Kentmere and Ilford films

[epp]

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 pictures came out well, not bad for the first roll of 120 I ever took.

 

[wildbill]

yes.

 

[Toffle]

yes.

Whut he sez.

 

[Ian Grant]

Whut he sez.

x2

 

[sandermarijn]

Google "Kentmere films" and you'll get lots of results. Unfortunately not all these results will make you happy, unless you like blotchy grain and lack of punch. That said, many people also seem to like the films, perhaps not in the least thanks to its aggressive pricing. And we all know that processing is make or break with any film. Maybe Kentmere is simply a film for the skillful.

I've never tried the films myself BTW, so take my words with a fair grain of Kentmere please .

This is a good link: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Colin Corneau]

I've heard more people talk about Kentmere paper than Kentmere films...again, from what I've used, it didn't do it for me. But that's ONLY my personal take. Perhaps it's similar

 

[piu58]

I used Kentmere 100 and 400 films. They are good general purpose film, nothing special with them. They are different form FP4+ and HP5+.
It is not true that they are very grainy. Quite normal B/W films.

 

[jayvo86]

Isn't the Kentmere stuff suppose to have a higher silver content (more traditional) than the newer emulsions? Or am I thinking about a different product?

-Josh

 

[Simon R Galley]

Piu58 is correct :

Both KENTMERE Films and ILFORD Films ( and papers ) are coated at HARMAN technology Limited in Mobberley UK.

BUT, the KENTMERE 100 and 400 films are a completely different emulsion from the ILFORD FP4+ and HP5+ products.

All these films are 'conventional technology' films, meaning they are not CCG ( Controlled crystal growth ) films like our DELTA Professional films.

It would be inaccurate to say KENTMERE films have more silver in them.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[Nick Merritt]

Simon, I remember that years back, Ilford had some seemingly "older technology" (read: grainier) film that was called, I think, Ilford "Universal 400." It was inexpensive. Is the Kentmere similar to that?

 

[Neal]

Dear epp,

I can only compare Kentmere 400 with HP5+ at box speed and in 35mm. Kentmere 400 is clearly "grainier" than HP5+ (a film I think should get more credit for it's fine grain look to my eye at least), but it takes a lovely photo. Try some, it's certainly priced attractively.

Neal Wydra

 

[Jerevan]

My tongue-in-cheek take on this: a lot of people buy 2 rolls of a given film, shoot it off and develop it in a haphazard way in some whatever-developer, and then write on forums saying "oh this is not like the Tri-X that I have used for 20 years, blah, blah..." Or the other way around, "the best thing since Ansel Adams crawled out of the cradle". You need to shoot a good bit of a film and keep at it for a while to see if it works for you. And the negative is only the beginning...

For me, both K100 and 400 are really good films, with Ilford QC, at a very nice price.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can only agree with this. Paper/developer and film/developer is a system, where if you replace one piece, something else has to be adjusted to get back to a place where you have results that you like again.
To recognize the difference, to learn how to deal with the difference, and to learn how to use new materials takes a lot more effort than most people are willing to put up with.

You must give a new film some time and practice, explore its limitations and strengths, before you really know what it's capable of. Pushed to their limits, just about any film and developer combination can be made to work very well. The key isn't really in WHAT we use, but in HOW we use it. HOW we use our materials have a far greater effect on the outcome than the small differences between the materials. I have proven this to myself time and again when I get tempted to try something I haven't tried before, and when I end up with prints that look pretty much like the other ones, I always end up wondering whether it was worth the effort or not.

My tongue-in-cheek take on this: a lot of people buy 2 rolls of a given film, shoot it off and develop it in a haphazard way in some whatever-developer, and then write on forums saying "oh this is not like the Tri-X that I have used for 20 years, blah, blah..." Or the other way around, "the best thing since Ansel Adams crawled out of the cradle". You need to shoot a good bit of a film and keep at it for a while to see if it works for you. And the negative is only the beginning...

For me, both K100 and 400 are really good films, with Ilford QC, at a very nice price.

 

[sandermarijn]

You're so right Jerevan. More than once have I been one of those people who try two, three, four films and then jump to conclusions straight away. Worse, sometimes I even talk about films I haven't even tried myself! How silly can you be?

I've been wanting to try Kentmere films for a while but have too many other films lying around still. If Kentmere 400 is a grittier HP5+ then I may actually come to like it. Usually I prefer regular fine grain (Neopan 400 type), but not always.

