and machinery, and serious breaches of environmental impact regulations.
Harman moved all production of the lines they continued to market to the same production line as the Ilford branded products.
The "recipes" were modernized in order to work appropriately on the Harman equipment, with materials used by Harman.
The Kentmere films are less expensive for Harman to make - some of the biggest savings come from having less robust anti-halation measures built in.
The Kentmere papers may also be less expensive to make - certainly the line is much more limited.
There was one product that could not be continued, despite the desire to do so - Kentmere's wonderful POP product. It was dependent on equipment and materials that couldn't be modernized.
Basically, Harman got the Kentmere brand, and along with it additional entry into a market - educational users mainly - that benefited them.

It was shut down because Kentmere wanted the space at their factory site for increased packaging (box) production facilities, the company is still trading. Also it was old and added nothing remotely to Ilford's own capacity
No Kentmere emulsion "recipes" were modernised, Ilford/Harman made entirely new emulsions to sell under the Harman brand. They bought the company for its world leading Inkjet products used for Exhibition displays.

The more modern "recipes" (pre about 1987) had been given to them by a Warwick based company when they ceased paper manufacture, they were supposed to pay royalties, but never did. In return the company's sales outlet in Harborne, Birmingham, became the Kentmere professional dealer for the West Midlands.

Around 1987/8 Kentmere advertised for an emulsion chemist, in the then weekly BJP, they almost certainly knew exactly who they wanted from either Ilford or Kodak, and it was specifically to help them manufacture VC papers.

Kentmere was one of many UK companies who only made paper, they never made film.

Ian

 

[MattKing]

Kentmere was one of many UK companies who only made paper, they never made film.

That I didn't realize.
The rest isn't what I had read and heard before, but Ian is a lot closer to that market than I ever will be.

 

[xkaes]

I've got a few rolls of their Kentmere Select VC 20" x 30' glossy. I've read that it is developer incorporated, but I have not bothered to test it to confirm that.

 

[relistan]

There have been many rumors over the years about what Kentmere films actually are. Observations and measurements by lots of folks reveal that they seem to have nearly exactly the same spectral response as their Delta counterparts (probably the reason the spec sheets don't include this chart). But they have a more traditional grain than Delta films. Supposedly they contain less silver. Best guess is that they are a mix of FP4/HP5+ and Delta films, possibly with reduced silver, definitely with reduced anti-halation.

 

[john_s]

Maybe they're FP4+ and HP5+ emulsions but just without antihalation and perhaps some other base preparation. It would be onerous at the factory to have too many emulsions. Just a guess. I have some, will try soon.

edit: I've just looked at the pdfs and the development times are longer for Kentmere 400 so that's the end of that theory.

 

[Lachlan Young]

It's quite probably made on the newer 'rapid mixing' emulsion plant that's used for the Delta films and the paper emulsions - and has all the really expensive addenda that improve ultimate granularity, sharpness, anti-halation, reciprocity etc either eliminated or reduced - and coated at a silver/ m2 level that'll support normal contrast usage rather than extensive pushes etc. However it seems to be otherwise made to the same quality standards as all the rest of Harman's products, and with the same benefits of scale - so is therefore very cost effective if you aren't needing more finite performance or the ultimate speed/ grain/ sharpness relationship.

 

[xkaes]

Kentmere and Ilford films

Are there any differences between Kentmere and Ilford films? I saw a roll of Kentmere 400 (135) locally and bought it, but had not heard of the name previously, then recently learned it has the same parent as Ilford. Several years back, I shot one roll of Ilford XP2 (120) and I recall the...

www.photrio.com

 

[Agulliver]

The thread linked above has Simon Galley stating that Kentmere 100 and 400 were (back in 2012) traditional B&W films unlike the "controlled crystal growth" Delta films, and that they were not related to any prior or existing Ilford films. They were made in house by Harman to new formulae.

I would assume none of the above info has changed.

 

[koraks]

It's quite probably made on the newer 'rapid mixing' emulsion plant that's used for the Delta films and the paper emulsions - and has all the really expensive addenda that improve ultimate granularity, sharpness, anti-halation, reciprocity etc either eliminated or reduced - and coated at a silver/ m2 level that'll support normal contrast usage rather than extensive pushes etc. However it seems to be otherwise made to the same quality standards as all the rest of Harman's products, and with the same benefits of scale - so is therefore very cost effective if you aren't needing more finite performance or the ultimate speed/ grain/ sharpness relationship.

That's interesting, Lachlan. Thanks for sharing that, and it makes good sense to me.

