Seeing If Kentmere 200 Is Any Good...

[Sanug]

The halation of Kentmere 200 is stronger. The reason is the film base. Kentmere 100 and 400 have a darker base which supresses the halation better than the lighter base of Kentmere 200.

As far as I know, the Kentmere films do not have an anti halation layer. In 120 it is visible if you prewash: The water of FP4 or HP5 is colored dark grey after the prewash, while the water of all Kentmere films remains clear.

Kentmere 400

 

[Prest_400]

IIRC the antihalation is a difference between Ilford and Kentmere films. I just went back to check the thread when these (100/400) were introduced, specially in 120 where discussions about differences were made. Some quotes:

Somewhere in the myriad of internet locations that Harman shares things, there is or was information about how their two film product lines compare.
And included in that is a reference to the fact that the difference in the level of anti-halation incorporated in the films helps contribute to being able to sell the Kentmere products at a reduced cost to customers like the educational markets.
It isn't that there is no anti-halation. It is that the anti-halation is less.
Of course, with 120 that is probably less important because of the backing paper.

Hello Matt,

I can confirm that.
When I first used the Kentmere films the less effective (worse) anti-halation capabilities compared to the in that regard excellent Ilford films was one of the first differences and characteristics I realized comparing the films.
The difference was obvious and clearly visible in the final results.
During our amazing factory tour in Mobberley we talked about these differences as well and I got my test results confirmed.
To be able to offer both Kentmere films at significantly lower price some cost reductions in the production process had to be made. Therefore also the quality compromise in anti-halation effectiveness.

Nevertheless the Kentmeres offer very good value, especially for beginners and photographers on a very tight budget.
I am using them mainly for applications in my photo test lab, when I need many films for certain camera and lens tests, and when their disadvantages are irrelevant and don't play a role.

That Harman technology / Ilford Photo is now offering both films in 120 format as well is an excellent decision.
When I've read it I thought "finally"........

Best regards,
Henning

So would it be just less effective AH? as perfecting that quality requires more expensive components and processes. Anyways, is there really any B&W film with very weak or no antihalation at all? Foma does have in 120, but perhaps quite weak to none in 35mm https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fomapan-400-anti-halation-lack-thereof.201814/
Lucky SHD up until the 2010s discontinuation also exhibited a lot of halation, which does not seem to be like that anymore in the "new" versions.

Anyways, back to K200. Still have to try it, but if it exhibits generous halation that is a desired characteristic for many photographers. I haven't checked any comparisons to Eastman Double-X, which has been quite popular respooled/refinished.

 

[Sanug]

Other films with no or low antihalation:

Foma Ortho 400
Orwo UN54
Kodak Double-X
Orwo NP27 (long time discontinued. Not tested.)

A gray base reduces halation without a dedicated antihalation layer. However, an antihalation layer is more effective.

Films with a clear base and a very effective antihalation layer are Adox HR-50 and CHS-100.

The "glow" shown by films with a lacking antihalation layer may be seen as beautiful or annoying, dependent on the object. Sometimes I like it, sometimes not. And on low contrast images you may not see any halation anyway.

Kentmere 200-120

Kentmere 200-135

Original Wolfen UN54

 

[MattKing]

As I understand it, the Kentmere films do incorporate some anti-halation components - not just the substrate.
It is just that the ones they use are less expensive and easier to incorporate into the manufacture than the ones used in the Ilford branded films.
In other words, not missing, just economy versions.

 

[albireo]

K400 will have very low contrast at box speed. I shoot it at ISO 800 and develop 16 Min. in XT-3 1+1.

K200 is much more contrasty and should be developed even shorter than K100. I had good results at box speed, XT-3, 1+2, 13 Min.

This is reddit-level nonsense, sorry.

 

[Sanug]

This is reddit-level nonsense, sorry.

No. It is my experience.

 

[albireo]

No. It is my experience.

Given a certain exposure index, contrast is decided at development time.

-Do you find Kentmere 400 at 'box speed' (which by itself means little if you don't clarify how you expose) to produce negatives that are not contrasty enough?

=> Increase development time.

In general,

-Do you find {film X} at {chosen EI} to produce negatives that show [insufficient|excessive] contrast?

=>[Increase|decrease] development time w.r.t. tech sheet indications.

There is no such thing as "Kentmere 400 is flat at box speed" sort of inanities, unless you surrender development of your film to a lab or have no control over development.

 

[albireo]

By the way, I shoot tons of Kentmere 400 at 250 or 320, and my negatives have just the right amount of contrast for my needs, more precisely they measure at CI=.62, which is exactly the contrast I chose to achieve when I decided to use Kentmere 400.

 

[Sanug]

I develop my films in diluted Adox XT-3 (Xtol).

