Kentmere film "?" Maybe Mr. Galley will know.

Aurum · Jun 24, 2009

Shame they are not available directly in the UK. Not necessarily from a price point of view, as FP4+ / HP5+ are competative anyway, but as another brush in the pallet for a different look. As Erik said above, he was getting trad look, but more pronounced grain.
If grain is your thing, it might be an alternative to pushed Tri-X.

I'm suspecting that Harman may not want to release in the home market, as they feel that they may risk diluting sales of FP/HP, which in the current economic climate is a valid point

Tom Kershaw · Jun 24, 2009

Aurum said:
I'm suspecting that Harman may not want to release in the home market, as they feel that they may risk diluting sales of FP/HP, which in the current economic climate is a valid point

Which might imply the market is more diverse in non-UK markets. Although ILFORD roll film is very competitive in the UK, 8"x10" sheet is more expensive, even though the film has to be shipped across the Atlantic.

Tom.

Aurum · Jun 25, 2009

Or it would suggest that the market in the UK is mature, and that the HP/FP series have established market share. There are two options to grow the business in a market like that.
Introduce lower margin products, but shift more volume, or maintain volume at a higher margin, and grow the business by encouraging more film use.

I work in a FMCG environment. Low Margin business can work but can make you busy fools.

I can see that the Kentmere brand films would work well in markets where the Ilford brand is not as dominant. Get people familiar with the products, then they may take up more of the products in the range.

Next time I do an international order, I'll see if I can pick up some, and give it a blast. I am more of a confirmed MF user in B&W though

clayne · Jun 25, 2009

This sounds similar to Neopan SS 100 being available alongside Neopan Acros 100. Two completely different films - each with their own plus and minuses. People should atleast try the Kentmere film before slagging it off as inferior to HP5 or FP4, etc. Chances are it's just a different film.

BobNewYork · Jun 26, 2009

clayne said:
This sounds similar to Neopan SS 100 being available alongside Neopan Acros 100. Two completely different films - each with their own plus and minuses. People should atleast try the Kentmere film before slagging it off as inferior to HP5 or FP4, etc. Chances are it's just a different film.

Good point. I don't think there are any bad films out there today. Sure, I have my preferences for my own work; but each of the films has their own idiosyncrasies which are valuable in their own right.

Bob H

aldevo · Jun 26, 2009

Tom Kershaw said:
Which might imply the market is more diverse in non-UK markets. Although ILFORD roll film is very competitive in the UK, 8"x10" sheet is more expensive, even though the film has to be shipped across the Atlantic.

Tom.

According to what I see for Freestyle in the USA, the Kentmere 400 film is only about 12% cheaper than its HP5+ counterpart while the Kentmere 100 film is nearly 50% less than FP4+.

I can't imagine why.

Aurum · Jun 26, 2009

clayne said:
This sounds similar to Neopan SS 100 being available alongside Neopan Acros 100. Two completely different films - each with their own plus and minuses. People should atleast try the Kentmere film before slagging it off as inferior to HP5 or FP4, etc. Chances are it's just a different film.

I'd love to, but I'd have to re-import it into the UK, which is a little tedious, unless I'm sending a big order to someone like B&H. This for me is unlikely as they don't have other unique, "Must Have" products that I can't get closer to home, either via the numerous UK retailers, or Maco in Germany. Also 46 bucks for shipping, does kill it somewhat

Their T&C which state "B&H reserves the right to block certain products from being shipped outside of the US, based on manufacturer restrictions." may also apply

fschifano · Jun 26, 2009

aldevo said:
According to what I see for Freestyle in the USA, the Kentmere 400 film is only about 12% cheaper than its HP5+ counterpart while the Kentmere 100 film is nearly 50% less than FP4+.

I can't imagine why.

