Hp5+ and Kentmere 400

[Keith Tapscott.]

Kentmere 400 is a lower priced film aimed at photography students on a tight budget.We shouldn't expect it to have the same quality as a premium film.
However, a photographer may choose it for its soft gradation for pictorial effect.
For example, a still life or a window lit portrait. An aesthetic choice rather than a technical one. Kentmere 400 is still a good film to be fair.

 

[koraks]

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

It can also result in the conclusion after years of trying different options that it's sometimes worthwhile to shell out the cash for the premium-priced product. Which in my personal case was true for HP5+. I started at the bottom of the price range and worked my way up to the point of satisfaction, which for 400-speed film appears to be HP5+. YMMV and all that, and that's not to say that other factors (I know what you mean) don't play a role - as they used to say in IT: "a fool with a tool is still a fool". Yet, a craftsman, even one at amateur level, can have a distinct preference for a certain kind of tool and be more or less satisfied with their work depending on what the tool allows them to do with it.

 

[albireo]

It can also result in the conclusion after years of trying different options that it's sometimes worthwhile to shell out the cash for the premium-priced product.

In general I wholeheartedly agree! But I think the key here is that, based on measured performance, this budget product is a distinctly good one. Quality control, for instance, is excellent and every bit as good as the premium priced option.

I think it depends on usage. I don't really push film much. I made some experiments last winter pushing HP5+ and Kentmere 400 in Microphen and HP5+ had the clear edge here. So if that's an application of interest to op, the more expensive product is entirely justified.

General purpose photography... I don't know. I see very little that is "budget" level in Kentmere 400.

 

[albireo]

Kentmere 400 is a lower priced film aimed at photography students on a tight budget

There are much better photographers than you and me out there using Kentmere 400 or Foma exclusively.

You would absolutely not know they were using Kentmere rather than HP5 when marvelling at their prints exhibited in a gallery.

 

[koraks]

Yeah, Kentmere 400 is perfectly fine film, I agree. Btw, I don't push HP5+ much either; I just find the performance of both films on box speed to be better for HP5+. The difference is much slighter than between K400 and Fomapan, for instance.

 

[Ian Grant]

There are much better photographers than you and me out there using Kentmere 400 or Foma exclusively.

You would absolutely not know they were using Kentmere rather than HP5 when marvelling at their prints exhibited in a gallery.

It's actually what Ilford have said. The Kentmere films are budget products and lack some of the refinements of the Ilford branded films, that doesn't make them bad films. Sure, you might see little difference in results with small enlargements or scans, but when you make larger images you will see a difference.

Ian

 

[albireo]

It's actually what Ilford have said. The Kentmere films are budget products and lack some of the refinements of the Ilford branded films, that doesn't make them bad films. Sure, you might see little difference in results with small enlargements or scans, but when you make larger images you will see a difference.

Ian

I wonder if Ilford's marketing would strongly emphasize those differences to avoid product cannibalisation.

 

[Ian Grant]

I wonder if Ilford's marketing would strongly emphasize those differences to avoid product cannibalisation.

Well, Ilford also make Ilford Pan 100 & 400 in 35mm, however these films are sold instead of FP4 & HP5 in some sectors of the market like sub-Saharan Africa. These emulsions are simpler and more robust in terms of storage.

The Kentmere films are cheaper to manufacture because they lack some of the trace chemicals added to the Ilford films, these help increase sharpness, finer grain, an exposure latitude and also push processing.

In terms of "Cannibalisation" as you put it, the market for 35mm films is large enough for Ilford to offer both Delta and traditional emulsions, as well as the two budget Kentmere films. The 120 market has grown back in recent years, making it feasible for Ilford to introduce 120 Kentmere films.

In comparison with large format where a tripod is almost always used, slower films are the norm, although Ilford initially sold Delta 400 as sheet film this impacted their sales of HP5 making it less profitable, so Delta 400 sheet film was dropped. I had been shooting LF for around 30 years before I need a faster film, and that was so I could work hand held.

Ian

 

[koraks]

I wonder if Ilford's marketing would strongly emphasize those differences to avoid product cannibalisation.

I would assume this does play a role. Market segmentation will be a very relevant consideration for them. The last thing they'd want to put out there is something along the lines of "really, these films are so similar as to be virtually interchangeable" - which I believe they're not, but even if they were, Harman would be the last to admit it!

 

[Prest_400]

Come to think of it, the current films are much better (technically) than what was out decades ago. I think most of the product improvement process for B&W stopped in the 90s, the revision of FP4/HP5 plus happened in 1989-90. The latest in the 2000s would be Ilford and TMax (2007-8). It might be interesting to see the contemporary literature about those improvements.

I have shot the whole 100-400 Ilford Harman Lineup in 35mm. K400 appears a bit low contrast but I need to test a lot more, and got a brick of it in 400 as well. A bit extra halation or grain is welcome by many photographers nowadays.

Another perspective that is relevant about the use of cheaper film is that it can allow for more loose shooting, more shots taken can lead to having more end prints. In my part of EU the Kentmeres increased in price quite a bit, together with the inflation. Unfortunate as the 5-6€ pricepoint was nice to have!

 

[Ian Grant]

I began taking photographs seriously at school in 1968, although I had done some processing and printing 2 or 3 years earlier. So that coincides with the release of FP4 & HP4, however I used more FP3 & HP3, I could buy ex Government stock - a 100ft (30m) roll for 40/- (£2) so roughly 20 rolls at 10p each.

