New Kentmere 120 Film Review - An Impressive Budget Performer

[@erichstocker8358]

An extremely useful evaluation of the 120 version of Kentmere. You got to give it to Harmond for doing this for the community.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers. Glad you enjoyed.

[@MrKreationsHD]

The leading lines of the shot taken at 3:25 into the video is mesmerizing! I could easily see that shot being framed in peoples homes. Absolutely lovely...

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. 🙏

[@epstar83]

So happy that Kentmere is available in 120! I’ve had great results from them in 35mm.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I think I'll have to pick up some of the 35mm now.

[@Ilfordphoto]

Thank you for taking the time to put this together, Your images are so good, (almost too good for the price point :).

[@KyleMcDougall]

😁 Thanks for bringing another option to the market!

[@scottparis6355]

I've used the Kentmere films in 35mm only. They work well at box speed, where in my experience the Foma films do not. With Foma, I got the best results by pulling one stop; Foma 400 at 200, Foma 100 at 50, with reduced development. Better shadow detail with reduced grain and contrast. They're fine at those speeds, but Kentmere is better. I think the Kentmere films MAY be a little less tolerant of underexposure than the flagship Ilford ones, whenever I have the opportunity to expose carefully, I tend to expose all B&W films a little more, and develop a little less. My output is still wet prints, so I'm not sure how this would work with scanning.

[@andrewcarroll7359]

Thanks for making these reviews! I just got a medium format camera and I need to get it ready for a road trip.

[@liveinaweorg]

Thank you Ilford and thanks Kyle.

[@just_a_guy]

i exclusively shoot pan 400 and 100 for my black and white work mostly because of the price some im glad to hear that the 120 versions look great!

[@NunoAlmeidaPhotography]

I honestly can't wait to give these a try!

[@Christian_from_Copenhagen]

Great review! I'd be interested to see a deep dive into exposure latitude across several film stocks some day. B/W, colour, slide film, comparisons, things to consider when shooting, etc.

[@MacnTeensVisuals]

Great stuff Kyle. Love the look of these shots, particularly the slightly more contrasty 100 ISO version. Definitely put me in the mood to shoot some b&w, I look forward to trying out some Kentmere in 120.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you enjoyed!

[@sfenwick]

Beautiful shots and helpful review. Cheers.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@ThePhotoDept]

and just like that, ive got a bunch of this film in my shopping cart. excellent look at this film!

[@KyleMcDougall]

It's a good one, man. :)

[@telepoiss]

So jelaous ! That landscape at 3:12 !

[@KyleMcDougall]

🙌

[@FRONTPhotography]

Great review Kyle. We’re both really looking forward to shooting both. I think it’s like you said, somewhat predictable, but that’s totally fine for a budget friendly stock. Love the photo at 8 minutes in. Jamie

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Jamie. It's a good one. I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

[@robertwaffel8248]

Kentmere 400 in 35mm has been my goto low light film stock (easily pushed to 3200). Have yet to try it this way in 120.

[@ma-bn8jh]

Got a few rolls of Kentmere 400 on the way. I'd like to plus one on seeing an exposure test video😀

[@Folly_Inds]

I've shot Kent 400 a few times in 35. at least there the grain is very strong. lotta details that I felt should have been visible were pretty crunched. that's not nearly as much of a problem in medium format though.

[@KyleMcDougall]

As mentioned, I've never shot the 35mm, but I'd like to try it now.

[@SathyaPeacock]

looks great! looking forward to shooting them

[@tedphillips2951]

Waiting for 4x5!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Ohhh, yes please!

[@glowingeye]

I’m definitely going to try these, HP5 has gotten quite expensive for me as a student. Love how the photos look!

[@mahmoudshoots]

Love the review and photos looks stunning ❤!! Would love to see a video specifically about light metering and best practices specially with B&W films 😊

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll keep that in mind for a future vid.