 

[piu58]

> If Kentmere 400 is a grittier HP5+

This depends much on development. A first try will not show that exactely.

I usesd a PQ developer for K100,400 which workes fine.

 

[epp]

Dear epp,

I can only compare Kentmere 400 with HP5+ at box speed and in 35mm. Kentmere 400 is clearly "grainier" than HP5+ (a film I think should get more credit for it's fine grain look to my eye at least), but it takes a lovely photo. Try some, it's certainly priced attractively.

Neal Wydra

I bought a roll of 35mm, 400 speed Kentmere. I plan on trying it soon.

Thank you all for the replies/opinions.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Nick,

The KENTMERE emulsions are entirely new emulsions not based on any previous ILFORD emulsions.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[epp]

My apologies for reviving an old thread, however, I never obtained the chance to try out the Kentmere.

I just found that film, along with four rolls of Ilford (two each of Delta 100 and XP2). The Kentmere (400) shows an expiration date of September 2013 and the Ilford rolls (all 120) have expiration dates of July 2014 (XP2) and September 2014 (Delta 100).

Although the films were stored at room temperature, I'm assuming that based on another thread I started a few years ago, I might still be able to get some prints out of these.

 

[Jon Buffington]

Shoot 'em! Kentmere 400 and 100 are fine films. My knew favorite high-speed combination is k400 at 800 in diafine. Minimal grain, sharp, scans very well.

 

[Chris Livsey]

It is not intuitive but faster films tend to age better than slower but given the dates you quote I don't think you will see any deterioration, I would just pragmatically process as promptly as possible the latent image may not be as stable as fresh film.

 

[railwayman3]

B&W film expired in 2013 and 2014 should still be fine, so long as they've not been exposed to dampness or very excessive temperatures.

 

[trendland]

Well - epp, if you shot kentmere to compare with tmax or delta you'll soon realize : kentmere is a real lousy film.
As others stated before you have to shot a lot of kentmere to find your individual workflow.
Kentmere is from it's characteristics in regard of tonals AND extreme fine grain indeed not to compare with higher priced examples. And on the other hand you may like it. Don't forget with bulk rolls you have a real budget film.
I personaly would like to compare kentmere films nearly with old Hp5 and Fp4 Ilford films (before emulsion improvements to + films). But this may stand only in concern with finer grain.
The complete tonal characteristic isn't
realy comparable with other films - AND THIS IS A GOOD THINK !
So many like kentmere therefore - other people like it from it's nice pricing.
TO me stands : If the nice price of kentmere will change in future or if it will come to the end of bulks with kentmere there will be no way to use this film.
TO me Ilford PanF has much smaler grain and Delta400 gives better push oportunitys. And then we should also compare with tmax!
But don't be afraid because Ilford has no
interest to start a "canibalation" campaign within Ilford bw film portfolio.
So kentmere should be the cheap offer today and it might be that in the future.
But caused from less demand I speculate on the discontinuation of bulk kentmere.
By the way a last question from interest also to many others : What about Ilfordpan 100/400 is it the same as kentmere 100/400 ? Think about .
with regards

 

[epp]

I had never heard of Kentmere before I found their film in a local photo store, then I noticed the reference to Harman on the box. The cost was USD $3.68 when I purchased it. It is a 36-exposure roll, so for that price, it wasn't bad.

I also found an older roll of 120 Ilford XP2, its foil wrapper untouched, expiration date unknown.

 

[trendland]

I had never heard of Kentmere before I found their film in a local photo store, then I noticed the reference to Harman on the box. The cost was USD $3.68 when I purchased it. It is a 36-exposure roll, so for that price, it wasn't bad.

I also found an older roll of 120 Ilford XP2, its foil wrapper untouched, expiration date unknown.

You said it epp : At USD 3,68 it isn't a bad film - to the double price it shall be different. If you may follow my hint : prepare yourself with a long roll of bulk Kentmere because you'll never see todays nice pricing again.
(Ilford is planning to increase pricing to ALL bw films soon...)

with regards

 

[newcan1]

It is not intuitive but faster films tend to age better than slower but given the dates you quote I don't think you will see any deterioration, I would just pragmatically process as promptly as possible the latent image may not be as stable as fresh film.

Umm..in my experience the exact opposite is true. fast films lose speed more rapidly than slower films. I have 100 ISO film that expired in 1964 that still seems as good as new.