Thanks for an excellent review. In my retirement, I fired up my darkroom. Got a great Beseler 4x5 and and an Omega XLB22 35mm and 120 enlarger from years ago. They still work great. Because, Tri X had become so expensive, I decided to try Fomapan 400. I found it really hard to work with and it was far off from its box speed. It was the most frustrating film I ever used and all my photos seemed "muddy." In the 1960s, I was in my high school camera club. The teacher moderator would sell at cost good film like Tri X for $.25 a roll and outdated 64 ASA army surplus film for a nickel a roll. Being cash strapped, I shot a lot of the aforementioned 64 ASA film. Fomapan was not nearly as good as that film. When I thankfully ran out of the 100 ft. roll of Fomapan, I bought a 100 ft. of Kentmere. What a revelation!!!! It is actually 400 ISO and has excellent grain. It is at least half the prices of Tri X. Kentmere put the "fun" back into my photography. I only wish that Kentmere made a 4x5 film. I am shooting my 4x5 camera with Foma 200. Not as frustrating as Fomapan 400 but it is rated at 200 and is actually 100 ISO (on a good day). Development is real finicky too. Also, the reciprocity failure is not linear at all. For long exposures it is basically guessing. Pleeeeze Kentmere, make a 4x5 film.
I really enjoyed this comparison, thank you. I've just started my film photography journey and have only shot HP5 and Fomopan 400 black and white films. Fomopan was super grainy and looked really lo-fi which was fun, but it loses a lot of information. HP5 is ridiculously forgiving. I edit my scans using lightroom and HP5 has so much detail in highlights and shadows that I can tweak to my heart's content. I liked both, not sure which I prefered. I think I'm too new to this to be able to make my mind up yet! But thanks to your video, the next batch of film I'll order will contain some Kentmere. Cheers, luke!
I love Kentmere, both 100 and 400 ISO. For my day to day shooting - like testing old cameras or other experimental stuff where I don't know the outcome - I use Fomapan because it is cheaper and I get good results with equally cheap Adonal/Rodinal. But when I want to take photos that need to look a bit better my first choice is Kentmere, developed it in D76 or similar, just because it doesn't cost that much more and really makes a difference. Also, I found it quite pushable. Kentmere 400 still looks great at 1600 in Microphen and could possibly be pushed even further.
I was very pleased with the kentmere400 results on medium format, actually even surprised that it can behave similar to hp5. Didn't print anything yet, but get to it soon.
After shooting both, I can say that I'll be buying the Kentmere before the HP5 again. I like the details that the K serves up, and the HP5 doesn't live up to the hype that I keep seeing. Anyway, cheers! Good vid.
Really when it comes down to it, it's just different strokes for different folks. For me, it was a price thing at first, but I've grown to love Kentmere and at this point I know what to expect and how to manipulate it. Thanks for dropping by!
Get Tiffen Q13 Gray Scale for these tests. It has 21 steps from black to white, and is considered a standard reference tool for evaluating exposure, whether digital or analog. In my past, I used it to test film stocks. Now, I use it to test digital exposure. Random scenes are nice, but gray scales are brutally honest. The same can be said for Color Checker Charts.
Choice of film is very personal, and many people claim to see differences that are really not with the film stock. Spotting the difference between Tri-X and HP5 blind is very difficult if they are exposed and developed properly. Your images are stunning on both films. I have an unpopular choice myself. For Norwegian winter shooting, I tend to use Kodak Pro Image 100 instead of portra or Ektar.
@@lukeisafinename Pro Image 100 was released for sale in the west just some years ago. I sometimes ordered it off eBay a few times before that time. Really lovely colours. Keep posting videos 😊
Just bought a couple rolls of Kentmere 400 and am looking forward to trying them out :) I just got into film photography because of a Technology Connections video about film. I previously shot film in college years ago, but never really did anything with it past that. I've recently been using HP5 because I used FP4 in college, and I didn't really feel the need to use anything different, but I *should* try other films.
