Hp5+ and Kentmere 400

[Philippe-Georges]

The Kentmre 400/120 is about 1 Euro cheaper than the Hp5+/120, is it a good idea to save the Euro and go for Kentmere?

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used Kentmre 400 and 100, Foma 400 and 100 along with Tmax 400 and 100, the gain is as good or better than Foma, Kentmre I think pushes better than Foma, but is not in the same class as Tmax 400. I think Kentmre was sold in the U.S under a 3rd party label and I used of lot, the reason I returned to Foma is I live in the desert Southwest, very bright, without an anti halagent backing too much glare. I still use Kentmer 400 when using my point and shoots cameras as Kentmer is Dx coded. with Foma the cameras default to 50 or 100. Although I have not shot a lot of HP5, I think Kentmre's grain and resolution will in the ball park of Hp5, so in my thinking it's down the anti halagent backing.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The Kentmre 400/120 is about 1 Euro cheaper than the Hp5+/120, is it a good idea to save the Euro and go for Kentmere?

You're saving one Euro only if you're shooting one film . If you shoot 5, 10, 20 films every week or so, the savings become substantial. In other words, if you're on a budget, it does make sense.

After that, it becomes a question of taste. HP5+ and Kentmere 400 are different emulsions, so different results alltogether.

Check this old thread on both. Has imput by Simon R Galley

Kentmere and Ilford films

Are there any differences between Kentmere and Ilford films? I saw a roll of Kentmere 400 (135) locally and bought it, but had not heard of the name previously, then recently learned it has the same parent as Ilford. Several years back, I shot one roll of Ilford XP2 (120) and I recall the...

www.photrio.com

 

[retina_restoration]

It depends what is more important: saving $$$ or getting the best results. Kentmere is OK, but inferior to HP5+

 

[pentaxuser]

Try both films on the same scene, preferably at the same time then decide which you prefer We'll give you a range of views but will that really help?

pentaxuser

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

HP5 Plus is the better film.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

It depends what is more important: saving $$$ or getting the best results. Kentmere is OK, but inferior to HP5+

Yes, economic considerations are sometimes not the best.
But, as an example, the FOMA 400/120 is 1,75 Euro cheaper than the Kentmere.
And some of the posters over here are praising FOMA and 'doubting' Kentmere, in the past I had unpleasant experiences with FOMA roll film.

At an average consumption of 2 ½ rolls per week, being retired and the way my partner is looking at me when I buy a brick of roll films, considerations are recommended...

 

[koraks]

is it a good idea to save the Euro and go for Kentmere?

IMO, no, but YMMV as they say. I've shot both and I find the HP5+ to have a noticeably finer grain, higher speed and overall smoother tonality. It's just a better product. Kentmere 400 is pretty good, though, and IMO miles better than Fomapan 400; it's really in a different league. The difference between Foma 400 and Kentmere 400 is far bigger than between Kentmere 400 and HP5+. The Kentmere is a fine film, but given a modest difference in price, I personally prefer to spend a little extra on the better product.

 

[Sanug]

I recommend to go with HP5+. Kentmere 400 lacks contrast and has no anti-halation layer. I shoot Kentmere 400 at ISO 800, develop in XT-3 1+1 16 min.. Still not enough contrast if used at a cloudy day.

If your at small budget, I would go for Kentmere 100. In XT-3 1+2 16 min. you reach ISO 200. Possible to push it to 400.

I do not recommend Fomapan 400 120 film. I reaches ISO 200 only in XT-3, and I encountered too many issues with emulsion defects.

 

[loccdor]

It's down to personal taste. You've got to try them.

HP5+ is definitely the most "Professional" of the films being talked about. But I've found an artistic beauty in Fomapan.

I prefer Kentmere 100 to Kentmere 400, but neither is a bad film, you just have to learn to work with its quirks. Low contrast usually means a one stop push looks a little better, in my opinion. You can also try contrast filters.

This is Kentmere 400 pushed to 1600 on 6x6. Used 510-pyro 1+100 semi-stand 45 minutes with agitation every 15. Probably was too long, might reduce to ~35.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

The pushability of HP5+ is better (at least with Rodinal) in my experience Kentmere is good if you short box speed but not faster than that. On a bright sunny day, I would choose Kentmere, but if it is cloudy or due to my filter use the shutter speed drops too much, I would use HP5 and push a stop.

And pushability of Foma is worst among them. But again that might be due to Rodinal, which I’m switching to XTOL for speeds above 400

 

[Sanug]

Rodinal may be not the best choice for push processing.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

HP5 has been my main pan film for many years. Kentmere is a nice film, but has slightly inferior anti-halation layer.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

Thank you all for the comments, I will stick with Hp5+, but at least I could have considered...

 

[jim appleyard]

If you're shooting 120 film, that means you're after superior images. I never shot Kentmere in 120, but I did shoot quite a bit of it in 35 and we did not get along well. It seemed a flat, dull film and I tried it with several developers; D-76, Rodinal, divided, etc. But, if you can't pull a decent image with D-76....