You might have been comparing prices for a 24 exposure roll vs. a 36 exposure roll. At Freestyle, the 100 ft. bulk roll of Kentmere 100 is 17% less expensive than the equivalent FP4+. Kentmere 400 is 20% less expensive than HP5+. Both Kentmere 100 and 400 are priced identically for all sizes.

anjo · Jun 26, 2009

I just developed my first roll of Kentmere 400. Although my previous B&W experience only consists of 10 rolls of Fomapan 100, Kentmere strikes me as a fine film (which is good, since I bought 20 rolls of it...). Very nice packaging as well.

The ISO 400 version is the cheapest film available in Sweden; tied with Fomapan 400. It's a 36% discount compared to Ilford...

I've attached some examples. They were exposed at ISO 400 and developed in R09 (1:25) for 8 minutes.

clayne · Jun 26, 2009

Not bad. Has a classic grain look to my eyes. Atleast from what I can gather from the scans.

Aurum · Jun 26, 2009

Looking at those scans I thought a) Rodinal, and b) Tri-x

I was half right. I think in the right circumstances, say pushed in Rodinal, you could get a nice grain harvest going on there

aldevo · Jun 27, 2009

That looks an awful lot like Pan 400 to me; tonality is close to HP5+ but grainier and less sharp. But, again, hard to judge from a scan.

anjo · Jun 27, 2009

Especially the sharpness of the film should not be judged from these images. They were taken while moving, with a pre-focused lens and then scanned on a flatbed...

PhotoJim · Jun 27, 2009

Is it certain that Kentmere 100 and 400 are different films from Ilford Pan 100 and 400?

Instinctively I suspected that they were the same (why would Ilford do the R&D to develop a completely new film when they already had some emulsions they could leverage better).

JMC1969 · Jun 27, 2009

PhotoJim said:
Is it certain that Kentmere 100 and 400 are different films from Ilford Pan 100 and 400?

Instinctively I suspected that they were the same (why would Ilford do the R&D to develop a completely new film when they already had some emulsions they could leverage better).

Simon Galley from Harmon/Ilford made this statement on the second page of this thread:

"KENTMERE film is absolutely BRAND new, 2 new emulsions, 35mm only, at a competitive price, it is not a 'rebadged' ILFORD Film, I think I have stated many times WE DO NOT SUPPLY PRIVATE LABEL even to a BRAND we own."

anjo · Jul 1, 2009

The experiments continue. Exposing at ISO 200 and developing in R09 (1:40) for 12 minutes leaves the negatives somewhat flat, but a very slight curves adjustment takes care of that.

JMC1969 · Jul 1, 2009

I am in the middle of doing some tests on these two films and some new (to me) chemicals. Both examples here were developed in Rodinal (R09), but where did you come up with your dilutions and times for that development? The "Massive" only has the times listed inside the Kentmere box (which is for Ilford chems) + D-76. I have been running at FP4 and HP5+ times with fair to good results, but that hit a bit of a brick wall with the new chems I am testing.

fschifano · Jul 2, 2009

Well, I don't know which chemicals you're using so take this FWIW. A good idea for finding a development time for XTOL when there is no really good data for a particular film is to start with the times for D-76 or ID-11. For every film that Kodak makes, development times for a given film in these two developers is very close. I'd expect films from other manufacturers to behave similarly.

anjo · Jul 2, 2009

jerk151 said:
I am in the middle of doing some tests on these two films and some new (to me) chemicals. Both examples here were developed in Rodinal (R09), but where did you come up with your dilutions and times for that development? The "Massive" only has the times listed inside the Kentmere box (which is for Ilford chems) + D-76. I have been running at FP4 and HP5+ times with fair to good results, but that hit a bit of a brick wall with the new chems I am testing.

I got the time for the 1:25 dilution from the Swedish distributor (but I don't know where they got the times from).

For the 1:40 time, I doubled the 1:25 time and took 20% off.

