Thanks so much for the review. It is well done and is very objective. After I got my darkroom working again, I switched for my 35mm cameras to Kentmere 400 from Foma 400 because of this video. What a world of difference! I am very pleased now with my prints. Everything just seems better from contrast to grain to film drying with much less spotting to resistance to scratching. A huge plus is that it is actually accurately rated at its box speed of 400. Photography is fun again! I just wish that Kentmere made 4x5 film. I am a retiree and am on a budget. Foma 200 is OK (just) in 4x5 but there really is a need for a better film like Kentmere in 4x5.
I have to say, one thing I am learning from this series is how excellent Tri X is. It seems to take on all comers and prevails as the superior film with the exception being Ilford FP4. Fantastic channel.👍☕📷🌟🌟🌟
Thank you so much for the comparisons! I was worrying way too much about filmstocks. Epacially in black and white there are so many options out there besides tri-x which look pretty close or almost identical.
To my eye Tri-x has a more pleasing contrast and sharper image. But Kentmere holds up really nice, and this film looks like a great value for money, definetely will give it a try.
I'm very happy shooting Kentmere, especially for the price... it is an Ilford product after all. However, I'd be interested in seeing a comparison with it to a proper Ilford film like HP5.
Can’t wait til you do the HP5 comparison. After shooting for a few years I really want to standardize and lock down a film, developer, and EI to remain consistent. Deciding between HP5 and Kentmere.
I have done an HP5 redux, but I’m not posting it for a while. The grain of HP5 is much closer to Tri-X than Kentmere. The Kentmere just has a more pronounced grain than HP5 and Tri-X.
HP5+ and Kentmere 400 are different films, though they both come from Harman Technology’s Ilford factory in Cheshire, U.K.. Apart from anything else, the Kentmere emulsion seems to have a lower silver content than HP5+. One consequence of this is that the Kentmere film doesn’t respond as well to push-processing as premium films like HP5+ and Tri-X.
Kentmere 400, Agfaphoto APX 400, CHM 400 (occasionally branded as ADOX) and Rollei RPX 400 all use the same emulsion by Harman Technology. If you want to shoot Kentmere 400 as medium format, the RPX 400 is available as 120 format film ;-)
@@TheNakedPhotographer Harman is quite secretive about it, by request of some of the respective brand name holders no doubt. The brand name holder of Adox/CHM Film is a company in Berlin called Fotoimpex and on their website they more or less "blurt it out" in the description of their CHM 400 and 100 films: www.fotoimpex.com/films/fotoimpex-chm-400-13536.html?cache=1598904542 it basically says the same thing in the description of the CHM 100. If you look at the dev times for common developers you'll see that they're all the same
@@TheNakedPhotographer Just had a look at the times in Massive Dev Chart to be sure not to regurgitate wrong Info. D-76 times in 1+1 solution are quite identical for all the mentioned films, the same goes for between the ISO 100 Variants. there is the occasional bit of variance where an extra 30 seconds (ISO 100) / 1 min (ISO 400) are added / subtracted, so rather marginal differences. Maybe a future video of yours will be called "comparing Kentmere film to its clones " :-D
@@TheNakedPhotographer btw it looks like you can add Ilford Pan 400 to my list. As it has been discontinued and Kentmere 400 has been rebranded to Kentmere Pan 400 and the similar dev times, I guess it's safe to presume those two films are the same emulsion too.
@@TheNakedPhotographer I’ve talked to Rollei about that and they’ve told me that the RPX 100 and 400 are new emulsions based on the original Agfa Leverkusen APX formulas. Produced for them by Harman Technology. They’re actually the ones who bought the Agfa Leverkusen patterns when it went down. I’ve also talked to the new owners of the Agfa brand name. And they wouldn’t confirm or deny that their film was Kentmere 400. I’ve shot both Rollei RPX 400 and the new AgfaPhoto APX 400 and developed and scanned them the same way and they have different characteristics to my eye. I didn’t do any side by side. But the RPX had a distinctive grain and a flatter contrast curve than those I’ve seen from either APX or other peoples Kentmere pictures. The fact that they all have the same development times isn’t that special to me. They all are cubic emulsion, 400 speed black and white films. Manufactured at the Ilford plant.
Great comparison as always! I need to revisit Kentmere using a different developer. The difference in grain was one of the biggest differences why wouldn’t choose it over HP5 or Tri-X but maybe using D-76 or something else I’ll get better results.
