Kentmere Pan 400 ISO Black and White Film Review | All About Film

[@kozelrc3225]

When I was a beginner I bought illford and kentmere as my 2 first rolls. Then I discovered a cheap source of films and bought 5 of them. The new films I got had barley any contrast and I saw how bad my photos were. Now I'm planning on buying 4 rolls of kentmere for my erasmus school trip to spain, wish me good light

[@DavidHancock]

Good light!

[@paolociccone]

I had a similar experience with Kent mere 400, it's really an exceptional film. Thank you for the great review and congratulations on the fantastic photography

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@ursaproxima]

I recently switched from tri-x to HP5, and I managed to buy a 10 pack HP5 for €50 (currently not keen on the idea of bulk loading because I wasn't completely sold on the stock) but before I decide to settle I will definitely try Kentmere. I definitely fell for the internet hate and didn't try it out.

[@DavidHancock]

I'm hopeful that this video will help with either confirming or refuting the Internet "truth" about Kentmere. 😀

[@Blizzardmane]

Where did you get that deal, I've been looking out for hp5 for a while

[@cut--]

@@Blizzardmane you can get HP5 + 400 B&W (my all around fav) on amazn for around $82 USD for 10 rolls. Kentmir 400 is $18 for one roll. Not sure why David thinks the price is exceptional, but maybe he's buying it at a boutique camera store. Thanks for video !

[@ursaproxima]

@@cut-- Those prices are insane! In Europe, all harman films (ilford, kentmere etc) as well as the slavic ones like foma are very cheap. Kentmere should definitely not cost $18!

[@Blizzardmane]

@@ursaproxima I live in the UK, black and white film is pretty cheap I'm just always on the lookout for a good bulk deal 😅

[@lucasleonardo2111]

Great review! I had shot a few rolls and hated the results because they were too contrasty. However I recently pushed one roll to 1600 in D76 1+3 using semi stand development, and I quite liked the results this time around. So I think I'll give it another chance now that I'm developing by myself again.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Yeah, I was stunned by how much I liked my 800 and 1600 results given this film's reputation for not being pushable at all. It did better than most films at being pushed.

[@brineb58]

I just bought a dozen rolls for a project, you helped me feel confident I will get good results!!!

[@georgereisinger8492]

Your video is what finally got me to buy a few rolls for my first time shooting black and white! Also I have to say I love your channel, being a beginner you've been so much help!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I am always glad to know that I'm helping people learn photography.

[@colinhinton3979]

I am very pleased to see this. You have answered so many questions. Even ones I hadn’t considered. Very good to see how this film can hold up through a battery of changes. Thank you for this.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@Notemug]

I've only shot Kentmere 100, but yes, I was impressed how much above its weight it punched. I'll definitely try 400 as well.

[@VariTimo]

Kentmere 400 is also sold as Agfa APX 400 now. However Rollei RPX 400 is not Kentmere as many claim but a new emulsion built on the original Agfa APX emulsion. Which is why it looks different. I have that officially from Rollei themselves. We’re truly spoiled for choice when it comes to 400 speed black and white films. I’ve just pushed HP5+ to 1600 for the first time and I think have gotten my favorite BW film results yet. Tri-X‘s still going strong. Kentmere is a great cheap alternative if you want the look of a Tri-X or an HP5+. And Rollei RPX gives you a great price with a unique low contrast look that’s a the true alternative to the others that are on the more contrary side.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you, Timo. I didn't know that about the Agfa. I have long suspected that Kentmere makes films for other retailers but, rightfully, that info is pretty well guarded.

[@KimHojbergJensen]

Really? I shot a roll of Agfa APX 400 before - it was OK.

[@VariTimo]

@@DavidHancock I was pretty fed up with all the internet hearsay so I talked to the people who now own the Agfa brand name and while they couldn’t “officially” confirm that it is Kentmere 400, they pretty much did. And the other manufacturers and retailers in Germany I talked to about this backed it up.