JMC1969 · Jul 2, 2009

Anjo,

Tack Så Mycket! I will send the link you provided to my wife for translation, she is from Malmö. I will now be thinking of Sweden for the rest of the day, it's a beautiful thought, Tack.

anjo · Jul 12, 2009

Exposing at ISO 200, developing in R09 (1:40) for 14 minutes appears to give poor results.

However, exposing at ISO 400, developing in R09 (1:40) for 12 minutes seems to work very nicely. I believe I will continue doing that.

Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed
Dead Link Removed

JMC1969 · Jul 16, 2009

Test results

Here are some test results. The original test was to see how 3 different developers worked, but it is also a good look at this film.

This is Kentmere 400. I have this test laid out and detailed in this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists) but with Ilford HP5+. I had no times for the Kentmere film in any of the developers I was using some we went with the same times as HP5+ that we have been getting pretty nice results from.

Top - 1. Kodak T-Max RS @ 70° - Stock - 6 mins in a deep tank sink line
2. Clayton F76+ @ 70° - 1+5 replenished - 6min 45 sec deep tank sink line
3. Clayton F76+ @ 70° - 1+9 - 6 mins 45 sec in small SS reels and tank
4. Sprint @ 70° - 1+9 - 9mins in small SSreels and tank

In the same order, I have scanned frame #7 of each with an Imacon scanner with the same defined settings and without any auto functions turned on. We have found that we preserve more detail by scanning B&W negatives in RGB and then Desaturating after, this is what I have done.

Same order for developers 1,2,3,4

aldevo · Jul 17, 2009

jerk151 said:
Simon Galley from Harmon/Ilford made this statement on the second page of this thread:

"KENTMERE film is absolutely BRAND new, 2 new emulsions, 35mm only, at a competitive price, it is not a 'rebadged' ILFORD Film, I think I have stated many times WE DO NOT SUPPLY PRIVATE LABEL even to a BRAND we own."

We all recall Simon's statement; we're just baffled. We might as easily ask why that would develop a product that allows a brand they own to compete against the parent's brand.

There's absolutely no fanfare about these films; their appearance was a suprise to many. Introduction of a new film (any film) is a rare enough occurrence as to usually rate a product announcement.

JMC1969 · Jul 17, 2009

aldevo said:
We all recall Simon's statement; we're just baffled. We might as easily ask why that would develop a product that allows a brand they own to compete against the parent's brand.

There's absolutely no fanfare about these films; their appearance was a suprise to many. Introduction of a new film (any film) is a rare enough occurrence as to usually rate a product announcement.

Aldevo,

For the record, please don't think I was being a smartass when I made the statement and quoted Simon. At that time this thread was 14 pages deep and the users clearly asked a question that seemed he wanted an answer to. I don't know if he read all fourteen pages. I was merely bringing the statement that had been made to the forefront. I tend to take Simon at his word for now because he has a solid presence here at APUG.

aldevo · Jul 17, 2009

jerk151 said:
Aldevo,

For the record, please don't think I was being a smartass when I made the statement and quoted Simon. At that time this thread was 14 pages deep and the users clearly asked a question that seemed he wanted an answer to. I don't know if he read all fourteen pages. I was merely bringing the statement that had been made to the forefront. I tend to take Simon at his word for now because he has a solid presence here at APUG.

Understood.

I'm not calling out Simon as a liar but these films remain enigmas.

I know we'd all love to see Ilford publish more thorough tech sheets for these films than are presently avaialble. Maybe the speculation will finally end if/when that happens.

Kentmere film "?" Maybe Mr. Galley will know.

Aurum

Tom Kershaw

Aurum

clayne

BobNewYork

aldevo

Aurum

fschifano

anjo

Attachments

clayne

Aurum

aldevo

anjo

PhotoJim

JMC1969

anjo

Attachments

JMC1969

fschifano

anjo

JMC1969

anjo

JMC1969

aldevo

JMC1969

aldevo

Kentmere film "?" Maybe Mr. Galley will know.

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency