The authoritative answer on Kentmere 400 vs HP5 please!

[Camerarabbit]

There’s so many conflicting opinions and facts out there that I’d like to cut through all the noise and hear from this community

What are the major (or minor) differences between Kentmere 400 and HP5?

I’ve shot with both and think I see the difference when a human face is involved - Hp5 glows a bit more, but for loud city streets Kentmere seems to do the trick

I’ve read that Kentmere scratches easier.

I'm wondering if the $25 extra for a 100 ft roll is worth it...

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Not a direct comparison, but here's what I'd consider a very thorough video from a source I trust comparing HP5+ to Tri-X


And another comparing Kentmere 400 to Tri-X



There again, although not a 1:1 comparison, he goes to pretty great lengths to "standardize" each film to Tri-X, and given that he uses essentially the same test scene for all(self portrait holding a Kodak color chart) you have some idea of skin tones and other color rendition(he has 40-something films I think in this series, so IMO it's a good one-stop source for seeing the character of at least about every B&W film that was available in ~2022)

 

[xkaes]

This is a popular topic of late. I recently ended up with a 100' roll of Kentmere, so I'm interested too. Each seems to have its purposes. I haven't used any of mine yet:

Kentmere 400....what exactly is it?

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...

www.photrio.com

Hp5+ and Kentmere 400

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?

www.photrio.com

 

[runswithsizzers]

There’s so many conflicting opinions and facts out there that I’d like to cut through all the noise and hear from this community

Good luck with that!

Most questions I have submitted to this community have resulted in a considerable amount of noise and conflicting opinions. It may be that I did get one or two authoritative answers, but it was hard to identify those among all the noise.

I think one reason there are so many conflicting opinions is because everyone exposes different, develops different, and likes different results. If two opinions conflict with each other, it doesn't necessarily mean one is right and the other is wrong. Opinions are not facts. When it comes to opinions, there is no authoritative answer.

And if it's facts you are loking for, then I suggest trying to ask your questions more precisely. When you say "Hp5 glows" and Kentmere "does the trick" for "loud city streets," I don't know what that means. Perhaps you could show some examples?

 

[loccdor]

From what I've pieced together over the last 15 years, HP5+ has more silver and more dynamic range than Kentmere 400. However, Kentmere 400 is a more technically capable film than most of the other 400 speed budget options. HP5 and its predecessors has a long history that you can read about, in books like the Ilford Manual of Photography. Most of these high sensitivity films started around 200 speed in the late 50s or 60s and were gradually sensitized to 400.

So, you'll want to be a little more accurate with exposure if you go for the Kentmere route, and it won't push quite as well. But it's still a decent film. And you can push it to 800 with usable results.

I'd argue that your choice of 400 speed film shouldn't really be that technical. You should look at hundreds of pictures taken on each stock and see which speaks to you and works for your style. This can be accomplished through searches through flickr groups and tags.

And then you need to put it through the paces with your specific workflow.

 

[summicron1]

There is no one answer. This is a very subjective thing. The best thing to do is shoot one for 6 months and see how you like it. Then shoot the other for 6 months.

Ponder the results. Which results do you like best? There's your answer.

 

[BradS]

Except for the fact that they are both Ilford products and both have a box speed of 400, the two are totally different.
As @summicron1 says above, its totally up to you. Totally subjective. Choose one or the other or both and go with it.

 

[AnselMortensen]

HP5+ has just a bit more "Je Ne Sais Quoi"(tm) than Kentmere....

Hence the "+"

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

Could the claimed “night glow” of Kentmere be related to internet claims of them having a weaker AH layer than its closest Ilford counterparts?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Could the claimed “night glow” of Kentmere be related to internet claims of them having a weaker AH layer than its closest Ilford counterparts?

35mm films don't have an AH layer (except Panatomic-X after 1965). They have a grey base, which absorbs light each way.

 

[MattKing]

35mm films don't have an AH layer (except Panatomic-X after 1965). They have a grey base, which absorbs light each way.

They also incorporate other anti-halation tools - besides that base.
The layer diagrams I have only deal with the colour negative films - and Kodak ones at that - but those show AH layer between the bottom light sensitive emulsion layers and the subbing layer that sits directly on the base.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

They also incorporate other anti-halation tools - besides that base.
The layer diagrams I have only deal with the colour negative films - and Kodak ones at that - but those show AH layer between the bottom light sensitive emulsion layers and the subbing layer that sits directly on the base.

Aside from that, those of us who pre-rinse film know that the rinse often pours out intensely colored. The color of course varies with both manufacturer and film type, but is often purple, blue, green, or really any other color of the rainbow.

These are often cited as being anti-halation dyes.

Of course I realize this is the B&W section, but Kodak color cinema films use Remjet AH backing, as did Kodachrome.

 

[dkirby]

In my experience K400 is the less technically perfect but not the artistically inferior film. Most have already been mentioned but the differences I've noticed are: K400 is grainier and has less dynamic range. It also creates more of a bloom around highlights. I do also seem to notice that K400's negatives scratch easier, which is frankly my biggest knock against it.