[@RickScheibner]

You're not wrong about the availability of 400 speed b/w film emulsions in this day and age. Two from Kodak, three from Ilford (here in the US, anyway). Also, lesser known films from companies like Rollei, Fomapan and Bergger. Plus, a bunch of rebrands out there from Lomography, Arista, JCH, et al. Take your pick.

[@VariTimo]

@Saxon Eyles I don’t know why you’d assume that a company official would go into such great detail to lie to me but whatever. There has never been any proof that they are the same emulsion. I’ve gone through pretty much everything there is regarding the relation of these films (Kentmere 400, Rollei RPX 400, and the new AgfaPhoto 400) and there were a lot of forum posts both in german and english that were talking about these being the same film. And while it turned out to be true for the Agfa APX it didn’t for the Rollei RPX. The assumption is, that they must be the same film because they have the same developing times. So what? They’re both cubic grain, 400 speed BW films. Tri-X and HP5+ are quit similar with most developers. Yes RPX is manufactured by Ilford and so is Fuji Acros II. That doesn’t mean it’s the same emulsion as Delta 100. Ilford is capable of coating emulations that have been designed and are owed by others. And that’s what they do for Acros II and a few of Rollei’s films. The main reason why I am so confident that RPX is its own emulsion, expect for the fact that I talked to multiple Rollei representatives, including one who’s been there since the film was first introduced. Is that I’ve actually shot both films! And developed and scanned them in the same way. And they’re clearly different. Kentmere 400 is like a Tri-X light. It’s a bit grainier, with a bit lower contrast, and less dynamic range. But it still looks very distinctively like a classic BW curve. RPX is low contrast. Even in high noon with super bright highlights and deep shallows. And I even shot RPX with a slightly more contrasty lens than the Kentmere. Again, developed them with the same and fresh developer and scanned the exactly the same way. And it makes sense when you look at the way the old Agfa Leverkusen APX 400, on which the RPX 400 is based looks. Lastly something you see when you shoot both films, is that the grain structure is noticeably different. RPX 400 has a very distinctive grain while Kentmere doesn’t look like anything special. But you know, you can always call Rollei and ask them about it. Get a feel yourself if they pull a fast one on us. I don’t really care what you think. I just don’t want people to keep believing the falsehood that has been floating around the forums for the last decade. I recommend subscribing to The Naked Photographer on KZbin. He’s currently doing controlled comparisons of a lot of BW films and everyone will be able to compare the contrast curve and image texture of the two films for themselves when his episode on Rollei RPX 400 comes out. He already did Kentmere 400.

[@MrScott7311]

Great review! I started looking into kentmere a couple weeks ago as a budget option and was really mesmerized by some of the photos I saw. When I saw you had a video coming up on it I was very excited and you did not disappoint! I think I still prefer the look of tri-x, but kentmere 400's 1/3 the price at my photo shop, so I'll be giving it a go.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@KimHojbergJensen]

Made me think that it may be time to try developing also. Never tried befoore, but if I shoot all the 6 rolls I just ordered and develop in one go, savings on developing, sending to the lab and return of the films might pay for a starter set.

[@DavidHancock]

Developing is pretty easy, too. A couple tips, I don't use stop bath, just two water rinses and that works great while saving money and chemical waste. I also don't pre-rinse. Scanning with a DSLR and macro lens will bring a lot out of any film if you shoot raw.

[@Blizzardmane]

You've sold me on it, I'm going to pick up a couple of rolls

[@Pigletsyes]

Welp, you're the one who got me hooked on Acros. We'll see if you can do the same with Kentmere 400

[@alexanderpopov4691]

Great images of a butterfly at the end! I personally not a big fan of Kentmere 400 and the main reason, as you've fairly mentioned cause it looks really well at lower ISO (200 or 160). So for high ISO film I would still pay extra and put a roll of HP5 in a bag. But with Kentmere 100 however it is a diferent story. It is just such a ballanced allrounder and it is my choice for travel or documenting life. I am much more impressed with Kentmere 100 than with 400.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@peacefulcyclist7944]

totally agree, great film, under rated, and easy to post process... I use Ilfosol 3 1:14 and 1:9 for more contrast..

