Kentmere films?

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

I was cruising the web and came across Kentmere films. I saw some great images that people had shot using 35mm film from Kentmere. Looks pretty nice. Anyone had any experiance using the product?

ToddB

 

[darkosaric]

Kentmere are good films; I had good experience with all those cheaper films like Ilford Pan, Kentmere, Polypan... developed usually in Rodinal 1+100.
But I am not so picky about technical perfection, so I don't know will it work for you. Buy one and test it, or regarding the price - buy pack of 10 and test it .

 

[ToddB]

does it jive D-76?

Todd

 

[Jerevan]

Yep, excellent products - both the 100 and 400. I prefer the 100 but the nordic "light", or rather absence of it, pushes me to use the 400. I've used it with Xtol and Rodinal with good results. If you don't like grain, buy some Tmax 400 instead.

 

[ntenny]

I experimented a little bit with Kentmere 100 and found it to be fine, fairly grainy for its speed, good bang for the buck, but nothing that would make me switch over from other films of similar speed. It struck me as decent on all technical criteria but outstanding in none.

-NT

 

[railwayman3]

I've used both, found them good quality, rock-solid and reliable. Slight differences from my usual FP4+ and HP4+.....I usually keep to the latter for most purposes, perhaps because I know them well from many years experience, but would be entirely happy to use Kentmere if the Ilford were not to hand.

 

[jim appleyard]

I run these films thru a P&S for quick grab shots. I like the price and the quality is good it helps support Ilford who is supporting our b/w.

 

[wblynch]

How does Kentmere compare to Fomapan? Are they much different?

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used it with good results.

Jeff

 

[Jan-Peter]

Hi, ToddB;

yes, I have exposed and developed one Kentmere 100 in Ilford ID 11, 1+3. It is a fine film! However, it is no super fine grain film as TMax 100 or Delta 100 - rather one of the "old type" films as Ilford FP4 - but very sharp and a wide range of lights and shadows.

Summing up: It is a very good and a reliable budget film for every days photography without spcific distortions as e.g. the Polypan that has a high amount of halation.


Jan-Peter

 

[Dennis S]

Hi, ToddB;

yes, I have exposed and developed one Kentmere 100 in Ilford ID 11, 1+3. It is a fine film! However, it is no super fine grain film as TMax 100 or Delta 100 - rather one of the "old type" films as Ilford FP4 - but very sharp and a wide range of lights and shadows.

Summing up: It is a very good and a reliable budget film for every days photography without spcific distortions as e.g. the Polypan that has a high amount of halation.


Jan-Peter

Yes I agree. With the Kentmere 400 and the Ilford developer gives a nice negative. I enlarged a few to 11x14 for display purposes with no regrets. Always a good everyday film.

 

[Xmas]

The 400 is comparable with Forma 400 but the Kentmere has Ilford quality control, the Forma is ok today though has Been quaint in past.

If you ignore the price differences

delta 400 - has grain and scale like FP
HP - has more grain but wider scale
Kent - has grain like HP scale like FP

approximately

Michael Angelo will have had more than one paint brush

note I like the grain but gbag a 100 ISO cassette just on case the UFO might be the sun sometimes even PanF!

 

[dehk]

Kentmere 100 is excellent in Xtol 1+2.

 

[02Pilot]

K100 has been my go-to film for the last few months. I've been developing it in Caffenol with good results.

 

[dorff]

Kentmere 400 is prone to fogging in especially Rodinal, but also some other developers. Best results I have had was in HC-110. I can't help but feel that for every good shot I got on K 400, I had wished it rather was on HP5+ or TriX.

The Kentmere 100 I've shot have been good for the price. Because it is so cheap as a bulk roll, I use it for testing cameras, lenses, developers etc. It doesn't fog the same as the 400.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Dorff,

I do not understand your meaning 'prone to fogging' ? do you mean chemical fog ?

Anyway its not relevant, without wishing to appear rude in any way, have you had it checked out ( by us ? ) since fogging is not usually something that is 'inherent' in a film....any film, unless it is fogged post manufacture .

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[hdeyong]

True enough. I've never had a film in my life that just decided to fog for no reason. I don't imagine film is made on purpose with a built-in fog.

 

[presspass]

I see a comment comparing Kentmere 400 with Foma 400. I have tried Foma and found it wanting - grain was much too large to suit me (35mm). How does the grain in Kentmere compare? Thanks,

 

[Xmas]

well grain is subjective the Kentmere is about the same as HP5 the Forma more intrusive.

But I use Rodinal or ID68 as necessary to contain.

