Which Film is Better: Foma or Kentmere?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.พ. 2025
- A common type of question I receive is 'which film is better' or which film is best?' Often that question compares two or more brands. This is the second of three videos that pairs two brands people often associate with entry-level or beginner films: Foma and Kentmere.
The most important thing about the film you use is that it is consistent and delivers an aesthetic that you want for your images. Beyond that, no specific brand is important. In this video, I share my own thoughts about the to inexpensive films: Foma and Kentmere. Foma is a great film company that makes great film stock. for me, the jury is still out on Kentmere.
My Patreon Page:
/ davidhancock
Follow me on Twitter:
/ _david_hancock_
Gear I used for Filming and Editing:
Video Capture and Film Digitization- Pentax K-3 (www.ricoh-imagi...) or Pentax K-1 (www.ricoh-imagi...)
Secondary Capture- Sony CX330 (www.sony.com/el...)
Lens- Pentax 31mm FA Limited (www.pentaxforum...)
Off-camera Audio- Tascam DR-70D or Tascam DR-60D MKII and Tascam DR-05 (tascam.com/prod... or tascam.com/prod... and tascam.com/prod...)
Video Editing- Sony Movie Studio Platinum (www.vegascreati...)
Audio Processing- Adobe Soundbooth (www.adobe.com/...)
My Photography Website:
www.5119photogr...
Follow me on Google+:
plus.google.co...
Stop praising Foma products... I don't want their prices to go up! :)
:D
Foma is an expressive and affordable film and I am looking forward to seeing what it does in vintage cameras.
That's fair. And I do think it has a ghost place in some photography. I'll be doing a very in-depth review of the 400 later this year.
In my experience, the box speeds of Foma films represent a one-stop push. The most common negative comments about Foma films is that they are grainy, contrasty and don't have great shadow detail. Those are characteristics of pushed film.
I get great results shooting Foma 100 at ie 50, and Foma 400 at ie 200, and developing 10 to 15% less. Finer grain, better shadow detail and easier to control contrast. It's easier to add contrast in printing or after scanning, than to reduce contrast and fix empty shadows or blocked highlights.
That aligns with my experience, too. I find that Foma responds well to yellow filters as well.
I got this impression whilst getting to grips with foma 200. I use it at 160 and minimal agitation with HC to control the highlights which I found to block up easily.
Fomapan 100 has been my go-to medium speed film for years. It works great with my favorite developers, Perceptol, Rodinal (box speed) and Microphen (EI 200). I also like the lack of an anti-halation layer which gives glowing highlights under the right lighting.
I agree. I have used Arista 100 in MF and LF. I believe that Arista is the same as Foma. Anyway, I love Arista in 120 and sheet formats. The image characteristics from it are superb.
Kentmere is made by Ilford and designed and made to be cheap for students and beginners.
Foma is made in the Czech Republic where the cost of labor and manufacturing is lower thereby producing a quality product at a lower price. A fairer comparison on the basis of quality rather than price would be Fomapan 400 & Ilford HP5.
Thank you!
Foma is an old Czech company which makes films, papers and all the chemicals for them. I used its films when I started photography, now I prefer Ilford films, however, I still use the Foma papers. Much cheaper than Ilford.
Definitely yes. I like Foma papers, too. I think they have a nice look about them and an older-style contrast that suits images well.
Yes, Kentmere makes paper. Foma, in addition to the 100, 400, and 320 Soft (and their papers) also has their 200 (tabular grain) and R100 B&W reversal film. I've used Foma 100 and 400 (rebranded as Arista .EDU Ultra) for years, and I'm generally very pleased with them. The one thing I don't like is their reciprocity departure, especially in the 400 -- it's nearly useless for pinhole because you'll wind up with exposures of three minutes or more with the same light and camera where Tri-X would give 12 to 16 seconds. If you're not shooting multi-second exposures, however, it's quite good, and 25% cheaper than Kodak or Ilford products.
Thank you! I haven't used Kentmere enough yet to get into the reciprocity failure.
It`s not about the brand, IMHO. Much more how you gonna use, it. Finetuning your process (exposure, ISO and developer/ dev.time) is the key. My everyday film is Kentmere K100, which, by the way, can easily be pushed
Yes and now. In general I agree that the brand is less important than, for instance, how its used. That said, Foma and Kentmere, specifically, perform FAR differently from a technical perspective. Both have good uses and distinct aesthetics.