[@DavidHancock]

Nice and those do work really well with this.

[@RickScheibner]

Thanks David. I have a few rolls left from a bulk roll I did a few years ago. Back then, I wasn't overly impressed with it and instead stuck with HP5+ and Delta 400. That said, I will need to replenish my 400 speed b/w film in the coming year, so I'll give it another look. Your film videos are a favorite of mine and I always appreciate how in-depth you go with each emulsion. Thanks for all you do. Content request: Will you be doing one of these for Delta 400 in the future? I would love to see one!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and yes, Delta 400 is a must-do, but it's way far out. I think I've used it twice.

[@jw48335]

I'm sure you're aware, Kentmere is available in 120 now, *both* 100 and 400! Amazing results with Flic Film's BW&G (aka Xtol) in a Jobo. For shadows? DDX stand 1+9 for 45 minutes seems to be the ticket. Pyrocat HD - say goodbye to shadow detail - don't recommend with this stock. Having shot quite a bit of Kentmere now, it's a bit weird, I see no reason to pay the premium for HP5/FP4... My GW680 eats film like candy so Kentmere is a no-brainer. Definitely more flexible than Foma and better QC. Great video David!

[@DavidHancock]

OH yes and I was very excited by that. I won't update this video, but I did order a handful of the Kentmere 120 in 100 already. It's still on backorder at B&H with no ETA, however. I am really excited to use it, however.

[@jameswelsh453]

Thanks for a great review, I've recently returned to film and went for the old favorites trying hp5 and fp4, hp5 no sky detail, fp4 better but felt there's got to be something better, so I am trying kentmere 400 pan, hopefully better results!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! Yeah, if you like the Ilford stocks, I suspect that you'll really enjoy this one, too.

[@notaone-also]

So love Kentmere Pan 400 and I will try the 200 per your advice...Thanks!!

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@BriansPhotoShow]

This emulsion is also marketed as Agfa APX 400 and, I think, Agent Shadow 400, is that correct? Is it sold under any other brand name?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@frankzappa3834]

It’s also sold under the Oriental brand name in East Asian markets

[@jonlouis2582]

What an interesting video. Funny, I was just about to order some of this film in 100 speed. A few years ago I tried some Ultrafine Xtreme 400 in 120 and 35mm and was shocked at how much I liked it, but now it seems to be unavailable. I also like Fomapan, and have had good results with the 200, but I like to try new films. Thank you for this video, I can see how much work went into it.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I think Xtreme was discontinued and replaced by Finesse. I talked on the phone once to either a manager or owner at Photo Warehouse, great guy, completely changed my view of their product line in that call, and I recall an offhand comment that Xtreme was the fifth version of their film because it was the letter E, which kind of explains why the new film's name starts with the letter F. :D So I don't know who is making it for them, but if memory of that call serves, then Finesse is its own thing discrete from other UF films and that all the finesse films will be the same. I'm really looking forward to making the Finesse 400 video, having not seen my results from the rolls that I've shot yet, because UltraFine is another film with a TON of bad online information and I want to help set the record straight. Photo Warehouse is awesome and deserves that.

[@jonlouis2582]

@@DavidHancock That was my take as well, from my minimal interactions with them. Thanks for the update. I do hope that isn’t a trend within the film industry. I quit using Kodak film years ago because as soon as I became familiar with one of their films, they would change it and I would be back to square one again.

[@EduardoRomero1965]

Great review. I purchased a roll and I will develop it in PMK Pyro.

[@DavidHancock]

Nice!

[@Shelbington]

Kentmere films are such a great value. I've had wonderful results with pushing Kentmere 100 to 200 and developing accordingly in XTOL. I haven't been impressed with the results I've gotten with Kentmere 400 so far, but that might be on my part. I'm going to keep trying it out. At it's price, there's not many reasons not to keep trying it.

[@DavidHancock]

I agree completely. I can't wait to try the 100 in the future, too.