[@mahmoudshoots]

@@KyleMcDougall Thank you and keep up this great content coming 👍🏼

[@AndyDay]

Super useful, thanks! Didn't even know about the 35mm version so will be interested to see for myself how it compares to Fomapan.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Cheers, Andy!

[@michaelbennettphoto]

Lovely images Kyle!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you, Michael!

[@SinaFarhat]

Nice! Thanks for the review!

[@KyleMcDougall]

You're welcome. Cheers.

[@zachanderson303]

Excellent review, I feel like you really summarized this film well just based on my experiences with Kentmere in 35mm. I also found it to have more contrast than hp5 but I actually liked that. I Used to shoot arista as an inexpensive b&w but didn’t like its grain and grays and found kentmere to be a a better, more predictable film stock

[@FlosBlog]

I am madly in love with Arista / Foma 400 - such lovely tonality @250 in a59

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thanks, Zach. Never worked with Arista, but I'm certainly happy with the Kentmere!

[@amosk24]

Looking forward to exposure, comparison videos!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Coming soon!

[@spencerjacob716]

I'd like to see a video about how you tweak your black and whites in post. Great video.

[@KyleMcDougall]

I'll keep that in mind for the future. Cheers.

[@jpiersma]

I have been eyeing the Pentax 67 55-100 lens for some time now. I hope to here your thoughts on it soon! 🙂

[@KyleMcDougall]

I've enjoyed it. It's enormous and heavy, but worth it for the range/quality.

[@GOLDDYNACO]

Wow! No wonder cheap film looks good when you use perhaps the best zoom lens ever made for medium format. For a period I have borrowed 55-100mm with P6X7MLU and have hardly ever seen such sharp and high-contrast images from any type of film. It hasn't turned out so well when I used my own Zeiss stuff on my Hasselblad. (Larger negative format can't explain the whole difference...)

[@KyleMcDougall]

I've been very happy with the 55-100. Definitely impressive!

[@Dogggggggg]

Hi Kyle, You said that you were able to get your hands on this film 'a couple months back' even though it was only released just recently (medium format). This brings up a couple of questions. Did you get paid for this video? Did you get the film for free (like some other KZbinrs)? Do you have any kind of affiliation with the manufacturer/brand? I have no doubt that you wanted to just let the world know how good the film really is, but I really think you should let the viewers know what kind of a relationship (or lack thereof) you have with the company. Especially when the product has just been released. Anyway, thanks for the great content. Looking forward to the next one! - Greetings from a snowy place

[@KyleMcDougall]

Maybe I should have been more clear with that. I didn't get paid for this video, but I did get the film from Ilford to try out. I have no affiliation with them, and there was no agreement to make a video or even supply them with photos. They sent me the film and just wanted my thoughts. I made a video because I enjoy the film and thought it could be helpful. :)

[@1994rastaboy]

You have very nice prices for film in UK.

Perfect !! Amazing video.. Can you talk more about how we can best expose this film? Tks!!

[@ucloclam5146]

great video as usual!!

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you. 🙏

[@simie65]

interested to see how the 400 speed film pushes. i've pushed it 1 stop in 35mm before and really enjoyed the results. hopefully at 2 stops it holds up fine

[@KyleMcDougall]

I believe The Darkroom posted up some pictures of this pushed.

[@mynewcolour]

I’ve shot some gigs with 35mm Kentmere 400 at 1600 and it’s absolutely fine, no issues. It’s *very* good value in 100ft rolls but I think my 🖤 still belongs to HP5.

[@simie65]

@@mynewcolour agreed, shoot 95% of any b/w i do in HP5. much prefer it over tri-x or anything else.

[@haraldfuruholmen4654]

Why does the shot at 3:38 look so darn good even though the composition is asymmetrical?

[@mjmdiver1137]

Great comments on this film... I'm going to have to do a comparison among this, the respective Ilford film (FP4 or HP5) and the respective Delta film... You didn't mention, how flat does the film appear to lay after processing? Curling film is a drag to try to scan.