HP-5 on the other hand was great.

I'd go the extra Euro and by the good stuff, but you're completely welcome to try both and see which you like better. YMMV!

 

[albireo]

The Kentmre 400/120 is about 1 Euro cheaper than the Hp5+/120, is it a good idea to save the Euro and go for Kentmere?

I think only you can answer this question, by testing a few rolls of both side by side. By asking here, you'll be getting replies recommending the film people are more familiar with, which inevitably on forums like these tends to be HP5+.

I canshare with you my own experience, which is as useful or as useless as anyone else's: I have used a lot of Kentmere 400, which is a staple of my workflow. I know it pretty well having used a few hundred rolls now. I have less experience with HP5+, having only used some 20-30 rolls in total. For my photography, I much prefer Kentmere 400 so far. I have never found it flat (I decide contrast in development) or extremely grainy (I mainly like it in D23 1:1 and it's less grainy than some 100 ISO films I've tested recently, eg Adox CHS II). It is a shockingly beautiful film in 35mm, D23 1:1, and Y2 Hoya yellow filter. Expose at 250 EI, wait for good light, and Bobs yer uncle.

Notice that price is not a concern here. I use it because I like it and I know how it will behave.

So depending on your needs and what you need of a film for, I'd say go for it - save that euro and invest it in a bus ride to somewhere new and interesting, where you might be able to get more memorable pictures than if you had not purchased that ticket and stayed home with that roll of 'superior' HP5+.

Or buy many rolls of Kentmere 400 and save up those euros until you can get that great new book by Robert Adams and be inspired by his incredible work to take more interesting pictures.

I really think choosing Kentmere 400 over HP5 or vice versa won't break (or make) most people's photography.

 

[retina_restoration]

Rodinal may be not the best choice for push processing.

Rodinal is absolutely not a good choice for pushing. ISO. It’s probably the worst choice. It delivers less than box speed on all films, so it’s ability to preserve shadow information when “pushing” is less than most any other developer.

 

[retina_restoration]

If you're shooting 120 film, that means you're after superior images. I never shot Kentmere in 120, but I did shoot quite a bit of it in 35 and we did not get along well. It seemed a flat, dull film and I tried it with several developers

This was my impression also: flat, “suppressed” images with mediocre high value separation. It took more work to make a decent image in post-processing.

 

[albireo]

This was my impression also: flat, “suppressed” images with mediocre high value separation. It took more work to make a decent image in post-processing.

that's strange. I have never noticed any mediocre/flat/suppressed anything. In fact in my tests Kentmere 400 has a beautifully linear response in D23 and D76.

Here's from the Naked Photographer's tests. Red is Kentmere 400, Blue is Tri-X



Here's a comparison of the grain of Kentmere 400 vs Tri-X in D76. Kentmere 400 left.



It is truly an excellent film for the price, and even beyond the price.

 

[Fatih Ayoglu]

Rodinal is absolutely not a good choice for pushing. ISO. It’s probably the worst choice. It delivers less than box speed on all films, so it’s ability to preserve shadow information when “pushing” is less than most any other developer.

Well, I used to give bit more exposure to compensate shadow loss (like +1/2) I mean Rodinal has always shadow problem so in any case used to give at least +1/3 for box speed developments. Anyway DK t want to hijack the topic. I’ve already decided not to use Rodinal above ISO400 now…

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

This was my impression also: flat, “suppressed” images with mediocre high value separation. It took more work to make a decent image in post-processing.

You probably could get a bit more contrast by halving the ISO/ASA but giving normal development or perhaps a slightly longer time. Maybe using a stock solution rather than diluted.

 

[Andrew Keedle]

If you're shooting 120 film, that means you're after superior images. I never shot Kentmere in 120, but I did shoot quite a bit of it in 35 and we did not get along well. It seemed a flat, dull film and I tried it with several developers; D-76, Rodinal, divided, etc. But, if you can't pull a decent image with D-76....

HP-5 on the other hand was great.

I'd go the extra Euro and by the good stuff, but you're completely welcome to try both and see which you like better. YMMV!

Ummm. Holga, Lomo LC-A 120, Pinhole? It's horse for courses. Kentmere 100/400 are perfectly serviceable films for most MF uses.

 

[jim appleyard]

You probably could get a bit more contrast by halving the ISO/ASA but giving normal development or perhaps a slightly longer time. Maybe using a stock solution rather than diluted.

That's what I did, but I still got better images out of other films.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

That's what I did, but I still got better images out of other films.

Yes I agree. If a film doesn't meet your expectations, switch to something else.

 

[albireo]

Yes I agree. If a film doesn't meet your expectations, switch to something else.

That sounds like it might results in an endless loop of expensive dissatisfaction, if the primary cause for those expectations not being met is not the film but something else.