I do want to rebut what someone said above - I find that K400 can be pushed to 1600 with very high quality results. Here's an example:


When I first started with K400 I did not like it at all. Now I shoot it by the 100' roll. It's incredibly versatile.

Getting back to your original question - the price difference I see at B&H is more like $45 per 100 feet. While HP5 is great, I don't think it's worth that difference in price. Kentmere is the better bang for your buck.

 

[koraks]

I think one reason there are so many conflicting opinions is because everyone exposes different, develops different, and likes different results. If two opinions conflict with each other, it doesn't necessarily mean one is right and the other is wrong. Opinions are not facts. When it comes to opinions, there is no authoritative answer.

This is indeed part of the problem.

The other main issue is that nobody so far has bothered to operationalize film performance in objective terms and then did a proper side-by-side comparison. The following could (should) be done:
1: Proper sensitometry resulting in a HD curve for both films
2: Spectral sensitivity plot
3: High-magnification comparisons at various film densities to assess differences in grain structure
This would result in a definitive answer as to the differences between the films. They could then be fleshed out further, if desired, by doing some additional variations for different developers, which would show some subtle differences in (1) and (3).

There's actually someone who has done this kind of testing (I'm pretty sure for these particular products as well), and it's @Henning Serger. Maybe next time he drops by, he can comment on this.

The rest will indeed remain subjective opinions with the added obfuscation factor of uncontrolled variations in evaluation methods and criteria. Which, for the most part is just fine, although it's unfortunate that these experiences are packaged too often in incorrect quasi-technical terms, and/or poetic qualifications that have an unclear basis in factual film characteristics. The cynic in me can't avoid but concluding that such qualifications say more about how somebody felt about the images they shot one day, than being in any way descriptive of the film as such.

 

[retina_restoration]

At this time, nobody but Ilford/Harman can offer “definitive” comparisons of the two films. What we as users can offer you is personal experience and opinion.

I first did A/B comparisons between Delta 400 and Kemtmere 400 not long after it first became available (yes, I know you’re asking about HP5+, not Delta, but read on) and I was surprised just how little difference there was between them, in terms of how the finished images looked.
Take a look at my example comparison images here, and here, with a close crop on grain here.
Delta has slightly finer grain, a bit better dynamic range, is a bit more contrasty, and tends to give better high value separation as negative density reaches maximum. I think the differences between K400 and HP5+ are even less conspicuous.

If I found myself in a position where Kentmere 400 was my only choice, I could live with it and not feel too deprived. You just need to learn how to expose/develop it to get the best out of it, much like any film.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I have used Kentmere 100 as my go-to film for testing new/used cameras and cameras that I have just repaired. I haven't really rung out a personal EI, exposure or devloper time since I only use it for testing. I do use a pre-rinse nearly 100% of the time and with Kentmere the pour-off from the pre-rinse is pretty much clear. I'm not sure, but to me that might just indicate and very weak AH layer. I don't remember for sure since I haven't used much 400, but I seem to remember the same with it.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

The other main issue is that nobody so far has bothered to operationalize film performance in objective terms and then did a proper side-by-side comparison. The following could (should) be done:
1: Proper sensitometry resulting in a HD curve for both films
2: Spectral sensitivity plot
3: High-magnification comparisons at various film densities to assess differences in grain structure
This would result in a definitive answer as to the differences between the films. They could then be fleshed out further, if desired, by doing some additional variations for different developers, which would show some subtle differences in (1) and (3).

The videos I linked in post #2 provide sensitometry data for films and do show grain magnification on a large print. There is no formal spectral response plotting, but the Kodak color check card in each example photo does give some reference(and he spends some time analyzing spectral response of the films under comparison based on this).

Since that whole series was designed to be a test of 49 different films, he standardized it on developing in D76 for the manufacturer recommended time, but at least it's something consistent.

I know there's room for a LOT more data on the respective films but at least it's something to go on.

 

[Milpool]

At this time, nobody but Ilford/Harman can offer “definitive” comparisons of the two films. What we as users can offer you is personal experience and opinion.

…and even Harman’s information can be problematic because unless it’s thoroughly explained it can just lead to more opinions or worsen the confusion.

For example in one of its documents Harman indicates the Kentmere films have less silver than the Ilford Plus films and stops there. That sort of statement on its own can lead to a lot of nonsense.

 

[retina_restoration]

…and even Harman’s information can be problematic because unless it’s thoroughly explained it can just lead to more opinions or worsen the confusion.

For example in one of its documents Harman indicates the Kentmere films have less silver than the Ilford Plus films and stops there. That sort of statement on its own can lead to a lot of nonsense.

Which is why I put "definitive" in quotes. I think most of the people reading this discussion have the sense to put the loose and relatively meaningless data Harman released (specifically regarding silver content and what that may mean) into context. Perhaps disregarding it entirely would be more useful.

 

[dkirby]

I'm not sure "definitive" technical comparisons are useful to begin with, though. Photography is about art and feel, not about finding the more technically superior film. For example K400's "lesser" anti-halation abilities are one of the things I like best about it.

It's far more useful to look at examples taken on each film to see whether you connect with the result, instead of worrying about precise silver content. One can consider characteristics, sure, that appear in the end photograph, but I don't think sensitometry data for example is particularly relevant...