Kentmere do make paper, I have some 16x20 I had given me by an incredibly generous man who gave lots of darkroom gear as well. It’s very popular with photography students here in the U.K. as is the film. I keep meaning to try some Foma film which I must do soon. I think the ISO 100 (?) often has that soft (as opposed to harsh, not out of focus) look that FP4+ has when developed in LC-29. It can definitely be a very pleasing look. I don’t think I'm a film snob but I just got stuck in the rut of using Ilford film along with their developers. I’m using a lot of TMax on my analogue 365 to get me using more Kodak, next year I'm going to use 11 different films that are all unique to me along with the appropriate developers. I’m enjoying the 365 project malarkey and will definitely do one next year.
Another brilliant video David, thank you.
Thank you, Mark!
@@DavidHancock kentmere have been making paper for decades, I used there paper 40 years ago and they where making it long before that.
The Kentmere factory in the English Lake District closed many years ago. Kentmere films and papers are now produced as budget brands in the Ilford factory in Mobberley, Cheshire (which is part of Harman Technology). Kentmere film seems to be particularly popular in schools and colleges - buying bulk in 30m cans and “rolling your own” really does produce a saving. I enjoyed the video very much, thanks.
I’ve used Foma 400 in 120, and Kosmo 100 (rebranded Foma 100) in 35mm. I liked them both but definitely liked the Foma 100 the most. Can get some amazing contrast with that film. Also learned to print in the darkroom on Foma paper. They’re an amazing company, I think one could happily shoot only their films and make plenty high quality images. Only complaint I’ve really had with Foma is that the emulsion is a little less durable than Ilford or Kodak stocks and scratches on occasion.
Thank you!
By less durable, do you mean the negatives start to break down over time???
Kentmere is a very nice stock for the money. Especially the 400 is really great for what it cost and a great place for beginners. I’m gonna shoot a roll of Foma next but from what I’ve heard, it’s also very capable and maybe a little smoother as long as you’re giving it enough light. I think I’m gonna go for Foma as my cheep BW stock for when I don’t want to rip through a roll for Tri-X.
I agree completely. I'm using a bunch of Kentmere 400 right now to finish that All About Film video and I, generally, like the results. With a good developer pairing and some good use practices, it holds its own well against higher-priced films.
My favorite film is Ilford Delta 100 and I like Fomapan 100 because it gives me similar results when developed with LC29. I also do a lot of semi-stand and Fomapan 100 handles it very well.
Thank you! I also like Delta 100 a lot. I think it's probably Ilford's best film.
I use both. Foma 100 in 120 is a great and sharp film with rodinal, i often use it with my Rolleicord (Vb MK3) or my Hasselblad. For 135 i prefer Kentmere 100 and Rodinal, btw both with 1+50. (135 and 120).
Oh interesting. What about Kentmere do you like more for 35mm?
@@DavidHancock It is not as grainy as the Foma 100. And it dissolve better than the Foma 100 in 135.
Btw. I expose both films at 80 Asa.
I seem to get a lot of black speckling with Fomapan 200 but haven't found that issue with HP5
Hmm. Black spots on the negative or the print (scan)? For negative spots, that's dirt or debris or dist of some sort, in all likelihood. If it's a black spot on the print or scan then that's a bubble on the film during development that prevented the developer from reaching the film.
Fomapan is not an entry level film, none of their emulsions are. They might be entry level prices but the films are not. They are difficult to handle, and although capable of beautiful results, a photographer needs to be quite knowledgeable and experienced about the response of the film to different lights and to the effect of the chemistry used in developing them. Fomapan 100 classic is the prime example, a nightmare if not handled properly but otherwise beautiful. I suggest that a beginner go with either an Ilford HP5+ or the Kodak TMY2 400, if money is no object. These films are versatile, easy to develop with a variety of developers, have enough lattetude to cover up the exposure placement mistakes, and yield good results under a variety of lighting situations. Kentmere stuff is usually Ilford/Harman. Foma papers are very good and reasonably priced and easy to handle and develop.
Thank you! I do love Fioma paper. I'm using a lot of 332 for paper negatives in large format cameras right now and it's stunning. I would be very happy using Foma papers nearly esxclusively.
And thank you for the input on their film. I'll be digging into Foma a lot more in the coming year and that will help me as I get to know their film very well.
In 135 the support is more fragile though... I have scratches from time to time...
For me Kentmere 400 is very near Ilford HP5+ and can be easily push at 3200 with ilford DDX ...foma 400 turn more grainy but i like it too.
I haven't tried pushing Kentmere yet. I had read it didn't respond well, but I look forward to trying. Thank you for the tip on how to start with it.
@@DavidHancock you'r welcome... :-)
I love Foma in 120 and 4x5, especially 400 speed.
