The Kentmere production lines acquired by Harman had to be closed down shortly after the acquisition, due to a host of problems with condition, incredibly outdated materials and machinery, and serious breaches of environmental impact regulations.
Harman moved all production of the lines they continued to market to the same production line as the Ilford branded products.
The "recipes" were modernized in order to work appropriately on the Harman equipment, with materials used by Harman.
The Kentmere films are less expensive for Harman to make - some of the biggest savings come from having less robust anti-halation measures built in.
The Kentmere papers may also be less expensive to make - certainly the line is much more limited.
There was one product that could not be continued, despite the desire to do so - Kentmere's wonderful POP product. It was dependent on equipment and materials that couldn't be modernized.
Basically, Harman got the Kentmere brand, and along with it additional entry into a market - educational users mainly - that benefited them.
Kentmere was one of many UK companies who only made paper, they never made film.
It's quite probably made on the newer 'rapid mixing' emulsion plant that's used for the Delta films and the paper emulsions - and has all the really expensive addenda that improve ultimate granularity, sharpness, anti-halation, reciprocity etc either eliminated or reduced - and coated at a silver/ m2 level that'll support normal contrast usage rather than extensive pushes etc. However it seems to be otherwise made to the same quality standards as all the rest of Harman's products, and with the same benefits of scale - so is therefore very cost effective if you aren't needing more finite performance or the ultimate speed/ grain/ sharpness relationship.
So the cost saving would mostly be in the lower silver halide load compared to the Ilford-brand films?
The Kentmere films are less expensive for Harman to make - some of the biggest savings come from having less robust anti-halation measures built in.
The cynical in me believes that Kentmere films are less expensive, because they had to cover a specific, price sensitive market segment and don't actually cost that much more to manufacture. But then I might be weird, who knows...
I mean these considerations go hand in hand, no? If they want to place these films in the market at a lower price point, they probably need to cut production cost, and they need to maintain qualitative differentiation from the more expensive films. And that in return means they can cut production costs, which a market actor of course will do, if given the opportunity.
The cynical in me believes that Kentmere films are less expensive, because they had to cover a specific, price sensitive market segment and don't actually cost that much more to manufacture. But then I might be weird, who knows...
That also extends to Kodak (OT) but whose examples are much more notable comparing Kodacolor VR/Plus, Gold/Ultramax and Portra. Different product tiers and the "older technology" covers the lower part of the market. There must be some manufacturing correlation between the cost-technology of newer higher performance emulsions.It's only part of the story - we don't really know what other components (e.g. very expensive custom organics) are incorporated to enhance HP5+ and Delta 400's performance at precipitation, emulsion finishing and coating - and some will probably help with making the non-Kentmere products more 'pushable' and allow the higher silver coverage to be sensitised and used efficiently. We also don't know what the profit margin on K400 is compared to HP5+ et al - it may in fact be higher - but we also know that the core/ canister/ packaging is the single most expensive part of a roll of 135, so some reasonable suppositions can be inferred, especially as they all go through the same packaging line.
The same films are being sold as OEM products at transfer prices even lower than what Harman charges for the Kentmere range, creating competition. It doesn’t make much sense to me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?