Seeing If Kentmere 200 Is Any Good...

[Andrew O'Neill]

...and a good fit with the 100 and 400 versions.

 

[Ben 4]

Though I've not used any of the Kentmere films, this is very informative. Thanks.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Though I've not used any of the Kentmere films, this is very informative. Thanks.

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

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the test, Andrew. No question of the extra contrast in the 200 but unless you have almost pure white in the picture such as the " architecture pic with white columns " I am not sure that it would really be noticed in a passing glance

The 200 if not at least as grainy as 400 is certainly no better and that combined with a slower speed would make the 400 a better choice in my book as well as yours

pentaxuser

 

[John Wiegerink]

What I gather from Andy's test of Kentmere 200 is that it is no better in certain departments than Kentmere 400. I think one might tame the higher contrast of the 200, but you still wouldn't better the 400 speed Kentmere. Maybe with other developer combinations it might prove different, but I'm very familiar with the developer he used and I find it hard to believe another developer would make much difference. Time will tell I guess, but at least Andy gave us a starting point.

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks for testing this film out, Andrew. I would be interested to see how this film plays with D-23, BT2B. D-23 should be able to tame down the highlights some.

 

[mshchem]

Excellent YouTube posting as always. Nice to see folks who know their craft!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks for testing this film out, Andrew. I would be interested to see how this film plays with D-23, BT2B. D-23 should be able to tame down the highlights some.

WAB,
I'm sure now that Andy opened the can of worms we'll be seeing all kinds of different experiments here on this forum. I, for one, can't wait.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thanks everyone! @What About Bob, if weather permits tomorrow, I'll be going out the door with a roll, and was planning to develop it in D-23...Maybe I'll bring two along, and pop one in BT2B...

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thanks everyone! @What About Bob, if weather permits tomorrow, I'll be going out the door with a roll, and was planning to develop it in D-23...Maybe I'll bring two along, and pop one in BT2B...

Andy, thanks for your devotion to film and this forum! Maybe bring three along? One for D23, one for BT2B and one for my favorite for holding highlights in there place, Pyrocat-HD/HDC. I have two rolls myself and have been holding off until I hear more of what works best. I just might shoot a roll in my old Super Ikonta B and try it with Pyrocat-HDC.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

@John Wiegerink tempting!

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Pulling out the brick of K200 I recently purchased, I noticed that the blue is more saturated than on the stuff that I shot in the video. The film K200 has an expiry date of 03/2027. This newer brick of K200 expires in 07/2027.
I'm glad they changed it. The saturated colours looks better.
Now off to load ALL THREE RB magazines! Thanks a lot, John!

 

[Craig]

What developing time did you use for Xtol R in all of those films? I have not found a satisfactory time yet.

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks everyone! @What About Bob, if weather permits tomorrow, I'll be going out the door with a roll, and was planning to develop it in D-23...Maybe I'll bring two along, and pop one in BT2B...

YAY! I'll have a doughnut to that. Can't wait to see how this combo works out.

Pulling out the brick of K200 I recently purchased, I noticed that the blue is more saturated than on the stuff that I shot in the vid

Is this what they would call an "extended blue sensitive film?"

 

[Ben 4]

And BT2B stands for…?

 

[baachitraka]

And BT2B stands for…?

BT2B: Barry Thornton Two Bath

 

[Ben 4]

Thanks for that! I'm going to pull out my copy of Edge of Darkness, which I haven't looked at it a while.

 

[bedrof]

Just a week ago I shot a roll of Kentmere 200 (120) with half a stop of overexposure and souped it in HC-110H for 10 min at 20C (making it a slight minus development from the recommended 12 min (twice 6 min for HC110B) to correct for the harsh sun light).
Looks very nice, contrast is just fine, no grain that would bother me.

 

[loccdor]

The video was a good watch.

Tri-X 36 exposures is only 13% more expensive than Kentmere right now in the USA at B&H. At this time I would not purchase it compared to competition in the States.

 

[retina_restoration]

The video was a good watch.

Tri-X 36 exposures is only 13% more expensive than Kentmere right now in the USA at B&H. At this time I would not purchase it compared to competition in the States.

Kentmere Pan 200 is $7.00 per roll of 120 here in the USA
Kodak Tri-X 400 is $9.00 per roll of 120 (and TMX 100 is now as low as $8.00 per roll, which is an astonishingly good deal)

IMO, you get significantly better performance from Tri-X compared to the Kentmere Pan films, so the extra $2.00 is well worth it. The Kentmere films are OK if you really need to pinch pennies, but I've used the 100 and 400 and found them severely lacking in how well they separate the highest tonal values.

Andy, I would like to have seen how Tri-X measured up in comparison. Thanks for the work you do to test these films.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Andy,
I can tell testing is a "labor of love" for you and many of us here look forward to seeing your results. Since you will be bringing three films instead of two you might want to get three donuts at Tim Hortons rather than just two.

 

[loccdor]

@retina_restoration Yes, it definitely seems like Kodak is in an aggressive strategy to undercut the competition right now. 35mm prices are even closer together. But I assume in Europe (and possibly Canada) things are different.

 

[dkirby]

The video was a good watch.

Tri-X 36 exposures is only 13% more expensive than Kentmere right now in the USA at B&H. At this time I would not purchase it compared to competition in the States.

It begs the question on whether with recent cost increases Kentmere is pricing itself out of its range. Often described as the "best budget film" and yet it no longer really plays in the budget category price-wise. $1 more for Tr-X in 135...but this may be a discussion for another thread.

 

[retina_restoration]

@retina_restoration Yes, it definitely seems like Kodak is in an aggressive strategy to undercut the competition right now. 35mm prices are even closer together.

Forgive me — I know this is wandering off topic — but five years ago I stopped buying Tri-X and TMX/TMY because Ilford's prices for their equivalent products was significantly better. I could buy a 120 roll of Delta 100/400 for about $8.00-$9.00 during the first half of the pandemic, whereas TMX/TMY/Tri-X were all at least $11.00 per roll.

Now, those prices have flipped to become the inverse, so I have gone back to Kodak films and have stopped buying Ilford (except in sheet film sizes, where Ilford is still less costly than Kodak).

 

[John Wiegerink]

With all this talk of increased tariff B.S. I don't think you'll see film prices stabilize for sometime down the road. I'd take advantage of the recent Kodak B&W film prices since they might not be this low ever again.