Battle of the Budgets Continued… Fomapan 200 & Kentmere 200 (35mm)

In a market where 200-speed black-and-white films are rare (SFX 200 and Rollei options aside), Fomapan 200, and now Kentmere 200 stand out as both affordable and versatile. Over the past few months I have been working almost exclusively with both Kentmere and Fomapan 200 speed films, exposing everything at EI200. I have worked with Fomapan 200 before, and have used it in the past as a “warmup” film when travelling, something cheap I can get decent results from as the first few rolls when arriving somewhere new and wanting to get the cliché images out of my system.

Putting both through their paces across the notoriously inconsistent British summertime, shooting through harsh sunlight during heatwaves and torrential rainfall I hope to determine where each of these films fits in my workflow, as well as to see whether it is worth adopting Kentmere 200 into my travel approach replacing the role Fomapan 200 has so far fulfilled.

Keep in mind that I am definitely approaching this with a bias, I like Harman/Ilford as a company and would really prefer to be using films from them above other companies on principle, so please use my images as reference more than my words – if you prefer the result of one film over the other despite my conclusions that ought to be the metric for you, not how I feel about them!

I developed all of these recent rolls in Ilfotec HC, which I have been really enjoying overall, although I have found many of the factory and community recommended timings and dilutions to be a touch harsh, leaving me with blown out highlights consistently across all of my films, until I was able to come up with my own formulas which have suited my work well and resolved these exposure issues.

For Kentmere 200 I use a dilution ratio of 1+47 for 7 minutes, and for Fomapan 200 my formula is 1+79 for 14 minutes 25 seconds. Again, these are not “official” timings, or factory recommended methods, they are my own preference, offering the aesthetic for each of these films that looks best to my eye, not necessarily anyone else’s! With that in mind, my comparison is between two films offering me the best I feel they are able to, from my experience and experimentation – the “look” of either may not be what anyone else is exposing or developing to achieve. I think it’s always best to tweak a formula to your needs than settle for someone else’s level of satisfaction. My negatives were scanned on my Plustek scanner, and aside from exposure clipping and slight gamma adjustments no involved or destructive editing took place.

Kentmere 200 at box speed using my formula delivers a pleasing aesthetic result, with latitude to spare. Fomapan 200, unlike Fomapan 400 which I found performed best for me at EI200, actually behaves at its box claimed speed, and my development tweaks help to maximize shadow detail without blowing out the highlights. I really like that I can trust the label unlike with Fomapan 400, which helps me feel a bit more confident overall while shooting.

When exposing for shadows Kentmere 200 retains good highlight detail, within a few stops of range, and highlights rarely blow out to pure white when I don’t want them to. Fomapan 200 sees a little more harshness in the contrast, and metering to accommodate for this leaves less detailed shadows, which isn’t something I especially always mind, but it can be annoying when I expect something that can’t be recovered (although this may come down to my expectations rather than any particular failing in the film). The Kentmere feels to be moderate contrast which is easy to work with and reliable in flat light, whereas the Fomapan is a bit bolder, maybe even moodier, which encourages slight overexposure and acceptance of that highlight loss at the extremes in order to achieve the same detail as the Kentmere.

Grain feels comparable between the two, although the precise characteristics are better observed in the example images than described. Kentmere seems to have the edge on fineness, despite my development method seeing a lower dilution than the Fomapan which has a structured texture, almost a pattern to the grain which is distinct in other Fomapan films. I think it’s sometimes easier to tell the difference between a Kodak, Fujifilm, Ilford, Fomapan etc film than it is to tell the more specific difference between Across II, Delta 100, T-Max and so on. The Fomapan does stand out a little more in direct comparison, where the Kentmere has less of a distinct character in that sense.

The overall detail and look from the Kentmere 200 feels like it’s a better fit for the documentary work I am carrying out, even when I want something more prominently grainy I would have to also want the chiaroscuro of the Fomapan in order to really justify it. The Kentmere feels to be more nuanced and gentle in the gradient, where Fomapan jumps between binaries and feels a little more dramatic/exaggerated if that makes sense. When the light or detail is subtle I think the Kentmere will be an easy choice.