[@gatsbye53]

As always, thanks for doing these! Looking forward to the GP3 &Acros II videos! ❤🎞📷

[@DavidHancock]

Same here and thank you! GP3 is farthest along and I hope to finish shooting with it in the spring. But before that I'll be releasing Delta 100, TMax 100, and Orca.

[@gatsbye53]

That is awesome news! I just haven't been able to find a really good review of GP3 or Acros II that hold a candle to what you put out. I might even have my 5119 4x5 assembled just in time by spring. 😅

[@terryroth2855]

Some good info Dave. So if you rate this film at 200, do you still develop it for 400. This part always somewhat confuses my old brain. Thanks for sharing and have a Great New Year.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you and no, and great question. With the 200 rolls I pull developed as well. Developing at 400 would have yielded fender negatives. If you're using this at 400 and having issues with negative density then I might try exposing at 320 and developing normally. I didn't have any issues with negative density, however.

[@terryroth2855]

@@DavidHancock Thanks for the clarification.🙂

great video as always...thank you. I kinda missed the D76 results at boxspeed. have you never tried that?

[@DavidHancock]

It's a distinct possibility that I didn't try that. If it's not in the developer index in the description, it's not one that I tried.

[@beckerse]

Great video. I like using Kentmere too.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@frankstremke255]

I shot about 10rolls agfa apx 400 which is the same stuff. I realy like it and always come back to it developed in tetenal ultrafine t+ as well as rodinal ( to much grain) now using fx39II which works well. Never tried pulling it but i will listen to you and try it. Thanks

[@chrissoclone]

Oh, it is? So I actually shot and liked Kentmere 400 w/o knowing it? Good to know, also since the Agfa is more expensive, at least at drugstores.

[@frankstremke255]

Here in germany apx is the only b&w film you can buy everywhere most drug stores and some supermarkets have it. Kentmeere i can only buy online with a premium because of brexit. As for apx i get a 100ft roll for 60euros thats 3,33euros per roll

[@chrissoclone]

@@frankstremke255 Der Kentmere ist mit 4,70 (fotoimpex) aber auch recht günstig, APX400 bei Rossmann ist immerhin schon bei 5,99 Euro.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I am always really glad to hear reports on developers that I haven't tried in these comments. :D Those help me out a lot.

[@Robthevampire666]

Hi David. This is probably a very silly question when shooting 400 iso @ 200 iso I assume you meter for 200 iso if using a separate meter some of my older cameras don't have built in meters.

[@DavidHancock]

Not a silly question at all. So yes, just meter for 200. As a basic principal, pulling film simply means setting the ISO selection at (in this case) 200 and shoot the whole roll there and then underdevelop for however much time. But basically, if you give film more light (meter for a lower ISO) then it needs less time in the developer. Conversely, giving it less light (metering in this example for 800) then it needs more time in the developer. And because highlights and shadows develop at different rates when in the chemistry, pushing and pulling have different effects. So pulling films tends to mellow the contrast and pushing film tends to amplify contrast. So there's a whole lot of creative control in that and also because different films respond in different degrees to pushing and pulling. It's a fascinating aspect of the artform.

[@ccoppola82]

Great review. I’ve been considering taking my film use to a different place this year. For a few years I’ve been hiding from the grain using pyrocat and other fine grain developers. Then I got a Leica monochrome and if I WANT clean files…I get them. Clean film is an overlap in some ways. I think I’m going to embrace the grain this year. After using up my HP5 stock I’ll be moving to Kentmere as well. Did you happen to try Rodinal 1+25 compared to 1+50?

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! I did not try +25. I forget if that was only because I didn't have a time readily available for it or if it was a chemistry quantity thing (I usually let the film pile up for a bit then develop 40-50 rolls at once, so I often have to pick out developers based on how much stock chemistry I have left.) +25 is typically one of my go-to combos for films, though.

[@atroche1978]

I am halfway through a roll of Kentmere 400. I'm planning on developing it in Legacy Pro L110 at 68°F 1+31. Do you have a recommended time? I can't seem to find only online. Thanks

[@DavidHancock]

With cooler chemistry you'll want to add time. So start with my time and add probably 20-25%. That's a guess on my part.

