Kentmere 200

[PeterD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Pan 200 has been released by Harman/Ilford (I can never remember which is which!)

Has anyone tried it yet? Have any thoughts about it in particular, or about the Kentmere range in particular?

Peter

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[oldwino]

I really like Kentmere 100 - it is sharp and has a nice contrast to it. The 400 is less sharp, and lower in contrast, and looks better when shot at 800, IMO. Both films seem to have a weaker anti-halation layer than the "proper" Ilford films.

We will see how the new 200 fits in - initial samples I've seen look good, more contrast than the 400, and probably more acutance (but that's hard to tell from web pictures). 

[250swb]

One review that caught my eye did say it wasn't just a fill between 100 and 400 but it had a different look due to the increased contrast. This is a good idea from Kentmere because a lot of people returning to film photography or taking it up for the first time often need a bit of help nailing the type of image they are looking for, and to be able to pick up a film that has a benign contrast boost is a bit more to the point than descriptions of grain size and speed.

[AZD]

18 hours ago, 250swb said:

One review that caught my eye did say it wasn't just a fill between 100 and 400 but it had a different look due to the increased contrast. This is a good idea from Kentmere because a lot of people returning to film photography or taking it up for the first time often need a bit of help nailing the type of image they are looking for, and to be able to pick up a film that has a benign contrast boost is a bit more to the point than descriptions of grain size and speed.

I got two rolls yesterday and have developed a 15-frame clip test but haven’t yet printed (and don't digitize my negatives).

My impression: this is very good film. I can tell my negatives will print easily as they have detail from the shadows through the highlights. The grain seems about right for 200. More than K100, though not by much, and obviously less than K400. Very sharp also (as are K100 and K400). 

Beyond that, I feel the “increased contrast” statements are potentially misleading. The contrast of any film is dependent on its true ASA and how it is exposed and developed in relation to that, so, variable and not a set parameter. My brief test tells me that Kentmere 200 is a real 200 (I’ll leave the sensitometry to others…) and the given development times may be a bit too long, which would result in: increased contrast! The clear acetate base also makes it appear to be higher contrast to the eye, but that is just a visual adaptation. In printing or scanning, any film base + fog density is uniform, therefore it simply prints (or scans/adjusts) out of the final image. 

Hopefully I’ll have a print or two, which I can scan, to share soon. 

[BernardC]

I've watched a few reviews, but none of them covered what I consider to be a key attribute of B&W films: colour response. Is it more red-sensitive, meaning that it hides skin blemishes, or more blue-sensitive so that it emphasizes veins and freckles? The first type is generally considered to be preferable for glamour-type portraits, the second for a grittier look.

[PeterD]

5 hours ago, BernardC said:

I've watched a few reviews, but none of them covered what I consider to be a key attribute of B&W films: colour response. Is it more red-sensitive, meaning that it hides skin blemishes, or more blue-sensitive so that it emphasizes veins and freckles? The first type is generally considered to be preferable for glamour-type portraits, the second for a grittier look.

It should be fairly balanced across the spectrum, after all that is what the term means, BUT the proof will, as they say, be in the eating (i.e. Let's see what the photos actually turn out like)

[AZD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There was a post/review on the Photrio site showing that its response to a color chart matches Kentmere 100 and 400. It is “normal”, with the red response being neither extended nor truncated. 
 

[AZD]

I made some test prints last night and will try to make scans soon. 

Concerning grain, it is very good. I made one print on very old 8.5” x 11” Kodak Polycontrast III RC. When holding the print you can see grain, but it’s subtle enough to be irrelevant. Any greater distance and it’s impossible to make out. 

Concerning halation, yes it is present, and by my estimation more noticeable than the 100 or 400 versions. Certainly more than FP4, HP5, or anything by Kodak. That said, I am in the group of people who don’t mind this as long as it doesn’t become a distraction. More often, the subtle “glowing” can add a sense of luminosity. Sometimes it could ruin a great picture… depends on the subject and context. So yes there’s halation, whether it matters is subjective. 

Concerning contrast, I restate my belief that Kentmere’s published development times are potentially too long. That may be on purpose as this overdevelopment increases contrast, which seems to be a major consideration in marketing this film. Of course grain also increases with development time, so keep that in mind. In any case, a recap of my results:

- The film was developed in replenished Xtol (70ml stock replenisher per film, going on 30+ films now) for 10 minutes at 20C,  1 minute agitation intervals. 

- On fresh Ilford MGRC Classic glossy several scenes print beautifully at grade 2 or 2.5 with my old Kodak Polycontrast filter set I’ve been using for years. It varies slightly from Ilford, mostly at higher grades.

- On fresh Fomatone MG 131 the same scenes require a full grade increase (3 to 3.5) to match  MGRC. For the record, I don’t know which company is “correct” in their grading, but this full-grade difference has been consistent. 

- On ancient but usable Kodak Polycontrast III RC I had to use the 5+ filter as the paper has lost contrast. Not really a fair comparison, but I have a LOT of this paper so it’s good for making full size test prints before committing to expensive paper. 

So there’s the thing about contrast - Even (especially?) in the darkroom it’s something of a moving target. However, the negatives really do print well on each paper, which gives plenty of flexibility. 

Overall I am happy with Kentmere 200 and will use it more in the near future. I like how it looks, and the combination with Fomatone looks quite nice with a lot of character. People look natural, which is a big consideration. However, until I better understand its halation under different circumstances it will be more casual use at first.

[AZD]

I added a few entries to the I Like Film thread. Nothing fancy.