Kentmere 400....what exactly is it?

[miha]

Are they? I had a quick look and couldn't find any. Care to elaborate?

Sorry, you had a quick look at what?

 

[Anon Ymous]

Sorry, you had a quick look at what?

Films that are (at least supposedly) rebranded Kentmere 100/400, but they're more expensive at Maco amd Fotoimpex. I'm talking about RPX100/400 and the new APX100/400.

 

[miha]

I understand. What I meant to say is that while Harman produces the same film for other companies, such as APX and RPX, they have to sell it at a lower price to ensure these companies can make a profit. As a result, I believe the production costs are likely lower compared to their premium brands like HP5 and Delta.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

I understand. What I meant to say is that while Harman produces the same film for other companies, such as APX and RPX, they have to sell it at a lower price to ensure these companies can make a profit. As a result, I believe the production costs are likely lower compared to their premium brands like HP5 and Delta.

Yeah, they cut corners on some areas for Kentmere. The one I know about is the anti halation layer, which is cheaper than say HP5+/FP4+ Still a great film though.

 

[albireo]

Unless I'm taking pictures of metal handrails in the line of reflection of the sun, or street lights at night or so, the anti-halation of the Kentmere products is really fine and I haven't found any difference wrt the anti halation of HP5+ for normal scenes, including backlit scenes or scenes with strong sun. It's really the point light sources that will make a difference.

If the anti halation of HP5+ in 120 is a 10, Kentmere 400 is a solid 8. Foma 400 in 120 is a 7. Foma Ortho 400 in 120 is a 2.

 

[Paul Howell]

I live in the American Southwest, the low desert. Here there is lots of very bright lights and haze. An anti halation layer is helpful. I switched from what I think is rebranded Harman 400 to Foma for that reason. I still shoot Harman 400 in my point shoot that default to ISO 50 without a DX code.

 

[Henning Serger]

I've used many B&W films in the last 47 years or so.

I came across a chap elsewhere who was utterly convinced that Kentmere 400 is effectively the same as Ilford HP4 from the 1970s. Having used HP4 when I first started photography, and HP5 and then HP5+ I don't think that Kentmere bears any real resemblance to HP4. What think the population of Photrio?

You're right. The Kentmere films have no relation to former, long discontinued Ilford films.
Kentmere 100 and 400 have been new developments.
During our factory visit in Mobberley Simon Galley explained that the R&D target and main target markets have been educational applications (basic film photography courses in schools, universities etc.), beginners outside such educational programmes and very budget restricted photographers.
For these target groups the Kentmere films had to be offered significantly cheaper. Therefore production costs had to be reduced, and the following compromises in performance had to be made:
- coarser grain
- a bit lower resolution
- less effective anti-halation
- less flexibility concerning pushing
- higher batch-to-batch tolerances
in comparison to FP4+ and HP5+.

And an additional benefit of the Kentmere 100 and 400 development has been that Harman technology can offer two films to certain high-volume B2B customers for their own label films.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[xkaes]

This makes it sound perfect for lots of purposes -- other than those listed. I've got a 100 foot roll of Kentmere 400 sitting in my freezer that I hope to start testing soon.

 

[albireo]

During our factory visit in Mobberley Simon Galley explained that the R&D target and main target markets have been educational applications (basic film photography courses in schools, universities etc.), beginners outside such educational programmes and very budget restricted photographers.
For these target groups the Kentmere films had to be offered significantly cheaper.

That's really quite harsh on these products. There is nothing of "educational" level at all in these films.

In fact, my working hypothesis is that many people posting in here, for example (and I include me and you) wouldn't be able to tell Kentmere 400 apart from HP5+ and Kentmere 100 apart from FP4+ in a properly designed ABX blind test.

My suspicion is that Simon Galley explained you that in an effort to protect the brand label.

 

[MattKing]

That's really quite harsh on these products. There is nothing of "educational" level at all in these films.

In fact, any people posting in here, for example, wouldn't be able to tell Kentmere 400 apart from HP5+ and Kentmere 100 apart from FP4+ in a properly designed ABX+ blind test.

My suspicion is that Simon Galley explained you that in an effort to protect the brand label.