Meaning, anecdotal user experience is probably a more helpful answer to his question than anything technical that Harman could provide.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm not sure "definitive" technical comparisons are useful to begin with, though. Photography is about art and feel, not about finding the more technically superior film. For example K400's "lesser" anti-halation abilities are one of the things I like best about it.

It's far more useful to look at examples taken on each film to see whether you connect with the result, instead of worrying about precise silver content. One can consider characteristics, sure, that appear in the end photograph, but I don't think sensitometry data for example is particularly relevant...

Meaning, anecdotal user experience is probably a more helpful answer to his question than anything technical that Harman could provide.

Absolutely. It is always more important to find out for yourself if a particular film suits your needs. A film’s technical specifications on paper lose their significance once you’ve had the opportunity to test it and evaluate its suitability for your objectives.
As I suggested, look at the examples I provided and decide for yourself if the two films compared are significantly different.

Note: I have not noticed any difference in the "scratchability" of the Kentmere films VS HP5 or any other film. I only use non-hardening alkaline rapid fixers.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Several posts have recommended looking at examples...
I have posted my results from 6 rolls of Ilford HP5+ and from 4 rolls of Kentmere 400 here: https://garywright.smugmug.com/Photography

These are not side-by-side comparisons. In the caption for each roll, I have provided details about what developer I used, usually D-76 or Xtol/EcoPro. Also be aware, as a mostly hybrid shooter with limited and rare access to a darkroom, I do my digital post processing to taste, with no attempt to standardize that part of the process. So any differences you see are more likely due to what happened in LIghtroom than what happened at Ilford or Harman. I do usually show my negatives, if that is of any help. Caveat emptor.

So far, the OP has not said what they plan to do with the negatives -- if a hybrid workflow, then I believe my examples may be of interest, but if a darkroom printer, maybe not. I have made a fair number of prints from the 120 negatives while I was taking a medium format photography class, but I have not printed hardly any of the 135 negatives.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

In my experience K400 is the less technically perfect but not the artistically inferior film. Most have already been mentioned but the differences I've noticed are: K400 is grainier and has less dynamic range. It also creates more of a bloom around highlights. I do also seem to notice that K400's negatives scratch easier, which is frankly my biggest knock against it.

I do want to rebut what someone said above - I find that K400 can be pushed to 1600 with very high quality results. Here's an example:


When I first started with K400 I did not like it at all. Now I shoot it by the 100' roll. It's incredibly versatile.

Getting back to your original question - the price difference I see at B&H is more like $45 per 100 feet. While HP5 is great, I don't think it's worth that difference in price. Kentmere is the better bang for your buck.

seem to notice that K400's negatives scratch easier....

Would using a hardening fixer help?,

 

[Sanug]

seem to notice that K400's negatives scratch easier....

I did not have any issues with scratches. Not with Kentmere and not with any other film except Foma.

And I do wiping the negatives when I hang them for drying. I wipe with a wet natural leather cloth for window cleaning. No scatches, never.

 

[Lachlan Young]

High-magnification comparisons at various film densities to assess differences in grain structure

Having been through several dozen rolls of K400 in 135 & 120, the differences are visually significant compared to HP5+ - but for an awful lot of people it is more than good enough (and definitely more so than Fomapan 400 for example).

In short, K400 has less information transmission capacity than HP5+ (this means the effect of sharpness, granularity, latitude/ highlight density management etc - all of which affect usable resolution, rather than whatever hypothetical a given contrast of resolution test chart might deliver) - but compared to many 'classic' materials that people spend thousands of words of eulogistic and often completely synthetic folk-memory on, it is plenty competitive. In fact, resolution alone is an incredibly poor measure of film performance for the sort of photography that K400 and HP5+ are used for - granularity, low frequency MTF response and highlight retention/ management are far more important to how we perceive a given material, rather than zero-sum games over whether it might resolve 75 or 85 lp/mm (which in many cases owe as much to the MTF that a given test was read out at). In terms of maximum usable image capacity, I'd tend to say that Delta 3200 and K400 share relatively similar high frequency capacity (but not low frequency) - i.e. at 12x you'll really see useful resolution (if using lenses capable of performing at this level) start to peter out in prints, where HP5+ still retains resolvable detail.

For example in one of its documents Harman indicates the Kentmere films have less silver than the Ilford Plus films and stops there. That sort of statement on its own can lead to a lot of nonsense.

The other complexity is that Harman and Kodak tend to use different definitions of aim CI/ average gradient for pushes - what Ilford define as the average gradient for EI800, Kodak tend to specify as for EI1600, thus everyone claiming they can 'push Kentmere 400 to 1600' are both right and wrong simultaneously - and helped along by K400 being about as fast as HP5+ in real world use. As long as people don't deviate from the 0.56-0.75 gradient range - or try overexposure heroics - they'll be fine. As a piece of engineering, K400 is quite remarkable, not least in showing what Ilford can do with a material that effectively eliminates the most expensive emulsion components (and which illustrates just how expensive the difference between more than good enough and excellent really is).