Reviews on AgfaPhoto Agfapan APX 100 the current one

[Molte]

Having just retired from working life and having watched an awful lot of Youtube channels, I am assuming, that APX-100, Kentmere 100 and RPX-100 are very, very similar. They are all manufactured in the UK. I am assuming that I will not be able to tell the difference between them and have decided for APX. I feel good about ‘Agfa’ on the box and it is always available at Fotoimpex. Currently it also happens to be the cheapest of the three films.

The ‘Naked Photographer’ has reviewed all these films on his Youtube channel. In general, I am very impressed by his reviews. There are many other reviews that seem to be too long and without data. I have noted his conclusions about both APX 100 and APX 400 and these are some of the films I am starting to work with.

I am living in the EU and am happy that Fotoimpex in Berlin exists. Before Brexit, I was using Silverprint in the UK, but no more. Too bad about Brexit, which turned out to be all about lower taxes rather than more hospitals, but at least they still have Ilford. I now need to get better at the German language, despite English being so applicable.

There is a lot about old and new versions in this thread. For years I bought my Tri-X at B&H on Manhattan, but today’s Tri-X is not the film I was using 30-40 years ago. Now I am trying out HP5+ in XT3. When I have spent more time with my current film inventory, I may fill up the freezer with only 2 films in order to achieve longer term consistency. A major issue is that the APX films only come in 35mm.

 

[albireo]

I have this Film since a hell long time, APX 100, sometimes APX 400...usually shooting APX 100@200 pushed for added contrast. But only, because it was (way) cheap...not anymore. For reference - here into germany, into summer 2020 - 5.29 EUR @dm drugstore, nowadays, 7.49 - 7.99 EUR per 135-36 roll, which is crazy.

You can buy it as 'Kentmere 100' by, for instance, FotoImpex Berlin, for 5,95 Euro per roll if you buy 10 or more.

KENTMERE Kentmere 100 135/36 - fotoimpex.com analogue photography

Universal ISO 100/21° BW Film from Harman technology / Ilford Photo. Cheaper general purpose BW film with ISO 100/21°. Suitable for a a wide range of subjects, including ...

www.fotoimpex.com

 

[Yashica]

You can buy it as 'Kentmere 100' by, for instance, FotoImpex Berlin, for 5,95 Euro per roll if you buy 10 or more.

KENTMERE Kentmere 100 135/36 - fotoimpex.com analogue photography

Universal ISO 100/21° BW Film from Harman technology / Ilford Photo. Cheaper general purpose BW film with ISO 100/21°. Suitable for a a wide range of subjects, including ...

www.fotoimpex.com

I do know that. Kentmere 100 = APX 100, Kentmere 400 - APX 400. I was even into their store inside berlin, last year. Fotoimpex is the *biggest* analog film store inside europe. ;-) I order my film stock usually from Fotoimpex. Last rolls was Adox CMS 20 II & Fuji Superia 400.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Agfaphoto, and Kentmere, are so good that they're unlikely to constitute the weak link in anyone's film photography chain, whether entry level or advanced.

Totally agree. I was talking from a marketing point of view, not an esthetic point of view.

I'm working on a personal project for which Foma 100 is fitting at this moment, but Kentmere is on my list, even though generally speaking I'm a FP4+ person.

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

For years I bought my Tri-X at B&H on Manhattan, but today’s Tri-X is not the film I was using 30-40 years ago. Now I am trying out HP5+ in XT3. When I have spent more time with my current film inventory, I may fill up the freezer with only 2 films in order to achieve longer term consistency. A major issue is that the APX films only come in 35mm.

Molte... I've been shooting Tri-X since the 60s, and I agree that today's "reformulated and improved" Tri-X - while still great - is NOT the same film.

Kodak "Double-X" (Eastman 5222 motion picture negative stock) actually looks more like old Tri-X than the current emulsion. It's available as X2 from Film Photography Project and BwXX from CineStill. The CineStill version is also available in 120.

It's a gorgeous emulsion! This is from my Pen F half frame, shot at ISO 200 (though just estimating exposure), developed in D-76 1:1, negative scanned at 2400dpi.

 

[M-88]

Before Brexit, I was using Silverprint in the UK, but no more

Another thread on this forum suggests that Silverprint is no more anyway.

 

[Molte]

Yes, it seems that Silverprint is out of business. I don't know the details, but I assume that it is not good for any business when customers like me don't come back for more. Brexit was a binary question with multiple answers. I suspect that if, for example, Texas were to leave the Union, the consequences would be rather significant for businesses there.