As a significant percentage of the cost involved in getting a roll of film into the hands of the consumer relates to:
a) the capital needed to be applied to manufacture the film; and
b) things that are done after the film is coated,
it is quite likely that the "educational" part of that description relates to:
c) economizing and streamlining where possible the manufacture of the film, and
d) streamlining and economizing the confectioning, packaging, marketing and distribution of the film.
The economies and streamlining involved don't need to result in a sub-standard product.
More exacting users enjoy some small but useful advantages when they choose HP5+ and FP4+, while users on a budget get reliable high quality results from the lower cost alternatives.

 

[250swb]

You're right. The Kentmere films have no relation to former, long discontinued Ilford films.
Kentmere 100 and 400 have been new developments.
During our factory visit in Mobberley Simon Galley explained that the R&D target and main target markets have been educational applications (basic film photography courses in schools, universities etc.), beginners outside such educational programmes and very budget restricted photographers.
For these target groups the Kentmere films had to be offered significantly cheaper. Therefore production costs had to be reduced, and the following compromises in performance had to be made:
- coarser grain
- a bit lower resolution
- less effective anti-halation
- less flexibility concerning pushing
- higher batch-to-batch tolerances
in comparison to FP4+ and HP5+.

And an additional benefit of the Kentmere 100 and 400 development has been that Harman technology can offer two films to certain high-volume B2B customers for their own label films.

Best regards,
Henning

We could have been on the same factory tour, if it wasn't I was on a very similar tour and I agree that is exactly what Ilford said about Kentmere film. They also explained how to quickly open a roll of 120 Ilford film which I still haven't mastered.

 

[albireo]

More exacting users enjoy some small but useful advantages when they choose HP5+ and FP4+, while users on a budget get reliable high quality results from the lower cost alternatives.

Reads like a line from the second page of the marketing leaflet for HP5+!

But it worked for me. I'm sold. I will invest my very limited 2025-2027 film budget on 2 rolls of HP5+ instead of 3 of Kentmere 400 and enjoy the 0,34545% improvement in my photography.

Other people can keep getting educational results from Kentmere - me, I'm much smarter than that.

 

[Agulliver]

If I were running a film photography course, which I am not but it was briefly discussed earlier this year.....I'd be looking at Kentmere 400 bulk rolls because the price break over just about everything else might well make funding the course possible in the first place. The only other budget option would be Fomapan 400 which is a decent film but less forgiving for newbies.

Anyway the chap on a forum "elsewhere" seems to have blocked me, so angry was he with my rebuttal of his absolute certainty that Kentmere 400 was Ilford HP4 a la 1970s.

 

[koraks]

More exacting users enjoy some small but useful advantages when they choose HP5+ and FP4+

Reads like a line from the second page of the marketing leaflet for HP5+!

Yes, it does. At the same time, having used Rollei RPX5400 (=Kentmere 400) as well as HP5+, I still decided to upgrade to the latter definitively despite the significantly higher cost. I find the better linearity especially in the toe region (effectively higher speed), better halation behavior of HP5+ and finer grain worth the premium. That's a personal preference of course, and I also admit that the differences are slight and would likely be unnoticed by many. For completeness' sake, I'm referring to the 35mm product. I don't shoot much 120.

 

[albireo]

For completeness' sake, I'm referring to the 35mm product. I don't shoot much 120.

An important point. I find that - at least in my experience - differences across films, developers and process decisions are magnified as we move down towards smaller formats.

E.g. I'm often very, very happy - at the sizes I print or view my images on the screen - with HP5+ in Rodinal 1:50 in 6x6 or above, but I'd reserve the same combo in 35mm for more specialty applications.

Similarly, I've seen 10x8 contact prints from Foma 200 that blew contact prints at the same exhibition taken with 'premium' film out of the water, which to me suggests that as we go up in format, expertise, technical capability and artistic vision trump choice of consumables in general.

 

[koraks]

differences across films, developers and process decisions are magnified as we move down towards smaller formats.

With anti-halation, this is particularly pertinent as the anti-halation measures on 35mm vs. larger formats are fundamentally different. E.g. Foma films have no antihalation to speak of in 35mm, but perform quite well in larger formats.

I've seen 10x8 contact prints from Foma 200 that blew out of the water contact prints at the same exhibitions taken with 'premium' material

Very plausible, indeed.