Love the video. Subbed. My one request is that the music volume is turned down so I can hear you a bit better. You might have already done this. I’m new. Keep up the good work.
Use a lot of HP5, its got a nice and wide dynamic range, makes it good for processing or darkroom printing and also more room for error. This also lets Hp5 be pushed a lot, some people shoot it up to 3200ISO! I have recent gotten some Kent 100 and 400 and looking forward to trying these. I have previously also tried Delta 100 but felt it did not justify its price tag over FP4.
They seem to just "randomly" switch off which one is contrastier or brighter, which leads me to believe that it's a different SPECTRAL sensitivity and depended instead on the colors in the scene. The fact that the sky always looks more like it has a red filter on in kentmere supports this. But I can't seem to find a graph of kentmere's spectral sensitivity anywhere.
Would have liked some magnified shots of grain and detail. HP5 is my choice because of the latitude and its ability to be pushed to 1600 and still look great, even in 35mm and especially in 120. I haven't tested, but I feel like I've read/heard that Kentmere can't be pushed nearly as successfully. Regardless, I think it looks pretty good in 35mm, and I bet you're thrilled that it's now available for $6 in 120. The results I've seen so far look promising.
Euhm warmer how so doesn't that have to do with your scanning every black and white film is just that black and white not warmer or colder I've no idea why you got those results for rest really interesting video I'm going to look into kentmere some more now I think
Been shooting kentmere for a while. Thought I'd try something else, so tried foma400... I don't like that. I have 10 rolls of hp5 now too to see if it's worth the extra cost
Kentmere and HP5 do NOT share the same development times. Kentmere needs to be developed longer in most developers (look at Ilford's recommended times, not Kodak's), Are these greyscale images? If not, why not? Why waste 3 colour channels on a greyscale image? And if they are greyscale images, one cannot be "warmer" than another, unless you are talking about colour discrepancies that appear on different monitors. Greyscale images are by definition neutral across the board, across all densities. If one greyscale image appears "warmer" than another, it's your monitor or display, not the film. The pole in the comparison at 5:30 is LITERALLY in shadow for the HP5, and in sunlight for the Kentmere. You can see the pole does not throw a shadow in HP5 pic because it is already in shadow, but does in the Kentmere pic, because it is lit by sunlight. You cannot seriously be trying to compare the contrast between these two scenes? Surely? Sorry, switching off now. This is subjective nonsense.
@@lukeisafinename for $60?!!!! Whuut.. you were super lucky then OMGHAAD. Welp, I wish 8 years after there are still some enlargers available somewhere HAHA
Great video! I decided to start using the kentmere film but now after shooting my first kentmere pan 400 pushed to 800 I can't find anywere the developing times with TMaX developer. You say that dev times are the same for kentmere and hp5 but on the film details .pdf seems to be different. What do you suggest me to do? Thanks in advance! Best
Check out the Massive Dev Chart on digitaltruth.com, that's where I go for 95% of my development timing questions. You input your stock and your developing chemicals, and it shows most of the common pulling/pushing times
@@mugamuchumorphingtheatre ah, I see. I use Ilfosol 3, and it has the pushing times for that. Kind of odd that it has TMax times for pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600, but not 800. I wish I knew the math to figure out the exact time! If it were me, I'd just guess and go for it, but I can be kind of reckless with my developing sometimes
If you're shooting Ilford stocks, I'd recommend using Ilford chemistry. HC is great for box speed dev; it's expensive but lasts forever. And I use DDX for any film I push, which supposedly helps keep grain in check and pulls more details from the shadows. One tip I've learned over a few hundred rolls: Agitate gently exactly as Ilford advises (a full rotation every two seconds).
Question, how did you scan these ? because software like silverfast changes a lot on how it decides to scan the image based on what stock you use, I think the best possible scenario would be scanning with a digital camera with the same settings and lighting conditions
I've been just using my flatbed's stock scanning software, but I've been messing with dslr scanning the past couple weeks. Hopefully I can get the kinks worked out and ditch the flatbed!