[@KyleMcDougall]

Dried very flat for me. No different to the Ilford films, which was nice to see. I'm also looking forward to doing a direct comparison.

[@mjmdiver1137]

@@KyleMcDougall Thanks so much fo the comment. One thing I have observed in the past is that using hardener in the fix will affect the curl, so I don't use it at all. I think this is a point people should be paynig attention to with film and scanning.

[@marianataliaperalta327]

Beautiful

[@KyleMcDougall]

Thank you.

[@TTR1000]

Any reason you're shooting with the 67 as opposed to the 67II? Did I miss a video where you switched?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Sold the 67ii a while ago. The 67 does what I need, and is a bit more affordable. I miss a few things about the 67ii like AE, and exposure comp, but can work without them.

[@gottanikoncamera]

Foma Pan 100 on 35 has a cruel curl that made it difficult to load into scanner holders. Do these lay as flat as HP5 after they are dry?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep, nice and flat.

[@RogerHyam]

Did I miss the bit where you said how you developed the film? In the scene with the sun if you had just metered the foreground and the sky and told us the difference in stops and how you developed the film it would have been far more informative. If shadows are too thin then you have under exposed it (perhaps the box speed is too high - it usually is). If the highlights have blocked up then you have over developed it. Both are really operator errors. What happens in between these two is the characteristics of the film.

[@Wildmountainsafaris]

I found this film to be unsatisfying. I guess it’s because I’ve been using Rollei Retro 80s/400s almost exclusively for years so I didn’t get the nice extreme range of tones and contrast I am used to

[@christinebeckett7060]

Is that Rhosydd?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Yep.

[@igars9951]

Tell me, please, which developer developed it?

[@KyleMcDougall]

Ilford DDX

[@ucloclam5146]

i was here first.

[@user-ti9zc1xv2b]

Yeah Foma is finitto

[@KyleMcDougall]

I still do enjoy Foma, just different purposes. The Kentmere is something I could commit to, the Foma is more just a fun film to shoot with now and then (for me).

[@j.k5654]

Cheap, less sharp MF film makes no sense at all. It’s makes no sense making cheaper film that competes with the lesser format. Make Film that rivals the upper formats. I can say after looking at your scans that my high end 35mm lens + film (tmax100) + coolscan combo gives me way more sharpness and details than these. Look at 8:30, that’s terrible. No one wants to say it, so I will. We shoot MF so we can get more details than 35mm (I don’t care about the other reasons). Making a cheap, less sharp film for MF is useless. It puts us in the penny wise, pound foolish scenario. Anyone who shoots MF wants the best... It has less latitude, less sharpness and it’s only 2$ max, less than HP5… make it make sense Ilford. So I pick up my MF instead of 35mm cuz I want better results and details right, BUT I want to safe 1$ on a cheaper, less sharp film? 🤣🤣🤣 It’s like buying a 5000$ lens but saving on a plastic filter. This is a business decision to fool people. Kodak did the same with kodak gold 200 in 120. A park of 5 cost 47$, while portra 400 cost 55$. If you really wanted quality, will that 7$ scare you? There is a difference in making cheap, less sharp 35mm film than making the same for MF, cuz 35mm is the smallest format we have and we tend to use it to experiment, point and shoot etc. Also, We don’t have modern high end lenses for MF. Again, this is for those who are penny wise and pound foolish. What we need is a sharper MF film that rivals 4x5, just like the CM iso 20 35mm film that when shot with high end lenses rivals MF and LF in sharpness. Edit: In my opinion, this is bad for film photography. Think about it. Way fewer people shot MF. And people might be thinking, this is the best way to make more people shoot MF, but it’s the opposite. Cuz as long as we have “better" film in 35mm and MF and as long we don’t have newer MF cameras with good optics that don’t cost a house… this is bad. So you finally got that Hasselblad or Mamiya 7 to shoot some cheap, less sharp MF film, to then scan it on an epson😂? Makes no sense. We don’t even have newer scanners for MF film. Please don’t call Epson V a better scanner… it’s terrible. I thought I was having better scans till I compared them to a coolscan or nuritsu etc. If we want to keep film alive, make better film that rivals bigger formats, cuz more people shot 35mm (with newer optics)make better newer scanners, give us newer MF cameras. Just think about it. I finally understand why Leica gave us an expensive 35mm camera. Expensive toys for the lesser (most used) formats is what makes film photography going. Cuz it makes lesser format rival bigger ones. People, ask your self this question; Would you rather shoot pro level film with your 5000$ lens for 35mm or shoot cheap, less sharp MF film in your 5000$ MF camera? Food for thought Thanks for the review btw, showed us a lot what we need to know.