[@chrissoclone]

Thanks David, one I never tried for exactly the reasons you mentioned, but these photos look great. Now that I can't afford Kodak anymore I'll definitely order some rolls, shame it doesn't come in 120. :(

[@DavidHancock]

I know. I really wish it came in other formats.

[@studiosnch]

Just bought 3 rolls of K400 to try this out. Seriously, the photos look way better than the "proper" economical Ilford, which is basically Ilford Pan 100/400 (though even that film is also impressive for the price).

[@DavidHancock]

Nice and I completely agree. Kentmere is amazing stuff.

[@studiosnch]

@@DavidHancock Coming back to comment on my K400 experience. It was actually way better than expected. For my workflow, it has a similar contrast and tonality to ORWO N75 but with the grain of HP5+. I really like it, could be my next "everyday" film now, but thing is my local supplier had none of this film in stock. But as I commented on your Delta 100 video I'm roadtesting that one for now so stocking Kentmere can wait.

[@skunkwerx9674]

Kentmere 100 looks amazing souped in some XTOL (replenished stock ~7mins @ 70f). Definitely a goto for me.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@shahedmahbub85]

Thanks. Using both 100 and 400. The developing time you mentioned with Rodinal (50+1) for 400, does it include agitation. Thanks.

[@DavidHancock]

It does, three inversions every minute. Everything I do that isn't stand uses the typical inversion process of fully for the first minute and then three inversions each minute thereafter.

[@shahedmahbub85]

@@DavidHancock Got it. Thanks once again.

[@jonnoMoto]

Do you have light leaks on your cameras? I see the brighter edges regularly on most of your videos that makes me question whether you are underfixing or have a bad, albeit uniform, lightleak

[@DavidHancock]

I think that might be to do with video compression. I don't see it on the jpg files and I also try to make the images very even in post during raw editing, but it does often show up in the videos.

[@epstar83]

Kentmere 400 is a superb film! Definitely not the same emulsion as HP5. My understanding of why K400 is less expensive than the Ilford range is partly because less man hours are spent on the quality control and partly to have a budget product that is marketed as such. I actually find K400 closer to Tri-X than HP5. I hope Harman will bring it out in 120 and sheet someday.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you! That makes sense and I seem to recall reading it was an older emulsion formula, but I don't know if that's still true. I heard once that the highest ongoing cost for all the film makers in the UK, EU, and US is R&D to replace banned or expensive raw materials with acceptable or cheaper ones without affecting image characteristics. I've often wondered if maybe Kentmere has lower R&D costs because they only make two emulsions.

[@epstar83]

@@DavidHancock Yeah they are old emulsions as far as I know. I think the branding of it may have changed a few years ago. In the past, at least here in Asia it used to be called Ilford Pan 100 / Pan 400 but was very reliably informed the actual film stock did not change at all.

[@Mc007Queen]

Well personally I had to pick from ilford Delta 100 and this film and even I knew to pick the ilford 100 to run in my Yashica 35 Electro

[@DavidHancock]

That makes a lot of sense for an electro given the maximum shutter speed. I wouldn't recommend any 400 film for you.

[@stevengr4]

I'd say about 80% of my rolls this year were Kentmere 400. $7 Cad a roll of 36 locally.

[@DavidHancock]

Dang that's a good price. I think they're a bit more down here, especially with shipping since nowhere local sells them.

[@FlosBlog]

Are higher iso Film stocks usually not as sharp as lower iso ones? You seemed to imply that at a point in the video.

[@DavidHancock]

Generally, lower resolution, but resolution isn't sharpness; contrast is sharpness (at least at it's measured using mtf charts and line pairs per millimeter based on resolving power for black and white line combos.) So a fast film can have just as much contrast as a slope film but worth larger silver crystals it would record data work a bit less information.

[@FlosBlog]

@@DavidHancock alright thank you!

[@furiouzzzz]

How do you match kentmere ISO to your specific developer? do you do it actually?

