• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Seeing If Kentmere 200 Is Any Good...

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
 
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:

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Sanug said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is reddit-level nonsense, sorry.
 
Sanug said:
No. It is my experience.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Sanug said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
John Wiegerink said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
John Wiegerink said:
Yes and no! Highlights can be tamed to some extent by reducing development, but when you over-expose a film
Click to expand...

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.
 
Prest_400 said:
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 ] ...
Click to expand...

That is really interesting! Thanks for sharing that info.


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.
 
Sanug said:
Other films with no or low antihalation:

Foma Ortho 400
Orwo UN54
...
Click to expand...

I remember reading that the difference between Wolfen NP100 and Orwo UN54 is the addition of an anti-halation layer.
 
Andrew O'Neill said:
While doing this test, I've found a new appreciation for Kentmere 400. Cheers!
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sidd said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great to head, Sidd! I sure wish that Ilford would make this in sheet film sizes...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register