It would be very helpful, for me (and probably for others) if you could do a video on flattening fiber prints. There really aren't any good videos online discussing this topic, and it appears there are many different ways to do it successfully. Would love to know how you do it, and how it could be done without purchasing a dry mount press.
It is obvious that Kentmere follows HP5 Plus closely, but for extended shadow detail. Not surprising since both are manufactured by Ilford/Harman. The new Tri-X is also a ' hybrid ' so far as graoin is concerned. It is a Cubic/T grain film as Kentmere is more a traditional emulsion.
I've always said Kentmere is an under-rated film. When you take into consideration the cost of a roll (£3.80 compared to £8.33), i see no justification in paying out the extra.
It's interesting how the prices are so different in different places. In the US, HP5 is $6 a roll while Kentmere is $5 and some change. In that case, the fact that HP5 can be over and underexposed so much more and still give acceptable results makes it worth the extra cost.
Hi, Thank you for those video, it's very interesting ! It could be interesting to have comparaison between the Tri-x and the TMAX 400 as they are from the same brand but one with classic grain and the other with tubular grain.
Coincidence, my first Kentmere 400 has just dried up. I have a feeling we have to be careful with the shadows. Exposed 320 asa. D76 stock. 20 degrees. Maybe 1 + 3 will give a better result. In the video, the irises probably also show a little more detail in the Tri-x photo?
@@TheNakedPhotographer when it was released, it was stated to be a "hybrid" t-grain, developed somehow in association with Fuji. At least its totally different from Fomapan 100 & 400, that are classic soft large grain films.
@@TheNakedPhotographer "The film has a special look due to the Silver Crystals which is a mix between cubical type and hexagonal type material." You can find some electron microscope images of the grain on some forums etc.
Hi, l ´m your fans and I like your videos a lot! I would like to ask your permission to share this video to other website in China for more analog lover like me to see it ( for the embarrassed reason that TH-cam is blocked in China, and of course I will give source of the original website) wait for your response:) Thanks!
If it is removed completely from TH-cam and uploaded to a different site, I would not get paid for the views. TH-cam advertising money is how I make money to buy the film and paper used to make these videos. A link is acceptable, but not a torrent.
@@TheNakedPhotographer ah, no it's just a link, it will not affect your youtube channel at all: ) because I think your videos are really nice, so if you agree I will also make the Chinese subtitle, maybe some of the words which I don't catch I have to ask you :0
Links are fine. I can see what sites link to my videos, so let me know what site it is so I know to watch for it. I think TH-cam is no longer allowing people to make translations because false translations were being added.
They are not exactly equal. The Tri-X is more contrasty with a wider gamut. It looks richer. The Kentmere looks muddy and flat to my eyes. The highlights are almost non existent. The difference in price is justified I think. A comparison with HP5+ would be a good idea as they are from the same manufacturer at the same ISO. In any case, this was a good video to watch. Never used Kentmere myself and I was curious about it. I hear they don't come in 120 format.
Best film photography channel on youtube, hands down. I am a professional photographer and still find your channel very useful. Thank you very much.
Thanks so much for the review. It is well done and is very objective. After I got my darkroom working again, I switched for my 35mm cameras to Kentmere 400 from Foma 400 because of this video. What a world of difference! I am very pleased now with my prints. Everything just seems better from contrast to grain to film drying with much less spotting to resistance to scratching. A huge plus is that it is actually accurately rated at its box speed of 400. Photography is fun again! I just wish that Kentmere made 4x5 film. I am a retiree and am on a budget. Foma 200 is OK (just) in 4x5 but there really is a need for a better film like Kentmere in 4x5.
idk if you still do 4x5 but i love catlabs80 for my 4x5 pics. i think it gives me the same amount of "feel" of my prints that kentmere 100/400 does.
I have to say, one thing I am learning from this series is how excellent Tri X is. It seems to take on all comers and prevails as the superior film with the exception being Ilford FP4. Fantastic channel.👍☕📷🌟🌟🌟
Wow, this was really insightful! I would never have imagined the results to be so similar.
Maybe I’m imagining it, but I see more shadow details on the Tri-X.
Great series, looking forward to the next installments!
Fantastic analysis! Recently shot Kentmere 400 and was very impressed!
Kentmere is one of my all time favourite films, and I have always got excellent images from it.
Thank you so much for the comparisons! I was worrying way too much about filmstocks. Epacially in black and white there are so many options out there besides tri-x which look pretty close or almost identical.
Considering that it's the "budget option", that's a pretty solid performance from kentmere!