[@DavidHancock]

Mostly I reference the massive development chart. When there's no mdc time, I cross-reference other developers and films and take a good guess. If the results are thin or thick, I refine the time.

[@ZommBleed]

Revisiting your video, I just now received my order of Kentmere 400, 36 exp. rolls for $5.19 ea. from B&H. Ironically, the same film in 24 exp. rolls is $5.29, so guess why I bought the former and not the latter? This was spurred on by my frantic search for some decent color roll stock due to the recently abhorrent increase in prices of film (not to mention the hyperinflation we all are experiencing--unless your name begins with an R [Rockefeller, Rothschilds, etc.]). Most of the affordable color film is out-of-stock in the various stores/online locations I have visited. The rest of the color film has literally tripled in price. I fear that our film hobby days may be waning into oblivion; I do not forsee a recovery of this (nor the world's) economy prior to the Beast wiping out all debt and setting up his new economic and financial structure. I wonder if his image can be captured on film, or if he falls under the same rules as vampires an their ilk? Make sure to catch your ride up, whether it be before, in the midst, or after the tough times ahead. Kentmere has always performed well for me, even when my exposure was way off for stupid beginner's reasons. It really does have a wide latitude of exposure forgiveness. (It makes me wonder if the USPS delivered my non-domestic $0.02 postcards? Hmm...) 😇☁️☕ Edit: I had to come back and say that an elk butt looks like a salmon steak, if you know what I'm speaking of. Heh heh heh

[@DavidHancock]

Yeah, film prices are hard to manage right now. I've been looking at how to go forward with this series and I'm going to need to re-vision how I present the content because buying 25-50 rolls of film, developing, and so forth for one of these will be cost-prohibitive when I finish this current crop of videos. Fortunately, I have about a year to think that over. But yeah, inflation is hitting hard here, too. I restocked my coffee and it cost almost three times as much as this time last year.

[@pedlpower]

Hi David. Does Kentmere dry flat? I have always used TMax but I struggle to get a good scan (V600) because it bows widthwise. I have HP5 in my camera now and I hope that works well. I have a few rolls of Kentmere that have been in my fridge for about a year. I'm planning to try them next.

[@DavidHancock]

I never had any issue with it curling. That said, I usually let dry film hang for 24-72 hours with weights on the bottom. GP3, as a comparison, still curls significantly despite that so I think that if Kentmere curled I'd have experienced it.

[@pedlpower]

@@DavidHancock Thanks David. I'll give it a try.

[@pedlpower]

@Saxon Eyles My experience is that it is dependant on the film stock. I dry my film in a bathroom in which I have run a hot shower for about 10 minutes. It's very steamy in there.

[@RickScheibner]

@Saxon Eyles Some more than others. I dry my HP5+ in the same environment that I did with Tri-x just a few years ago. The HP5+ is flat as a board going into the scanner. The Tri-x was always so curled that I would have to take extra measures to flatten it out. While your premise is accurate, there is a great deal of variability within stocks.

[@chrissoclone]

If you want a film perfect for scanning try Rollei, it's such a pleasure. I also happen to like the quality quite a lot (Superpan, Retro). Depending on where you live it's also quite cheap (EU) or at least affordable.

[@andrewflower9533]

Dear David, did I properly understand, that to get the best result, I have to shoot it as ISO 200 and develop it as ISO 400?

[@DavidHancock]

It's been a long time since I made this video. Can you remind me of what I said in that vein?

[@andrewflower9533]

@@DavidHancock It's very difficult for me. English is not my native language... So I will try, at the beginning of the video it seemed to me that you said, "to get the best result you have to shoot it as 200 iso, but i didn't understand shoud I develop it as ISO 200 or ISO 400 ? If you have some time, could you watch your video again and answer my question? P.S. I didn't use any web translator such as google translate.

[@lorevitolentino4090]

@@DavidHancock hello, just watching this, that’s on 1:19, thanks

[@DavidHancock]

@@lorevitolentino4090 @andrewflower9533 sorry for the reply time, KZbin didn't give me a notification. What I meant was that I liked exposing it at 200 ISO and developing it with 400 ISO times -- overdeveloping by one stop.