So the cost saving would mostly be in the lower silver halide load compared to the Ilford-brand films? Would you say that the difference between price point of the Kentmere films compared to the Ilford product is mostly due to this cost differential, or is it mostly a matter of placement/policy, intended to expand market share into the lower regions of the market? The latter would be more of a marketing/strategy consideration, not so much a cost-driven choice.

 

[Lachlan Young]

So the cost saving would mostly be in the lower silver halide load compared to the Ilford-brand films?

It's only part of the story - we don't really know what other components (e.g. very expensive custom organics) are incorporated to enhance HP5+ and Delta 400's performance at precipitation, emulsion finishing and coating - and some will probably help with making the non-Kentmere products more 'pushable' and allow the higher silver coverage to be sensitised and used efficiently. We also don't know what the profit margin on K400 is compared to HP5+ et al - it may in fact be higher - but we also know that the core/ canister/ packaging is the single most expensive part of a roll of 135, so some reasonable suppositions can be inferred, especially as they all go through the same packaging line.

 

[koraks]

Thanks for adding that @Lachlan Young - yes, makes good sense. The bit about packaging/confectioning is especially pertinent from a cost perspective. My personal suspicion is that the Kentmere price point is a choice that's informed more from a marketing perspective than a cost perspective. But that's a purely personal speculation.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The Kentmere films are less expensive for Harman to make - some of the biggest savings come from having less robust anti-halation measures built in.

The cynical in me believes that Kentmere films are less expensive, because they had to cover a specific, price sensitive market segment and don't actually cost that much more to manufacture. But then I might be weird, who knows...

 

[grain elevator]

I mean these considerations go hand in hand, no? If they want to place these films in the market at a lower price point, they probably need to cut production cost, and they need to maintain qualitative differentiation from the more expensive films. And that in return means they can cut production costs, which a market actor of course will do, if given the opportunity.

 

[koraks]

The cynical in me believes that Kentmere films are less expensive, because they had to cover a specific, price sensitive market segment and don't actually cost that much more to manufacture. But then I might be weird, who knows...

Makes good sense to me.

I mean these considerations go hand in hand, no? If they want to place these films in the market at a lower price point, they probably need to cut production cost, and they need to maintain qualitative differentiation from the more expensive films. And that in return means they can cut production costs, which a market actor of course will do, if given the opportunity.

Assuming there's a strong correlation between objective performance and manufacturing cost. And I personally doubt that it's as strong as you imply it is.

 

[miha]

The cynical in me believes that Kentmere films are less expensive, because they had to cover a specific, price sensitive market segment and don't actually cost that much more to manufacture. But then I might be weird, who knows...

The same films are being sold as OEM products at transfer prices even lower than what Harman charges for the Kentmere range, creating competition. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have not found a data sheet for Kentmere 100 or 200 so I don't how they compare to HP5 or PF4 in terms of contrast, grain size or resolution. I think there have been posts of curves, but without testing gear still don't know resolution. At the size I print 8X10 to 11X14 I have gotten decent prints.

 

[Prest_400]

It's only part of the story - we don't really know what other components (e.g. very expensive custom organics) are incorporated to enhance HP5+ and Delta 400's performance at precipitation, emulsion finishing and coating - and some will probably help with making the non-Kentmere products more 'pushable' and allow the higher silver coverage to be sensitised and used efficiently. We also don't know what the profit margin on K400 is compared to HP5+ et al - it may in fact be higher - but we also know that the core/ canister/ packaging is the single most expensive part of a roll of 135, so some reasonable suppositions can be inferred, especially as they all go through the same packaging line.

That also extends to Kodak (OT) but whose examples are much more notable comparing Kodacolor VR/Plus, Gold/Ultramax and Portra. Different product tiers and the "older technology" covers the lower part of the market. There must be some manufacturing correlation between the cost-technology of newer higher performance emulsions.

I used to say positively how Ilford B&W films were very moderately priced (up to late 2022) specially compared to Kodak, but nowadays FP/HP and Delta are not anymore cheap so I started to use Kentmere (400 120) but no compared it to HP5-Delta. Kentmere depending on the distribution country can have some price variation.
My take is that they just created some Generic decently performing classic B&W product, with a focus on lower costs and that is it.

 

[Anon Ymous]

The same films are being sold as OEM products at transfer prices even lower than what Harman charges for the Kentmere range, creating competition. It doesn’t make much sense to me.

Are they? I had a quick look and couldn't find any. Care to elaborate?