To my eye Tri-x has a more pleasing contrast and sharper image. But Kentmere holds up really nice, and this film looks like a great value for money, definetely will give it a try.
I'm very happy shooting Kentmere, especially for the price... it is an Ilford product after all. However, I'd be interested in seeing a comparison with it to a proper Ilford film like HP5.
Kentmere grain is superior than HP5
Can’t wait til you do the HP5 comparison. After shooting for a few years I really want to standardize and lock down a film, developer, and EI to remain consistent. Deciding between HP5 and Kentmere.
As a couple have already said, I would love to see a comparison to HP5 because so many say that Kent 400 is actually HP5 repackaged.
I have done an HP5 redux, but I’m not posting it for a while. The grain of HP5 is much closer to Tri-X than Kentmere. The Kentmere just has a more pronounced grain than HP5 and Tri-X.
The Naked Photographer Thats exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you!
HP5+ and Kentmere 400 are different films, though they both come from Harman Technology’s Ilford factory in Cheshire, U.K.. Apart from anything else, the Kentmere emulsion seems to have a lower silver content than HP5+. One consequence of this is that the Kentmere film doesn’t respond as well to push-processing as premium films like HP5+ and Tri-X.
Kentmere 400, Agfaphoto APX 400, CHM 400 (occasionally branded as ADOX) and Rollei RPX 400 all use the same emulsion by Harman Technology. If you want to shoot Kentmere 400 as medium format, the RPX 400 is available as 120 format film ;-)
Do you have any documentation to back that up? I’m very interested in reading it.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Harman is quite secretive about it, by request of some of the respective brand name holders no doubt.
The brand name holder of Adox/CHM Film is a company in Berlin called Fotoimpex and on their website they more or less "blurt it out" in the description of their CHM 400 and 100 films:
www.fotoimpex.com/films/fotoimpex-chm-400-13536.html?cache=1598904542
it basically says the same thing in the description of the CHM 100.
If you look at the dev times for common developers you'll see that they're all the same
@@TheNakedPhotographer Just had a look at the times in Massive Dev Chart to be sure not to regurgitate wrong Info.
D-76 times in 1+1 solution are quite identical for all the mentioned films, the same goes for between the ISO 100 Variants. there is the occasional bit of variance where an extra 30 seconds (ISO 100) / 1 min (ISO 400) are added / subtracted, so rather marginal differences.
Maybe a future video of yours will be called "comparing Kentmere film to its clones " :-D
@@TheNakedPhotographer btw it looks like you can add Ilford Pan 400 to my list. As it has been discontinued and Kentmere 400 has been rebranded to Kentmere Pan 400 and the similar dev times, I guess it's safe to presume those two films are the same emulsion too.
@@TheNakedPhotographer I’ve talked to Rollei about that and they’ve told me that the RPX 100 and 400 are new emulsions based on the original Agfa Leverkusen APX formulas. Produced for them by Harman Technology. They’re actually the ones who bought the Agfa Leverkusen patterns when it went down.
I’ve also talked to the new owners of the Agfa brand name. And they wouldn’t confirm or deny that their film was Kentmere 400.
I’ve shot both Rollei RPX 400 and the new AgfaPhoto APX 400 and developed and scanned them the same way and they have different characteristics to my eye. I didn’t do any side by side. But the RPX had a distinctive grain and a flatter contrast curve than those I’ve seen from either APX or other peoples Kentmere pictures.
The fact that they all have the same development times isn’t that special to me. They all are cubic emulsion, 400 speed black and white films. Manufactured at the Ilford plant.
I love me some Kentmere when I can't afford HP5! They both seem more forgiving and less contrasty than Tri-X for my situation.
I clicked faster than a photon hitting my film
I remember seeing this series and thought, nah, not interested. But I guess that I'm now at the point where I can appreciate it.
Amazing resource, can you test kentmere 400 vs pan 400? Not sure if they're the same or not..
Great comparison as always! I need to revisit Kentmere using a different developer. The difference in grain was one of the biggest differences why wouldn’t choose it over HP5 or Tri-X but maybe using D-76 or something else I’ll get better results.
My favorite film. Usually pushed one stop and developed in DD-X
Ilfotec HC is what I use, I get some great results with that.
It would be very helpful, for me (and probably for others) if you could do a video on flattening fiber prints. There really aren't any good videos online discussing this topic, and it appears there are many different ways to do it successfully. Would love to know how you do it, and how it could be done without purchasing a dry mount press.
Kentmere 400 ASA, my ideal B&W fine grain film.