That's kind of a wide open question, to be honest. Depends on what look you're going for. I'd suggest getting familiar with the "exposure triangle" - it explains how shutter speed, aperture, and iso are all related and how they work together!
I use ilfosol 3 for all my black and white work. Definitely not a developing expert, but maybe your film or chemicals were expired? Also could be that your meter (assuming your camera has a meter) was busted or just not calibrated - I've had that happen before and the grain was insane from underexposed shots.
Try D76 or ID11 they are the same so go with the cheapest. D76 is the old man on the block and almost all B&W films were designed to work with it. It just comes down to personal preference.
Look, I was with you, until the point when you started spatting the bs about "warmer". The emulsion is silver crystals. No color there. The base may be slightly colored, but inconsequential for enlargement and consequential only with bad scanning technique. peace out, downvote.
Thanks for an excellent review. In my retirement, I fired up my darkroom. Got a great Beseler 4x5 and and an Omega XLB22 35mm and 120 enlarger from years ago. They still work great. Because, Tri X had become so expensive, I decided to try Fomapan 400. I found it really hard to work with and it was far off from its box speed. It was the most frustrating film I ever used and all my photos seemed "muddy." In the 1960s, I was in my high school camera club. The teacher moderator would sell at cost good film like Tri X for $.25 a roll and outdated 64 ASA army surplus film for a nickel a roll. Being cash strapped, I shot a lot of the aforementioned 64 ASA film. Fomapan was not nearly as good as that film. When I thankfully ran out of the 100 ft. roll of Fomapan, I bought a 100 ft. of Kentmere. What a revelation!!!! It is actually 400 ISO and has excellent grain. It is at least half the prices of Tri X. Kentmere put the "fun" back into my photography. I only wish that Kentmere made a 4x5 film. I am shooting my 4x5 camera with Foma 200. Not as frustrating as Fomapan 400 but it is rated at 200 and is actually 100 ISO (on a good day). Development is real finicky too. Also, the reciprocity failure is not linear at all. For long exposures it is basically guessing. Pleeeeze Kentmere, make a 4x5 film.
Very interesting. In my experience the Kentmere feels like original HP5 from the early 80s. The contrast and grain.
I really enjoyed this comparison, thank you. I've just started my film photography journey and have only shot HP5 and Fomopan 400 black and white films. Fomopan was super grainy and looked really lo-fi which was fun, but it loses a lot of information. HP5 is ridiculously forgiving. I edit my scans using lightroom and HP5 has so much detail in highlights and shadows that I can tweak to my heart's content. I liked both, not sure which I prefered. I think I'm too new to this to be able to make my mind up yet! But thanks to your video, the next batch of film I'll order will contain some Kentmere. Cheers, luke!
Thanks for stopping by! Happy shooting ✌🏻
apparently fomapan 400 is more like 250
I love Kentmere, both 100 and 400 ISO. For my day to day shooting - like testing old cameras or other experimental stuff where I don't know the outcome - I use Fomapan because it is cheaper and I get good results with equally cheap Adonal/Rodinal. But when I want to take photos that need to look a bit better my first choice is Kentmere, developed it in D76 or similar, just because it doesn't cost that much more and really makes a difference. Also, I found it quite pushable. Kentmere 400 still looks great at 1600 in Microphen and could possibly be pushed even further.
I was very pleased with the kentmere400 results on medium format, actually even surprised that it can behave similar to hp5. Didn't print anything yet, but get to it soon.
After shooting both, I can say that I'll be buying the Kentmere before the HP5 again. I like the details that the K serves up, and the HP5 doesn't live up to the hype that I keep seeing. Anyway, cheers! Good vid.