The major difference between FP3 &HP3 and FP4 & HP4 was emulsion hardening, the older emulsions would reticulate with poor temperature control, Kodak's films were similar. In terms of grain sharpness etc, the changes were slight. HP4 was a lack lustre film that no-one liked.

FP3 & HP3 were improved a few times from their WWII release. It would be interesting to see how different early FP4 is to the current version, HP5 was a much newer emulsion anyway. I think the changes would be subtle. When I bought my first LF camera in 1977 it came with a box of 5x4 FP4 plates, the store though in a box of HP5, so I have my first LF test shots still to compare to today's HP5, it's too large a format to see a difference, But I still prefer Delta 400 or Tmax 400 to HP5 for 120, I rarely shoot 35mm.

Ian

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I began taking photographs seriously at school in 1968, although I had done some processing and printing 2 or 3 years earlier. So that coincides with the release of FP4 & HP4, however I used more FP3 & HP3, I could buy ex Government stock - a 100ft (30m) roll for 40/- (£2) so roughly 20 rolls at 10p each.

The major difference between FP3 &HP3 and FP4 & HP4 was emulsion hardening, the older emulsions would reticulate with poor temperature control, Kodak's films were similar. In terms of grain sharpness etc, the changes were slight. HP4 was a lack lustre film that no-one liked.

FP3 & HP3 were improved a few times from their WWII release. It would be interesting to see how different early FP4 is to the current version, HP5 was a much newer emulsion anyway. I think the changes would be subtle. When I bought my first LF camera in 1977 it came with a box of 5x4 FP4 plates, the store though in a box of HP5, so I have my first LF test shots still to compare to today's HP5, it's too large a format to see a difference, But I still prefer Delta 400 or Tmax 400 to HP5 for 120, I rarely shoot 35mm.

Ian

I am perhaps one of the very few on this site who has used FP3 and HP4, and experienced the improvements that came along later. FP4 was a modest improvement over FP3, and it was improved again around 1977. HP4 was pretty sad stuff. HP5 was a huge improvement, but I have no real opinion on the improvements that the "Plus" brought to the film, as I did not do a comparison at the time. I can tell you that FP4 was better than Plus-X ca 1969.

 

[agentlossing]

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

Kentmere 400 is just not good with Rodinal, whereas I like HP5 with Rodinal. I started using TMAX developer with K400 and I like it considerably better. It's a good film if you develop it in a developer that likes it. I also see great results from HC110-type developers. Haven't pushed it much yet though. HP5 is incredibly resilient to different exposure values, that's one of the things I appreciate most about it. Foma 400 is an especially grainy and contrasty stock, so I've never dared to push it.

 

[Agulliver]

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

Yup...not everyone is shooting 120 in Rolleiflexes and so on.

Even an old Zeiss-Ikon folder, which can shoot fantastic quality images, is just as happy with Kentmere as with HP5 in most instances.

Fomapan 400 can be very nice in MF, I'm less happy with it in 35mm but still shoot it form time to time.

 

[Sanug]

If you have a 120 film camera with red window, you may encounter difficulties reading the numbers both with Ilford and Kentmere films. Harman prints the image numbers on the backing paper very thin to avoid any reaction between the ink and the emulsion.

Foma prints the numbers fat and in deep black. For cameras with the red window I recommend Foma. With the Harman films you may need a flashlight and a magnifying glass.

 

[retina_restoration]

Kentmere 100 rated at 50 ASA, developed in D-76 1:1 for 11.5 min.
Camera used: Kodak Special Six-20 with the Anastigmat Special (tessar) lens.
Respectable results, IMO.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52557920981_76098befbb_4k.jpg

Kentmere 400 rated at 250 ASA, developed in PMK
Camera: Zeiss Super Ikonta w/Tessar f3.5 lens

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53356336032_9794442d34_3k.jpg

 

[Sanug]

Kentmere 400 rated 800 ASA, Adox XT-3, 1+1, 16 Min.. Rollei 35 T, scan from the print on Fotoimpex Easy Print RC.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I've used Kentmere 400 a lot in the past for 35mm, along with HP5+, Delta 400 and Arista EDU.

IMHO Kentmere is better than Arista EDU but a little inferior to HP5 in terms of image quality and contrast but, again IMHO, not a bad film at all.

In fact I ran thru a 100ft of Kentmere 400 and really enjoyed the film.

Would really recommend it for casual shooting, when you are after keeping memories and having fun. Use HP5+/Delta 400 for well planned scenes and trips.

 

[takilmaboxer]

I just finished test rolls of Kentmere 100 and 400 in 120. I liked them both. The box speed is realistic, unlike Foma, and the grain is finer. They are only slightly inferior to HP5/FP4, and for the price, they are great.
I will say, that Foma 100 has a look all its own, despite the grain.

 

[mark_s90]

Its up to you, the real question is that if you are trying to save money, why not bulk load? You save money that way. 100' roll of kentmere is roughly 40% LESS then a bulk roll of HP5.

But as others have said, kentmere does alright, but for some reason it does better in some developers. Also are you scanning the negatives, or directly printing?

 

[xkaes]

Its up to you, the real question is that if you are trying to save money, why not bulk load? You save money that way. 100' roll of kentmere is roughly 40% LESS then a bulk roll of HP5.

This all makes me want to dive into my 100' roll of Kentmere 400. Step one will be tests of a grey card using a Pen F and normal lens -- lots of exposures on a small strip of film.

Still too busy right now -- DAMN IT!!!!!