It is obvious that Kentmere follows HP5 Plus closely, but for extended shadow detail. Not surprising since both are manufactured by Ilford/Harman. The new Tri-X is also a ' hybrid ' so far as graoin is concerned. It is a Cubic/T grain film as Kentmere is more a traditional emulsion.
What did you do with the 49 prints of yourself?
They are in a box in case I want to use them for a different demonstration
I've always said Kentmere is an under-rated film. When you take into consideration the cost of a roll (£3.80 compared to £8.33), i see no justification in paying out the extra.
It's interesting how the prices are so different in different places. In the US, HP5 is $6 a roll while Kentmere is $5 and some change. In that case, the fact that HP5 can be over and underexposed so much more and still give acceptable results makes it worth the extra cost.
@@lobsterbark I haven't pulled Kentmere, but have often pushed it to 1600 with very good results.
Hi,
Thank you for those video, it's very interesting !
It could be interesting to have comparaison between the Tri-x and the TMAX 400 as they are from the same brand but one with classic grain and the other with tubular grain.
I published that one months ago, look through the Film Comparison playlist
thanks, legend
Anybody knows if this film is the same as Ilford PAN400? Lot of people claim they are, but none posts any source of this info
Pan400 isn’t available in the US, so I can’t say.
For me it's low contrast, but since I don't mind grain, I'll push it to iso 1600 or even 3200 for some high contrast.
You can just increase your development time to gain contrast without sacrificing shadow detail
Don't you think trix has more of a halo in large contrast areas?
No
I would suspect the Kentmere is actually 320 iso due to the slight lack of shadow detail.
It may end up a 320 ISO in camera, but the sensitometer has it as 400.
Oh my gosh why would I ever again pay twice as much for Tri-X over Kentmere 400?!
For all intents and purposes they're pretty much equal, but one costs a half of the other
Coincidence, my first Kentmere 400 has just dried up. I have a feeling we have to be careful with the shadows. Exposed 320 asa. D76 stock. 20 degrees. Maybe 1 + 3 will give a better result. In the video, the irises probably also show a little more detail in the Tri-x photo?
Do this one Fomapan 200, as its the only cheap t grain film.
Where do you see information stating it is a t-grain film?
There is no way in hell o heaven for Foma to have T-grain XD, the grain in Foma is "tradicional"
@@TheNakedPhotographer when it was released, it was stated to be a "hybrid" t-grain, developed somehow in association with Fuji. At least its totally different from Fomapan 100 & 400, that are classic soft large grain films.
@@guillermoperezsantos Have you actually shot the 200 iso film?
@@TheNakedPhotographer "The film has a special look due to the Silver Crystals which is a mix between cubical type and hexagonal type material." You can find some electron microscope images of the grain on some forums etc.
The Tri-X looks sharper.
Hi, l ´m your fans and I like your videos a lot! I would like to ask your permission to share this video to other website in China for more analog lover like me to see it ( for the embarrassed reason that TH-cam is blocked in China, and of course I will give source of the original website) wait for your response:) Thanks!
If it is removed completely from TH-cam and uploaded to a different site, I would not get paid for the views. TH-cam advertising money is how I make money to buy the film and paper used to make these videos. A link is acceptable, but not a torrent.
@@TheNakedPhotographer ah, no it's just a link, it will not affect your youtube channel at all: ) because I think your videos are really nice, so if you agree I will also make the Chinese subtitle, maybe some of the words which I don't catch I have to ask you :0
Links are fine. I can see what sites link to my videos, so let me know what site it is so I know to watch for it. I think TH-cam is no longer allowing people to make translations because false translations were being added.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Yes, sure, I will let you know once if I have done and posted : ) The subtitle is for the Chinese website.
@@TheNakedPhotographer Hi!! The video is now available on bilibili now : www.bilibili.com/video/BV15a4y1E7gu
By Harman, not by Ilford.
They are not exactly equal. The Tri-X is more contrasty with a wider gamut. It looks richer. The Kentmere looks muddy and flat to my eyes. The highlights are almost non existent. The difference in price is justified I think.
A comparison with HP5+ would be a good idea as they are from the same manufacturer at the same ISO. In any case, this was a good video to watch. Never used Kentmere myself and I was curious about it. I hear they don't come in 120 format.
I like kentmere, but I think it scratches easier than tri-x.
Kentmere is cheaper, all their products are really good.
I’ll post the 100 version in the future. (Spoiler!) I wasn’t disappointed by either film.