Really when it comes down to it, it's just different strokes for different folks. For me, it was a price thing at first, but I've grown to love Kentmere and at this point I know what to expect and how to manipulate it. Thanks for dropping by!
shooting Kentmere 400 at the moment only just started film photography again after many years enjoyed the vidio comparison thank you
Get Tiffen Q13 Gray Scale for these tests. It has 21 steps from black to white, and is considered a standard reference tool for evaluating exposure, whether digital or analog. In my past, I used it to test film stocks. Now, I use it to test digital exposure. Random scenes are nice, but gray scales are brutally honest. The same can be said for Color Checker Charts.
Choice of film is very personal, and many people claim to see differences that are really not with the film stock. Spotting the difference between Tri-X and HP5 blind is very difficult if they are exposed and developed properly. Your images are stunning on both films.
I have an unpopular choice myself. For Norwegian winter shooting, I tend to use Kodak Pro Image 100 instead of portra or Ektar.
Absolutely agree that film choice depends on preference! I need to try out some Pro Image 100, been seeing it pop up more and more recently
@@lukeisafinename Pro Image 100 was released for sale in the west just some years ago. I sometimes ordered it off eBay a few times before that time. Really lovely colours. Keep posting videos 😊
I got a pile of Kentmere 400 a while back because it was cheap and I hadn't heard of it. I haven't shot any yet, but why not. I give any film a go.
Do it! Join the Kentmere Crew
Just bought a couple rolls of Kentmere 400 and am looking forward to trying them out :)
I just got into film photography because of a Technology Connections video about film. I previously shot film in college years ago, but never really did anything with it past that. I've recently been using HP5 because I used FP4 in college, and I didn't really feel the need to use anything different, but I *should* try other films.
4:43kentmere has good tone of sky and cloud.maybe sun angle is different.
Love the video. Subbed. My one request is that the music volume is turned down so I can hear you a bit better. You might have already done this. I’m new. Keep up the good work.
I have definitely tweaked my audio approach since this one. Appreciate the sub 🙏🏻🙏🏻
Use a lot of HP5, its got a nice and wide dynamic range, makes it good for processing or darkroom printing and also more room for error. This also lets Hp5 be pushed a lot, some people shoot it up to 3200ISO! I have recent gotten some Kent 100 and 400 and looking forward to trying these. I have previously also tried Delta 100 but felt it did not justify its price tag over FP4.
Great comparison just what I wanted to know👍🏽
I think the bigger comparison here is with Cameron Britton's performance in Mindhunter
That was super helpful, I'm going to give Kentmere a try!
They seem to just "randomly" switch off which one is contrastier or brighter, which leads me to believe that it's a different SPECTRAL sensitivity and depended instead on the colors in the scene. The fact that the sky always looks more like it has a red filter on in kentmere supports this. But I can't seem to find a graph of kentmere's spectral sensitivity anywhere.
Seeing them side by side, I think I like the Kentmere more ... I picked up a bulk roll, so i will see for myself when i break it out!!!
Would have liked some magnified shots of grain and detail. HP5 is my choice because of the latitude and its ability to be pushed to 1600 and still look great, even in 35mm and especially in 120. I haven't tested, but I feel like I've read/heard that Kentmere can't be pushed nearly as successfully. Regardless, I think it looks pretty good in 35mm, and I bet you're thrilled that it's now available for $6 in 120. The results I've seen so far look promising.
nice and open comparison between the 2. thx for the video :)
Great comparison! I also love kentmere 100 in rodinal
What is that machine behind you? BTW great episode.
An enlarger that has sadly gone unused for about 10 months 😔
Euhm warmer how so doesn't that have to do with your scanning every black and white film is just that black and white not warmer or colder I've no idea why you got those results for rest really interesting video I'm going to look into kentmere some more now I think
I can't watch this video because of the music.
Yup
Been shooting kentmere for a while. Thought I'd try something else, so tried foma400... I don't like that.
I have 10 rolls of hp5 now too to see if it's worth the extra cost
With yellow filter or yellow tinted lens should be nice
Is kentmere 400 the same emulsion as ilford pan 400?