Anyway, getting back to the main subject of APX 100, the Naked Photographer concludes that "Overall, it's a fantastic film". Having seen all of his film reviews/tests, I was thinking the other day that it really doesn't matter which film I choose to use as they are all mostly very good, it being more important that I 'know' and have experience with that particular film and an associated developer. This is probably obvious to most people here, but for some reason we all enjoy watching and hearing about different film/developer combinations, hoping to hear of a better and magic potion. Maybe APX 100 in Rodinal is a good potion for me. And this reminds me that 'Pictorial Planet' on youtube also is excellent in this context.

Thank you for suggesting 5222 XX. Maybe later on. For now, I will be working the Samigon tanks with exposed film.

 

[Agulliver]

Re Silverprint....the original owner sold it some years ago and it had been going downhill for some time.

If one wants to see reviews of the current AgfaPhoto APX 100, just look up Kentmere 100. And if you want to use it, buy it in which ever box you prefer or which ever price you prefer paying.

 

[markjwyatt]

Thank you Mark..... there is some useful information at last. More along the lines of what i asked...

By the way, that is not a swipe at Kentmere. I have never used it, but like the Ilford products a lot, so suspect it is also great film. But it ain't Agfa, branding aside (unless everyone is wrong about what Agfaphoto film actually is).

 

[GregY]

By the way, that is not a swipe at Kentmere. I have never used it, but like the Ilford products a lot, so suspect it is also great film. But it ain't Agfa, branding aside (unless everyone is wrong about what Agfaphoto film actually is).

Agreed, I've used the new Ilford/Kentmere offerings in 120. I was just interested in how the new Agfa compared with the old....

 

[GregY]

Re Silverprint....the original owner sold it some years ago and it had been going downhill for some time.

If one wants to see reviews of the current AgfaPhoto APX 100, just look up Kentmere 100. And if you want to use it, buy it in which ever box you prefer or which ever price you prefer paying.

I was interested in forum users reviews who've developed & printed with it.....

 

[FriedLouisStudio]

I recently tried and wasn't impressed with Kentmere 100, at least in 35mm in D-76 1:1.

It performed pretty much exactly like you'd expect a film that retails for half of what Tri-X costs these days to perform. I found it muddy looking and flat, with poor sharpness (but the expected 100-speed tight grain). It wasn't as nice as FP4 Plus, much less departed beloved classics like Plus-X and the original Agfapan APX 100.

I was criticized by folks here for making a snap judgement after trying just a single roll in a single developer, and I was accused of sloppy processing/scanning technique. And I guess that's valid, there are certainly a lot of nice images coming from the Kentmere emulsions used by other people here.

But I don't shoot all that much film these days - maybe eight rolls annually - so I don't really need to find less-expensive film stock. I was just curious to see what the Kentmere was like. I'll be sticking with Tri-X and "Double-X".

 

[Law251]

I recently tried and wasn't impressed with Kentmere 100, at least in 35mm in D-76 1:1.

It performed pretty much exactly like you'd expect a film that retails for half of what Tri-X costs these days to perform. I found it muddy looking and flat, with poor sharpness (but the expected 100-speed tight grain). It wasn't as nice as FP4 Plus, much less departed beloved classics like Plus-X and the original Agfapan APX 100.

I was criticized by folks here for making a snap judgement after trying just a single roll in a single developer, and I was accused of sloppy processing/scanning technique. And I guess that's valid, there are certainly a lot of nice images coming from the Kentmere emulsions used by other people here.

But I don't shoot all that much film these days - maybe eight rolls annually - so I don't really need to find less-expensive film stock. I was just curious to see what the Kentmere was like. I'll be sticking with Tri-X and "Double-X".

I have recently used Kentmere 100 in 120 size. It's like a poor man's FP4+ with coarser grain and less tonal range. By 'tonal range' I mean that so far it's been difficult to get nice results in contrasty light as either the highlights are blown out or there's no shadow detail. However, I plan to down rate it a little bit in future and develop a bit less to see if I can tame it. As for the grain my guess is that, like films of yesteryear, it's more developer sensitive than modern emulsions, so finding the right soup is critical. I see it as not a bad film but without the wonderful flexibility of FP4+.

 

[TomR55]

I keep about six to eight rolls of APX-100 in the fridge for experimental work. I obtain “satisfactory” results, i.e., scannable/printable images with less detail in the shadows, manageable highlights and adequate tonal separation. That said, it is not Ilford FP4, but it costs substantially less.