 

[GRHazelton]

I've found Kentmere 100 and 400 a decent film, at least developed in D 76 1 to 1. Haven't tried it in other soups.

 

[dorff]

Dear Dorff,

I do not understand your meaning 'prone to fogging' ? do you mean chemical fog ?

Anyway its not relevant, without wishing to appear rude in any way, have you had it checked out ( by us ? ) since fogging is not usually something that is 'inherent' in a film....any film, unless it is fogged post manufacture .

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Hi Simon, thank you for following up. I don't construe your enquiry as being rude at all, and value your interest.

l mean chemical fogging, yes, as in the base plus fog density is noticeably more for Kentmere 400 in Rodinal than it is for the same film in HC-110 for instance. Even ID-11/D76 produces a slightly denser base plus fog than HC-110. It is not problematic for darkroom printing, as one simply prints through the fog. A clearer base scans easier, though a usable image is still entirely possible from a denser base. Don't get me wrong: I still think K 400 is good value for the money, and one is not under any obligation to use Rodinal, of course! I am based in South Africa, so having it checked might be not worth the effort for my sake. If it would be at all useful to others, I could mail you a set of three different negatives developed normally in three different developers. As an aside, I have found Rollei RPX400 to behave exactly like Kentmere 400, and my older Foma 400 stock, which is a quite different film, is also prone to fogging in Rodinal. So I use HC-110 to develop those films if I want a clearer base. I should add that I have gotten completely satisfactory prints and scans out of Kentmere 400 and Rollei RPX400 developed in Rodinal, so it is by no means a doomed combination, merely something to be aware of. With other Ilford films, HP5+ and FP4+ in particular, I get a clear base in Rodinal. Is it that the Foma/Rollei/Kentmere are based on an emulsion technology which is more sensitive to high alkalinity? Rodinal is very alkaline compared to other developers. It would be interesting to know whether that is the reason.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Dorff,

Its the first time I have heard of this issue, I have instructed our technical service to conduct some tests using RODINAL, the fact its Alkaline should have no effect. Which RODINAL version are you devving with?

I will let you know what they say.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[ME Super]

It's quality products, and service like this, that makes me an Ilford user for my B&W photography. Good luck getting either Fuji or Kodak to do this!!

 

[Xmas]

Dear Dorff,

Its the first time I have heard of this issue, I have instructed our technical service to conduct some tests using RODINAL, the fact its Alkaline should have no effect. Which RODINAL version are you devving with?

I will let you know what they say.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Some of the 'rodinals' have KBr in them...

but I've not had detectable base fog with Forma or Ilford films with R09 or ID68 some well outdated stock but stored in temperate conditions.

 

[dorff]

Dear Dorff,

Its the first time I have heard of this issue, I have instructed our technical service to conduct some tests using RODINAL, the fact its Alkaline should have no effect. Which RODINAL version are you devving with?

I will let you know what they say.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

Hi Simon,

I have used home-made Rodinal according to the Darkroom Cookbook formula, and Parodinal calculated to match the exact alkalinity, sulphite and 4-aminophenolate content of original Rodinal. They give comparable results to Agfa Rodinal, but I haven't tested the latter on K 400. So it is a distinct possibility that my home-made developer is the issue, I won't deny that. My K 400 stock seems to be out - I thought I still had a roll or two left, and would have liked to do another test with Agfa Rodinal to be sure. Another time perhaps. I have also had another look at my K 400 negatives, and I would have to retract the wording "prone to fogging" as it is an overstatement. It gives a darker base, which is visible, but I don't think it is of much practical importance. Caffenol gave me heavy fogging, but not only with K 400. It is not a developer I fancy in general, and would be willing to say that it is not the greatest of mates with K 400 or RPX 400, among others. It is of course always necessary to do one's own testing, regardless of what others write or say.

My main impression of the film was that it appeared to have less "sparkle" than HP5+, but the dull look may be down to development rather than the emulsion. I used Rodinal 1+25 on the K 400, and have since completely settled on 1 + 50 for everything, as well as tuning down on the agitation a bit. I know that it has a slightly lower overall density range, but I doubt whether that is significant for anything but the exceptionally contrasty of scenes. Thinking about it, I really should give K 400 another go. What has been an obstacle is that it was perennially out of stock at B&H the last three or four times I ordered, and it would stay out of stock for months on end. I gave up on waiting for K 400 and bought a 100 ft roll of K 100, which is a very respectable film as well. So now I am basically on HP5+ and FP4+ for serious stuff, and K 100 for everything else, until my stocks run out. I appreciate the much shorter developing time of HP5+ compared to K 400!

Kind regards, and thanks again for the follow-up.