Kentmere and HP5 do NOT share the same development times. Kentmere needs to be developed longer in most developers (look at Ilford's recommended times, not Kodak's),
Are these greyscale images? If not, why not? Why waste 3 colour channels on a greyscale image? And if they are greyscale images, one cannot be "warmer" than another, unless you are talking about colour discrepancies that appear on different monitors. Greyscale images are by definition neutral across the board, across all densities. If one greyscale image appears "warmer" than another, it's your monitor or display, not the film.
The pole in the comparison at 5:30 is LITERALLY in shadow for the HP5, and in sunlight for the Kentmere. You can see the pole does not throw a shadow in HP5 pic because it is already in shadow, but does in the Kentmere pic, because it is lit by sunlight. You cannot seriously be trying to compare the contrast between these two scenes? Surely? Sorry, switching off now. This is subjective nonsense.
Really helpful. Thanks
How much was the enlarger when the first time you brought it? I was just 14 but I want to have an old stuffs from the past when I grew up 😄
I got lucky and bought the enlarger and a few other darkroom supplies for $60 US a few years ago.
@@lukeisafinename for $60?!!!! Whuut.. you were super lucky then OMGHAAD. Welp, I wish 8 years after there are still some enlargers available somewhere HAHA
It’s good , but
What I I’d like to know how good is Kentmere 400 pushed at least to 1600iso
Already in the works!
Great video! I decided to start using the kentmere film but now after shooting my first kentmere pan 400 pushed to 800 I can't find anywere the developing times with TMaX developer. You say that dev times are the same for kentmere and hp5 but on the film details .pdf seems to be different. What do you suggest me to do? Thanks in advance! Best
Check out the Massive Dev Chart on digitaltruth.com, that's where I go for 95% of my development timing questions. You input your stock and your developing chemicals, and it shows most of the common pulling/pushing times
@@lukeisafinename thank you. I know this website but there is no information there about push processing kentmere in tmax
@@mugamuchumorphingtheatre ah, I see. I use Ilfosol 3, and it has the pushing times for that. Kind of odd that it has TMax times for pushing Kentmere 400 to 1600, but not 800. I wish I knew the math to figure out the exact time! If it were me, I'd just guess and go for it, but I can be kind of reckless with my developing sometimes
@@mugamuchumorphingtheatre 1,3 times as a rule of thumb per stop
If you're shooting Ilford stocks, I'd recommend using Ilford chemistry. HC is great for box speed dev; it's expensive but lasts forever. And I use DDX for any film I push, which supposedly helps keep grain in check and pulls more details from the shadows. One tip I've learned over a few hundred rolls: Agitate gently exactly as Ilford advises (a full rotation every two seconds).
Question, how did you scan these ? because software like silverfast changes a lot on how it decides to scan the image based on what stock you use, I think the best possible scenario would be scanning with a digital camera with the same settings and lighting conditions
I've been just using my flatbed's stock scanning software, but I've been messing with dslr scanning the past couple weeks. Hopefully I can get the kinks worked out and ditch the flatbed!
Can anyone lmk what shutter speed and aperature I should be using for 400 iso film?
That's kind of a wide open question, to be honest. Depends on what look you're going for. I'd suggest getting familiar with the "exposure triangle" - it explains how shutter speed, aperture, and iso are all related and how they work together!
What developer did you use? When I tried Kentmere 400 with ilfosol 3 I got very flat and grainy results.
I use ilfosol 3 for all my black and white work. Definitely not a developing expert, but maybe your film or chemicals were expired? Also could be that your meter (assuming your camera has a meter) was busted or just not calibrated - I've had that happen before and the grain was insane from underexposed shots.
Try D76 or ID11 they are the same so go with the cheapest. D76 is the old man on the block and almost all B&W films were designed to work with it. It just comes down to personal preference.
Kentmere is the winner for me. And cheap!!
Look, I was with you, until the point when you started spatting the bs about "warmer". The emulsion is silver crystals. No color there. The base may be slightly colored, but inconsequential for enlargement and consequential only with bad scanning technique. peace out, downvote.