[@panpan1985]

I guess negativity really runs your life, doesn't it? Everyone has their own taste and their own preference with what film they like/look they like, so there's no need to come in here with your superiority complex when Photography/The look of the image is quite literally subjective. You might not like how it looks, but others do. I hope you find peace in your heart and your head, because clearly you're just another photography snob.

[@j.k5654]

@@panpan1985 No mate. Am sorry if I came off negatively. This was meant for ilford and I don’t see any negativity in it. With that out the way, let’s not argue or fight, less reason here; 1) a new film stock is out. Great. But it has less latitude and it’s less sharp in MF. 2) guess what, it’s only 1$ less than a high end film with more latitude and sharpness. You must see the logic in that mate. 3) in film photography, we (majority) aspire to get better results, better scans etc. that’s why cameras like Hasselblad and Mamiya went up in prices. So u will buy that 5k MF camera to shoot a film less sharp? Really? 4) we don’t have good film scanners. So u will get a less sharp film to scan it at home on a lesser scanner. What results are u expecting to get? 5) think on a business / marketing level. Don’t u think it’s better to have film tht rivals upper formats than film that competes with lesser formats? Come on mate. This is not rocket science. I don’t mean any of this in a bad way. If it were 35mm, no problem. But MF is what we consider pro level. It’s our get away. Just think about it mate. No hate intended. I

[@j.k5654]

@@panpan1985 I get what u are saying, but as compared to u, I will not insult you. Instead am open to discuss. U bring up look as an argument. Why do I have to sacrifice lattitude and sharpness for look?? Kyle did a great job in the video and even mentioned that it looks like HP5. So we have that look already. Let’s be honest mate, would u put a 5$ plastic filter on ur 5k lens? That’s what ilford is giving us. Don’t u think it would have been better to HP5 level film but cheaper?? Again it puts us in a penny wise, pound foolish scenario. U might not like this fact, but it’s the truth. It would have also been different if this film was 3$. But just 1 or 2$ shy of HP5…. Come on mate. Last question, do u know of any company that has lowered it’s quality, hence prices and survived? I will wait …

[@DavidWilliams7037A]

@@j.k5654 Obviously you are not a photographer on a pension!

[@psybard]

A few thoughts : It would be a problem if there was no modern high-quality B&W film available in 120, but fortunately it's not the case. TMAX 100, for exemple, is available in 120. To stay with this exemple, TMAX have a very "modern" look (some says "digital") that is not for everybody's taste. For some people, for some projects, an old-school emulsion is better suited, and sharpness is not paramount. There is also a market for less expensive film in all format, from 35mm to 8x10. When you just got your camera and are not familiar with it, or don't even know if the shutter works, you don't want to shoot an expensive film to find out. Or if you're out shooting pictures that you don't plan on printing, it makes sense to go to the budget option .. different circumstances calls for different films stocks. Finally, having more choice in B&W films can never be a bad thing :) Regarding the comparison between 100 & 400, were they both developed in DD-X according to the kentmere datasheet, which would put them at the same contrast index logically ? the reason I ask is because althought the difference in contrast between the medium-speed and high-speed version is consistent with my own experience with Agfaphoto APX 100 & 400 (it's the same thing), as the developement part is very important in B&W, it's very easy to misjudge a film stock by over or under-developing.