As Kentmere 200 is a newer emulsion, its long-term archival stability is unproven (unless I’m mistaken). Harman/Ilford’s track record with archival-quality materials is excellent, so my expectation is positive, but without decades of user evidence or testing, we can’t definitively place it in the same category as FP4, HP5, or Delta. Fomapan 200, by contrast, has been in circulation long enough to show that it’s generally stable when processed and stored correctly, though there are some infrequent issues with base curl and thinner acetate, especially in bulk formats. Personally archival qualities are not a huge factor, only relevant to those looking for archival solutions, while I only need my negatives to work from while I’m alive, so that’s more a trivial note than anything that will sway my use-decision meaningfully.

On a practical level it’s an interesting aspect to figure out as far as matching the box speed against lighting conditions how to best apply these films as a whole. On bright sunny days I know that 100 or 50 will be fine, and for indoor or winter overcast days a 400 speed will suit everything. If I had to only use one film speed forever it would be a 400 option as this offers the most versatility and fewer compromises, so 200 being dead in the middle of what’s really a three stop range isn’t really the obvious choice, as it offers just slightly less versatility than the option I personally find to be the most useful.

I did make some images indoors/low-light conditions but didn’t find myself making hugely different decisions compared to when I need to make compromises with the higher or lower speed films. Indoors if I am at 1/8ths then dropping down by one stop to 1/4ths doesn’t make a huge difference, and similarly outside going from f/8 to f/11 isn’t a massive impact on the kind of images I am making.

I suppose the main impact is that extra stop of speed when specifically working with sunny/16 methods, as I did during the Central London Rathayatra procession. The overcast sky was an ideal soft box, meaning once I metered in the morning (1/250ths f/8) I didn’t change that exposure setting until much later in the day when the sun eventually emerged. Slightly more static dancing figures compared with if I had used a 100 speed film, but again to my eye this is marginal. For someone for whom that extra stop would mean a safety net to avoid blur from shaking hands or faster motion then I can see why it might have an edge on a 100 speed while not adding as much of a grain compromise as a 400.

For changing weather as we see during British summers it was nice not having to compromise too greatly between the overcast and dazzling sky extremes, which is also why this tends to be a travel ISO as I mentioned at the beginning. When things are unpredictable, and I want to conserve limited rolls, having that extra option midway between my usual go-to speeds does help me to not end up with choice fatigue.

Price will always be a factor in decision making, and Fomapan 200 as a bulk roll of 30.5m is more inviting, with current pricing around £50-60, against the Kentmere 200 in the same length which is currently between £80-90. I can consistently make 18 rolls of 36-38 frames each, making the price per roll work out at £3.30 for Fomapan and £4.70 for Kentmere. For low quantity shooting this is not the worst, however when planning across hundreds of rolls for a trip or project it soon adds up. If I wanted to work exclusively with one stock the Fomapan would be immediately more inviting, however as I often switch between films, and those films tend to be Ilford, the Kentmere fits better into my overall current workflow, with the price premium justified to me for the sake of consistency.

Direct comparison is easiest from scenes where the lighting was identical and exposure methods the same between exposures, so these next images are as close to that as I can offer for the sake of your own “blind” analysis – comment which of the following four photographs you think was made with which film!

While the look of the Kentmere 200 is strong I’m not always in a position to ignore the financial aspect of working with the cheapest option available to me, which in this case falls to the Fomapan 200. The aesthetic of both have their strengths, and I know they are both reliable to produce something usable when the situation demands it.

This won’t be a comparison where a definitive overall outcome makes sense, as when I can afford to work with the Kentmere or a more expensive film I’ll use that, but when I need sheer quantity and affordability the Fomapan is unavoidable. I think if any film were actively bad it would not exist in the present market. I think the factors I have discussed will make sense, even if they aren’t as satisfying as a definitive “winner”.

Thank you for reading, I hope this has been helpful to anyone thinking about which of these films to try! Given their price position I am sure many will end up experimenting with each at least once and drawing their own conclusions! If you enjoyed the images I used for my examples consider following me on Instagram. I buy much of my film from Analogue Wonderland.

Share this post: