Topic: Any fans of Kentmere 100/400 film?

[mickld]

I've been using Ilford FP4/HP5 and some rolls of Rollei Retro 100 for 35mm, all of which I'm very happy with. But I'm trying to make my budget stretch and am considering Kentmere 35mm film. I usually develop with R09. I'm keen to try and standardise on one or two 35mm films, and Kentmere ticks the boxes of being cheap-ish and from a reputable manufacturer and also supporting Ilford too.

Is anybody in a position to talk about differences between FP4/HP5+ and the kentmere equivalents?

Thanks in advance!

[LT]

Mick - I can't comment on using this film, but I found this from Simon Galley on Apug:

"KENTMERE film is absolutely BRAND new, 2 new emulsions, 35mm only, at a competitive price, it is not a 'rebadged' ILFORD Film, I think I have stated many times WE DO NOT SUPPLY PRIVATE LABEL even to a BRAND we own."

So it will likely need a bit of experimentation to get the best from it.

[jojonas~]

I'm not in a position to talk about the exact differences but I've shot 30 meters of fp4 and a bunch of hp5 rolls along with a roll of kentmere 400 and several kentmere 100.

I developed the fp4 and hp5 almost exclusivly and the kentmere mostly in caffenol but I've developed a couple of rolls of both 100 and 400 in r09 (fomadol version) now and I like the negs~

I haven't scanned any 100 rolls in r09 yet but here's a kentmere 400 in that dev:

view larger here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasfx/6310750610/#
and an example of kentmere 100 in caffenol (with pretty bad fixer): http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonasfx/6200923226/#

what I like best about the film is that it comes out completely FLAT, compared to other cheap films I've tried

[mickld]

I suspect I'm not connoisseur enough to really tell much of a difference between quality films. Jojonas - that picture of the docks would have been quite a challenge for most films I suspect, and it seemed to hold up well. Not too grainy either - or 'nice' grain at least. I assume it was 35mm.

>what I like best about the film is that it comes out completely FLAT
Ha! Good point - didn't consider that. But it does make life a lot easier doesn't it.

The data sheet(http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/Kentmere_400_Film_Datasheet.pdf ) suggests it does not like being pushed beyond ISO 800 which might make it less useful as a general purpose film compared to HP5+. I guess a little experimentation would figure that out.

[Francois]

One thing I've discovered about datasheets it that they state the results the film engineers are willing to live with... not necessarily the photographer.

Tri-x was never made to be exposed at any EI over about 800 yet can be pushed considerably more. Granted you loose a lot of shadow detail but at least you get the shot.

[jojonas~]

mickld: 35mm indeed!

I haven't tried pushing the films, I tend to shoot at boxspeed or shoot as is in toycameras and develop as the iso it is.

[Francois]

Since I haven't shot anything that isn't expired for a long time, I pretty much have no other choice but to expose at something other than the box speed.

[Dave Elden]

I wouldn't say I'm a fan but I certainly haven't seen any problems with K400 using an EI of 400 and developing at the advertised time using D76.  Whether the latitude is as good as Delta 400 (which I have tested for latitude) I don't know, but of course it would only take a part of a roll to test & find out for yourself.