I agree. I've used Arista in both formats, which I think is the same stuff. It's great.
They also make 200 ISO a practically almost 100 years old company out of the Czech Republic, love their film.
And a really interesting 320 ISO, too, that I happen to like a lot.
The 200 is their best film, just don’t shoot it at 200.125 is better
I love using Fomapan 100 in 120. I'm starting to use it more often for ISO 100 BnW 35mm film shots too for general purpose or family photos etc as it's so cheap!
I'm a fan of Foma, too. I like the look and image aesthetic.
I've never used Kentmere, it's not available here at my favorite shops for some reason, but assumed since it's owned by Ilford it was sort of a relabeled Ilford film - I guess I was wrong about that. As for Fomapan, a few friends love it, I used it quite a few times but found it a little lacking, first as you said on the contrast side, but also I found the grain a little much and not as pleasing with the low contrast. My main reason not to buy it though is that it seems to scratch a lot, I've had huge scratches especially at the beginning of the film and can't figure out if it was my camera or something in the developing process (I give them away for developing), but assume it's the camera. Since I've had no issues with other brands I assume Foma is just a little on the fragile side. In any case, Ilford isn't very expensive here in Germany (Kodak is!), so I stick with it most of the time now.
Fomapan Classic 100 is supposed to be really good. But as you said, their emulsions are really soft so you easily get scratches. I'm planing to buy some Foma 100 till summer. Btw, Rollei RPX400 is a really nice "cheapo" alternative to Tri-X. Fairly punchy contrast, slightly more noticable grain.
As I understand it, Kentmere was a producer that was about to go under so Harman bought them after they owned Ilford. I may have some data wrong there as I'm not an Ilford historian, but I think that's the gist of it. So Kentmre continued using the emulsions they already made, which use less silver than the Ilford emulsions. So it's owned by Ilford, but I as I understand it the emulsions to have different formulations.
@@DavidHancock I believe this is correct. I watched a video of Mike Bain from lford giving a talk and he mentioned this
I like Fomapan films. They are a great value and I use a lot of it for 35mm and 120 for medium format. I just purchased a 100' roll of Arista 400 and I'm not sure who actually makes this film.
I also like Foma films, but find they benefit from a yellow filter most of the time.
I'm told that Arista is made by Foma, but whenever I can get around to making my All About Film review on the Arista stocks, I'll try to verify that.
My conclusions:
Kentmere 400 for true 400 ASA film, with normal reciprocity failure -> Pinhole, long exposure, night photography !
Fompan 400 - 400 ASA film only on the box -> give good results at 200ASA -> big no go for Pinhole, LongExposure, Night Photography. -> reciprocity failure is a big no go.
That's pretty good in a nutshell. I've been using Foma 400 a lot this year and I find it had suitable exposure from ISO 250 to 100.
I think if you shot a roll of Fomapan 400 and then showed the negatives/prints to somebody, you could tell them it was Ilford HP5+ and they'd believe you.
I've been shooting Foma 400 for that film's All About Film video and I'm highly skeptical of that.
Foma also have a 200 film that's a T grain. It's my go to for cheap black and white, with a mix between a classic and modern grain.
Nice! I'm really looking forward to digging into Foma as soon as some of my nearer-complete film reviews are done.
I have heard it’s a t grain film but the data sheet didn’t say it requires longer fixing times so I was unsure.
It’s not really a T grain film. Has an old school look to it too,
I shoot mostly Foma/Arista EDU Ultra. Very happy with it. I look forward to your Foma review.
I tend to like Foma and Arista, so I'm looking forward to really getting into the image gathering for them.
kentmere paper is very good that is all that I use when I was starting out but I did get my self a box of 8x10 Ilford pearl and im loving the results with the Ilford paper different paper speeds tho with kentmere and Ilford ive never tried foma film I should give it a try Ive being using kentmere 100asa film for a while now and ive noticed when you push it comes out very average good review david look forward to your next
Thank you, Beau!
You forgot to mention Fomapan's slide BnW film - R100
Is it still in production? I had it in my head that it went out of production (but I may be wrong.)
@@DavidHancock the motion picture 8-35mm rolls and 35mm still rolls are in production
Thank you!
@@DavidHancock I bought some a couple of months ago. It was inexpensive, not expired, and the results were fine, but processing at the lab was almost three times the cost of regular black and white film. Still, it was worth it to try once.
They make a home processing kit for this film as well.@@marcuspeddle
all foma are very potential films and inexpensive, but hard to handle... that would be interesting and useful if you make some video about them.
Thank you and I agree. I won't be able to make and All About Film this year but I'll be getting seriously into using Foma this year.