 

[Agulliver]

Whether you find Kentmere 400 just as suitable to your needs as HP5+ depends on those needs. I'd bet that taking portraits with relatively even lighting would look great on both. Whereas pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600 and beyond in an indoor setting with some bright spots would cause problems with halation and with the fact that the Kentmere just doesn't push as nicely as Ilford. You'd still get photos, perhaps even very good photos, but the difference would be clear between the Kentmere and Ilford films.

There's nothing wrong with Kentmere at all. It's just that Ilford is that little bit better. In some conditions that won't matter. In some, it will. None of that makes Kentmere a poor product or a bad choice if you prefer it or if you're trying to save money.

 

[Henning Serger]

That's really quite harsh on these products.

No, not at all.
It is just an objective and precise description of the characteristics of the two Kentmere films by the manufacturer itself.
And I can completely confirm this description by my own numerous very detailed tests in my photography test lab, and by my use of these films in my personal photography.

There is nothing of "educational" level at all in these films.

Looks like you consider the educational purpose or market as something a bit inferior. I do not. And the manufacturers also don't.
I offer workshops in BW film photography and film developing for many years.
And I am thankful for reliable products with a solid performance and a very good price-performance ratio. And both Kentmere films fulfill exactly this criteria.
And this educational market is really very very important for Harman technology and Foma. Because much more than a million films p.a. are used in that market globally. Therefore it was essential for Harman technology to serve that market in a better way by introducing these two films. And as explained above, that is a very important target market for the Kentmere films, but of course not the only target market.

In fact, my working hypothesis is that many people posting in here, for example (and I include me and you) wouldn't be able to tell Kentmere 400 apart from HP5+ and Kentmere 100 apart from FP4+ in a properly designed ABX blind test.

I am doing blind tests quite regularly. And for me I can say that I know K100 / K400 / FP4+ / HP5+ so well that in most cases I can identify them. Especially when prints from 35mm are done in sizes of 18x24 centimeter and upwards. And when the scenes include reflective and shiny objects (blank metal, glass etc.) an light sources.

My suspicion is that Simon Galley explained you that in an effort to protect the brand label.

Nope. Quite the opposite: Simon and the engineers have been really a bit proud that the development of the Kentmere films was so successful and the product so good in relation to the price. And that assesment was confirmed by those in our group, including me, who have used and tested the films.
The Kentmere films are good, solid performers with a very good price-performance ratio.
FP4+, HP5+ (and of course even more so Delta 100 and 400) are technically visibly better, but also more expensive. You get what you pay for.
Whether you need that better performance is just up to you and your preferences. Or your needs for certain applications.
I am very thankful that I have all the options, and can choose the right tool for my job, depending on the job. Harman technology is offering an amazing variety of different films with different characteristics. I highly appreciate that.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[xkaes]

What some consider "crap" films are loved by others. Lomography film sales is evidence of this. Any film has its use because every film has its differences. I love my Kodak 2475 as much as my Agfapan 25.

 

[rippa_the_hutt]

Films that are (at least supposedly) rebranded Kentmere 100/400, but they're more expensive at Maco amd Fotoimpex. I'm talking about RPX100/400 and the new APX100/400.

Talking about 135 format:
I am fairly positive that RPX100/400 and Kentmere 100/400 aren't exactly the same.
I mean, the emulsion looks remarkably similar and, personally, I wouldn't be able to tell 'em apart, if subject to test. I personally also like them both a lot and had shot some of my personal favourites on them (attached photo, sorry for the very crude pic of this print, I have a proper scan on another computer).

But the base is radically different: Kentmere's triacetate is nice and firm, and the anti-curl treatment is quite effective.
The Rollei RPXs', on the other hand, feel very thin and tend to curl up a tad bit more (with equal drying procedure). I personally dislike handling the Rolleis, and haven't verified (for lack of proper equipment) whether the 0.005mm difference in thickness reported in the datasheets hides a larger physical difference.

 

[Anon Ymous]

Talking about 135 format:
I am fairly positive that RPX100/400 and Kentmere 100/400 aren't exactly the same.

I personally don't have an opinion on this, I haven't done a side by side comparison.