Kentmere 400 - Opinions?

Harlequin565

Harlequin565

Suspended / Banned
Messages
8,684
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
No
I've just put a roll of Tri-X through my latest camera to see if it works which was a relatively expensive test. So I'm thinking I'll get a bulk roll of something cheap I can run off a ton of 12-18 exp rolls of and keep in the freezer for testing purposes.

HP5Plus is probably best for this, but it's not "super cheap", so I was looking at Kentmere 400 and Superpan 200 as they're both similarly priced for 100ft rolls. I've put the Superpan through a couple of different cameras and it's "ok", but wasn't good enough to warrant me switching to it from Tri-x as a general purpose 400 speed film (I'd lose a stop of light without pushing and IMO it was a pretty grainy film anyway). My Kentmere 400 test rolls were from a long time ago and tbh look pretty good but they're grainier than HP5 or Tri-X and lack a little contrast. However that could be because of the lighting conditions at the time.

Anyone have any opinions on 35mm Kentmere 400 as a general purpose, cheap, black & white film? I like 400 speed because I can pull to 200/100 if it's really bright and I want to retain details, and I can also push to 800/1600 if I want contrast, or the light is bad.

Thanks in advance!
 
Hi Ian,

I shot it when I first got back into shooting film a few years ago and found it to be decent, but moved onto other stocks. I shot another roll recently and, while I won't replace my favoured HP5+ on a permanent basis, again found it to produce nice images. Now, I seem to have a knack for post processing most B&W film so they look almost interchangeable, but I've got a gallery of shots on Kentmere 400 on Flickr if you're interested.
 
Last edited:
I tried a couple of rolls a few years ago and found it quite grainy but there are a lot of variables that could cause that (developer, exposure accuracy, scanning etc) and looking at Nige's gallery he seems to have got much finer grain than I did.
 
Nice and contrasty but not the same as my favourite, Tri-X. Neverthe less a very respectable film. It's up to as to whether you like the way it renders.
 
I don't think I've ever shot Kentmere*, and I hadn't shot HP5 for ages until a roll just recently. But just before that I shot a roll of Ilford Pan 400, not usually obtainable in the UK, but Firstcall had some and I added it to an order for negative binders to try it with essentially free postage. I must say, I really quite like it! Nice and contrasty in Fuji Negastar via AG (unlike the HP5 which was quite flat and grey), not at all grainy for a 400 film It even comes in a bulk roll, though it does cost almost a tenner more than the Kentmere roll.

The problem with Firstcall is their swinging P&P charges (£7.95?). I guess youjust have to add some more Ortho 80 to the order!

* I was going to add "or Superpan 200", but then I remembered a single use camera that claimed it was Superpan (I think). However, that film was polyester-based, and Maco says Superpan 200 is triacetate based, so I just don't know.
 
Thanks all. I think I got spoiled by that short date Tri-X roll from AW. Got around 26 rolls of 24 exposures for £50 which was super super cheap. It expired Dec 2019 and it was all freezered in November so it should be fine. That's why I'm balking at the £70 for HP5 vs £55 for Superpan or Kentmere. 400TX again isn't happening at £120 for 100ft - it's almost cheaper to buy rolls as you need them.

It's never wise to look at Nige's photos when trying to assess film. He'd get a great shot out of a film made of bin liner.

I think I might just bite the bullet with HP5. At least then I can roll ten or so short rolls and use the rest for "proper" photograhy rather than compromise. I'm finding HC-110 is much much better with 400 speed films than Rodinal too so am more likely to shoot it.
 
Peter B said:
Fomapan 400
Click to expand...

I really quite liked Foma 100 but found 400 to be sub-par compared to other offerings. So much so that I had a bulk roll of Foma 100 that I mostly shot at 400. Even with a (sadly) lot of comparison, the 100 pushed to 400 looked much better than 400 on its own.

Thanks for the headsup though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top