Kentmere is just kinda shit-tier ilford (harman manufactures ilford and kentmere) -- I think in some markets Kentmere is sold as Ilford Pan 100 and 400, also as The Rollei RPX line, and the Agfaphoto (not to be confused with agfapan) APX line of emulsions too. Foma is it's own thing but not actually a "student film" just really old-school. Foma 200 is more their take on a T-grain film than anything else, and I'd honestly recommend shooting at 100. I think if you do some digging through the photo message boards their distributor "fotohuis" recommends shooting it at no higher than 160.
Nice! Thank you.
Yes, I like Fomapan 200, but I shoot it at 100-125 iso... Xtol is good developer for this film!
Do you have any experience shooting fomapan 200? what is your opinion on that film?
Not yet. I've so far only used 100 and 400. I tend to like Foma films, so I would expect that I'd like the 200, too. I tend to think of 200 as a weird speed because it's almost too fast for full sun and still too slow for indoor use. It's kind of like an attempt as a middle-of-the-road speed that kind of works in lots of settings but is often not perfectly suited for any of them.
@@DavidHancock from what i heard, fomapan 200 has a pretty strange grain structure, mixture of both traditional grain structure and T-grain, but I am not sure what effects that will bring to the final image
I love Fomapan 200 35mm. It has its look, I find it "softer" than HP5+ in a pleasant way. Give it a try.
I shoot it at 200 in Diafine, 100 for Rodinal. Looks real nice.
David Hancock the 200 is quite unlike the Foma 100 or 40O.
Fomapan 100 is NOT an entry level film by any stretch. 100iso developed in Perceptol or Rodinal is outstanding
Yeah, I agree having had far more experience with it now than I did back in the day.
can you do an all about film on foma200 please please please
Someday. It's a VERY long way out. As in years. These generally take about three years to make -- taking photos with different gear and different formats, developing in different chemicals, and trying to shoot across seasons so the photos look different just adds up. Right now, I have the schedule sketched out through 2026Foma 200 isn't in it. I've never used Foma 200, so it's honestly WAY down the line behind a lot of films I've used a little bit. But I do want to do all the Foma films, yes.
Hello David Hancock,
I use the Forma 100 @ 50 , 320, and 400 in 35, 120 and in 9x12 cm . A very good Film and in Germany it is easy to get it . I use the Kentmere 400 @ 800 in 35, to get less grain.
mit freundlichem Gruß aus dem Schaumburger Land
Matthias
Thank you! I do like Foma 100 at 50 ISO, too. I think it really sings at that speed.And hello back from the land that is colored red (Colorado)!
So you shoot foma 100 at 50, 320 or 400 iso depending on situations? Standart dev time or do you adapt? I figure that shooting at 50 you dev normally (basicly saying that the true ISO of this film is more akin to 50 ISO than 100 which I heard before) but how about 320 and 400? Do you overdevelop afterwards?
Im a beginner and I got my standart developing down, I wanna start experimenting a little with this film stock.
I have to really disagree with you. After my retirement and my bulk film loader ran out of Tri-X, I thought I would save some money by buying a 100-foot roll of Foma 400. I am a classic camera collector and have been shooting and developing film since 1966, but Foma 400 film was the absolute worst film I ever shot. Right off the bat, at 200 ISO it is only half of the advertised box speed. When you develop it even at 200 ISO, you never are sure what you are going to get as far as negative density. It also has a seriously bad halation glow that really can be very annoying. No matter how careful I was in film handling, the negatives always seemed to be scratched. No matter how I washed the film, even using distilled water and a rinsing agent, the negatives dried with huge water marks that sometimes even showed up on the final prints. I even wrote an email to Foma to complain. They basically said "yeah, the film speed is only half the advertised box speed and by the way don't use D-76 even though our tech sheets say you can." Grrrrrrrrr! One day thankfully my bulk loader ran out of Foma 400. Bought a 100 roll of Kentmere 400. What a world of difference! Photography is actually fun again. The film is actually true box speed of 400 ISO. The grain is not bad at all. Unlike Foma 400, the contrast is very nice and the film dries perfectly with no water makes. Also, the film is much more scratch resistant. For someone starting out in film, do yourself a favor and try Kentmere first. You won't be disappointed. There are many reasons why a lot a people do not like Foma. You can grow with Kentmere but your growth will definitely be stunted with Foma.
As I've been using Foma more for the All About Film video on it, my opinion of it has changed a lot. It's FAR from a house favorite. I'm finding that I need to shoot the 400 at a 100 ISO and then develop it as 400 to get decent negative density.