[@platformjprmts]

Thank you very much; priceless.

[@DavidHancock]

Thank you!

[@johnkaplun9619]

My understanding is kentmere has a lower silver content, thus less shadow detail and lower cost.

[@DavidHancock]

Same here, but I didn't really find that the reduced shadow detail proved to be true. There is some shadow loss, but it's pretty easy to recover with either a good digital or traditional workflow.

[@johnkaplun9619]

@@DavidHancock I don't mind it because I typically find hp5 to be too flat and always push it to 800 for the contrast and deep blacks anyway.

[@KimHojbergJensen]

Good review - just made me order 6 rolls 😁

[@DavidHancock]

Nice!

[@minisla]

Red filter has a negative effect interesting

[@DavidHancock]

Yeah, it's a curious effect.

[@arricammarques1955]

Pentax LX + Kentmere 400 ASA : )

[@DavidHancock]

Oh yes.

[@Legendarische]

My favourite BW film.

[@RogerHyam]

Why are towels on sale in January? To differentiate between the price sensitive and non-sensitive. People with lots of money buy a towel any time of year whilst other people wait for the sales. It is the same reason there are different models of every car, each targetting a different proce point. You can pay as much as you want. If Harman only had one product they could not differentiate between different markets. What Kentmere enables them to do is charge more for a premium product (take money off the people who have it) and also sell to everyone (including people who may not buy at all). The cheaper product doesn't have to be notably inferior there just needs to be a perceived hurdle. If money's not an issue you're going to shoot HP5 just to be safe. They films might cost exactly the same to make. The major component of cost will be setting up the line and finishing, not the actual chemistry of the emulsion. Anyhow got that off my chest and ordered 30 rolls of Kentmere 120 - on a bank holiday sale too!

[@DavidHancock]

Makes sense. Thank you!

[@frequentlycynical642]

I suspect that perhaps Kentmere is to Ilford as Verichrome Pan was to Kodak? What? You are too young to know what VP was? It was the "non-professional" version of Plus-X. In a few words, more forgiving. The grain was the same, it was available in every roll film size, and it cost less than PX. I wager that the vast majority of PX was shot in, I'll call it, amateur mode. RIP both of you. Sold my VP when I was moving in 2007. I have 4 rolls of PX in my freezer from 2010. Eat your heart out: This was a short run of PX and TX made for Freestyle and packed under the Arista brand. Everyone, customers and staff alike, knew what it was. AND IT COST $2 A ROLL!! Not only does HP5 have it's poor cousin Kentmere 400, Ilford also makes the Pan branded films which I understand to be marketed to less wealthy areas of the world. Not Pan F.

[@DavidHancock]

I don't completely subscribe to the analogy between Kentmere and Ilford solely because Kentmere existed as its own company for long time before Harman bought them. The Kentmere and Ilford film emulsions are, as I understand it, much different and not related in terms of their composition or grain structure and type. So Kentmere won't be a different version of Ilford stocks, but its own thing that was engineered by Kentmere originally. Now, how much have Harman and Ilford engineers homogenized Kentmere and Ilford after the buyout? No idea. And yeah, I miss Plus-X, too. That was my favorite black and white film.

[@frequentlycynical642]

@@DavidHancock Thanks for your insights, even if it negates my theory! I'd say that there was a logical reason Kodak kept TX going, but not PX, but it's Kodak. Not known for making the best decisions.

[@nishadgawhankar3132]

Not happy with results

[@DavidHancock]

How are you using it? What sensitivity and developer?

[@RickScheibner]

I wasn't either when I tried it about five years ago, but I'm willing to change my mind. I still have some bulk rolled cassettes sealed up and sitting in my freezer. I might try some of David's suggestions here and seeing what I come up with.

[@nishadgawhankar3132]

Cheap film

[@DavidHancock]

Inexpensive, yes. Cheap as a pejorative isn't a fair assessment, however.

[@zabtej1645]

it prints awesome