K400 in XT-3, 1+1, 16:00 Min. is perfect for me if exposed at ISO 800. At ISO 400 the highlights become blown. Maybe it depends on the developer. Which developer do you use?

For me, K200 is perfect at box speed and developed in XT-3, 1+2, 13:00 Min.

I do not like flat negatives. I mainly do wet printing with a Durst M605 color (no condenser, that's why I need more contrast). The most of my negatives can be printed without any contrast adjustment on Ilford Multigrade paper. Scanning with Plustek Opticfilm 7300 works well, too.

 

[albireo]

I develop my films in diluted Adox XT-3 (Xtol).

K400 in XT-3, 1+1, 16:00 Min. is perfect for me if exposed at ISO 800. At ISO 400 the highlights become blown.

Highlight density is controlled by development-related, and not exposure-related, variables.

Blown highlights? Reduce development time.

Incidentally, I used to use XT-3 1:1 a lot (not anymore as I've recently found a developer that I'm finding to be an improvement over XT3 in all parameters I like it for) and I've never used it for 16 minutes at 1:1, regardless of film. Sounds like a really loong time, even if you're systematically underexposing your film like you say you do.

I really suspect you're overdeveloping your negatives, but do go ahead if you like the result. Please notice though that 'contrast at box speed" is a variable YOU are fully in control of, if you wish.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Highlight density is controlled by development-related, and not exposure-relates, variables.

Blown highlights? Reduce development time.

Incidentally, I used to use XT-3 1:1 a lot (not anymore as I've recently found a developer that I'm finding to better it in all parameters I like XT-3 for) and I've never used it for 16 minutes at 1:1, regardless of film. Sounds like a really loong time, even if you're systematically underexposing your film like you say you do.

I really suspect you're overdeveloping your negatives, but do go ahead if you like the result. Please just notice that 'low/high contrast at box speed" is a variable YOU control.

Yes and no! Highlights can be tamed to some extent by reducing development, but when you over-expose a film to retain shadow detail you like you are also pushing Zone 9 (IX) up into the zone 10 (X) area. That means highlights are certainly exposure related. So, it's a matter of a balancing act and what the individual likes when it comes to contrast. The one thing I never aim for is compressed mid-tones. The mid-tones, for me, are what makes the picture.

 

[albireo]

Yes and no! Highlights can be tamed to some extent by reducing development, but when you over-expose a film to retain shadow detail you like you are also pushing Zone 9 (IX) up into the zone 10 (X) area.

Exposure has an insignificant effect on highlight detail in my workflow, compared to development.

I'm not getting anything remotely of importance from Zone X, and only very little of value in Zone IX in my images, anyway, though perhaps you are in your workflow.

 

[albireo]

Yes and no! Highlights can be tamed to some extent by reducing development, but when you over-expose a film

Forgot to add - of course, my "Kentmere at 320" might be someone else's "Kentmere at box speed" as my EI is based on my meters and metering technique - which means, I might actually not be overexposing at all in fact.

 

[dcy]

IIRC the antihalation is a difference between Ilford and Kentmere films. I just went back to check the thread when these (100/400) were introduced, specially in 120 where discussions about differences were made. Some quotes:

... [ snip ] ...

That is really interesting! Thanks for sharing that info.

As I understand it, the Kentmere films do incorporate some anti-halation components - not just the substrate.
It is just that the ones they use are less expensive and easier to incorporate into the manufacture than the ones used in the Ilford branded films.
In other words, not missing, just economy versions.

This is good to know. I've often wondered where Harman cuts costs to make the Kentmere films. I had heard that they just have less silver.

I definitely haven't noticed halation in online photos of Kentmere 100 & 400. I see halation in K200, but in the examples I've seen online I thought it looked nice.

 

[dcy]

Other films with no or low antihalation:

Foma Ortho 400
Orwo UN54
...

I remember reading that the difference between Wolfen NP100 and Orwo UN54 is the addition of an anti-halation layer.

 

[Koakashii]

Craig, I used: K100 9min; K200 8.5min; K400 9.5min. 3min prebath

How was the turn out?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How was the turn out?

Nice. Favourite out of the bunch was K400.
Currently working on a video with K200 and 6 developers...

 

[MultiFormat Shooter]

Currently working on a video with K200 and 6 developers...

Awesome! I'm looking forward it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Awesome! I'm looking forward it.

It'll be up a week from today!

 

[Sidd]

While doing this test, I've found a new appreciation for Kentmere 400. Cheers!

Your test has incited my appreciation for Kentmere 400. Probably my next bulk roll of 400 speed film will be this. Most importantly it is very cheap.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Your test has incited my appreciation for Kentmere 400. Probably my next bulk roll of 400 speed film will be this. Most importantly it is very cheap.

Great to head, Sidd! I sure wish that Ilford would make this in sheet film sizes...