@@DavidHancock Thanks for reply. Actually, what you described sounds about right!
@@DavidHancock Could you update on the fomapan 100 as well? Do you still prefer it to kentmere 100?
I use a lot of foma in medium format, and I am trying films to bulk roll in 35mm.
@@yhangr It's been years since I used either in 100. I did recently make a detailed review of Kentmere 400 (All About Film), in the last year, and later this year will tackle Foma 400 in a detailed review.
@@DavidHancock Oh i see.
I dont like fomapan 400 too much. Even in medium format it is too grainy and too much contrast. It is interesting when shot at 250 and developed in FX39II (high acutance developer like rodinal, but much less grain and gives more speed), but not high quality. Good for "retro" shots.
Fomapan 100, however, in medium format is AMAZING. Developed in rodinal it gives great tones, it is really a very good look. Please try 100, it may become a favorite!
Foma 400 is really not so good. Only 2~3x more speed than 100, but you lose a lot in grain and tonality. (100 grain is sooo beautiful).
True, foma is good, kentmere is ok
:D
I love the Foma 100 and 200.(shot at 125, it’s poor at 200) I can’t stand the 400 (shot at 250, it’s even worse at 400) the 200 is my favorite. It also looks great shot at box speed in Diafine.
I've heard that about the 200 before. I can't wait to dig into Foma soon and do my first All About Film videos on it.
I do not understand the thing people have for expired film.
After using only fresh film for some years, brother do I.
because it gives "creative" pix
Peeps hate on foamapan because it's higher in red and not technically as nice as tri-x delta 32
Solid theory. Red sensitivity can be hard in some situations.
@@DavidHancock wouldn't a polarized filter help out or even uum, red :-)
I know a secret, but I'm not sure if I'm supposed to tell you.
I promise not to tell anyone unless it's something I already know.
@David Hancock I'm from Czechia where Foma factory is based. It was a good company from the start, then the communist era came, everything went into drain, mainly the quality. And I think even after Eastern block colapsed in 1989 and the factory became again in private business, they really can't catch a breath. Couple years ago they released a triple pack. You could get package with three 35 mm Fomas 100, 200 or 400 ISO in there for reasonable price. But, you know, in the perforation of the film after development is written the name of the film, speed and frame numbers. So the reality was you bought Foma 100 triple pack, and after developing you realised you actualy got there one 100 ISO, one 200 ISO and one 400 ISO. Or you bought 400 pack and you got there two 400 ISO and one 200 ISO, etc. And you shot them all as 400 ISO because you didn't know there are mixed films with various speeds, so the results were not so satisfying. Another famous story here: Foma makes also photographic emulsion. Some art school from Britain ordered 200 litres of emulsion for some project. Foma made it into twenty 10 litres black plastic buckets...with transparent plastic lids.
When I started with film photography as a teenager, I started with Foma. There were scratches and dust in the emulsion. I suspected the lab, so I made my own darkroom at home. Dust and scratches again. If I tried Ilford film, everything was OK, so the problem wasn't in my camera. That film was just not nice.
I'm a member of the small photo club. Sometimes product manager from Foma join us on meetings. He told me the dust and scratchings were the big problem, but they upgraded the production process and this could not to happen anymore. He also said the production process is still a little bit "wild", so the quality drifts from batch to batch. The CEO of the company is a woman. She has masters degree from photography, but the artistic side of photography, not the craft side, so even if my friend product manager tries to make improvements (now for example with Fomapan 200, because it's not 200 ISO, it drifts somewhere from 150 to 300 ISO), he encounters resistence from top. Chemistry isn't bad, fibre based papers ain't bad, avoid Fomaspeed papers. They are utter shit.
If you're a beginner, cheapskate or on budget, Foma isn't bad. If you're a pro or you make large prints for exhibition or you want to present your work somewhere, do it on superior materials.
I still wouldn't recommend Foma 400.
But the 100 is the best for me as a student
It's been ages since I shot Foma 400, but less time since I shot the 100. I do like the 100, especially with a yellow filter.
@@DavidHancockdid you use the Fomapan Developer?
Because I feel like Rodinal is not the best for Fomapan.
I think about using the Fomapan Developer
@@harryhaller348 I found rodinal to be bad with foma 200. I'd imagine I could get to grips with the tonality eventually, but not the ugly grain with it.
Kentmere does make paper
Thank you!
Kentmere is made by Harman.
Thank you fro catching that.
When I run out of toilet paper I reach for the Kentmere 100. Good for some things.
That could hurt.
Excrement falls through the sprocket holes.