On the basis that with a new film it’s useful to see as many examples as possible, here are 5 frames from my first (half) roll of Kentmere 200. I put a roll in my Olympus 35ECR (rangefinder and reliable automatic exposure that I have been using on an off since the 1970s), set the ISO at box speed and then took half a roll on a visit to Oxford. I then developed this in ID-11 (1+1). Because the room temperature was 22C I decided to develop at that temperature, and using the manufacturer’s recommendations I developed for 7 mins 8 secs. Normally I would use 1+3 but, for some reason, they do not give a time for this film at that dilution. Epson Scan with auto levels, after which I just straightened a few horizons and removed a few dust spots. No other processing beyond PhotoLab’s defaults.
It was an overcast day and there was little variety in the lighting, so nothing exciting. My reaction to them is that the film is not doing badly and I like the tonal range, given the subject matter, and that the most noticeable issue is that the grain is more obvious than I had hoped, though when at web size this is hardly visible. No idea whether that was the processing or the film, though I tried to keep everything as standard as possible. Perhaps they would look better brightened a little, but I am not sure.
Given the grain, I thought I would see what Topaz Photo AI could do to it, and in the one of the post box it seemed to remove all the grain/noise nicely. I also tried the seagull photo, but it was not so good, as it seems to have interpreted the grain on the gull as texture rather than noise and did nothing.
Will I use the film again when I have used up the rolls I bought? The range of tones seems good and 200 is a useful speed, and the answer will depend on how it responds to other lighting conditions. However I suspect that most of the time, I am likely to prefer something with less grain, unless I can achieve that by adjusting the processing on my remaining rolls.
Share this post:
Comments
Gary Smith on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 21/08/2025
Comment posted: 21/08/2025
Ibraar Hussain on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 21/08/2025
Cheers!
Comment posted: 21/08/2025
Jeffery Luhn on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Nice shots. I have not tried Kentmere films extensively. There's been a lot written about them, both good and less than flattering. It's reasonable to assume that since it's a less costly film, it contains less silver and is not made to exacting standards. When processing in HC-110 I found the 200 grain to be objectionable, and processed in Rodinal the grain blew up in my face. My rolls had most frames bracketed, as is my approach when I test a new film. Shooting it at 100 gave me more shadow detail, but REALLY PRONOUNCED GRAIN. There may be a finer grain developer for that emulsion, like Diafine or D-23, but I felt that HP-5 performed better and was faster to boot. For me, the savings on Kentmere wasn't worth the loss of quality. Am I missing something? Any reason to try it again?
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Simon Foale on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
James Billings on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Steviemac on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Comment posted: 22/08/2025
Curtis Heikkinen on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 23/08/2025
Roger on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 24/08/2025
Russ Rosener on 5 frames from my first roll of Kentmere 200
Comment posted: 24/08/2025
A big thanks for wringing out this film for us.
Comment posted: 24/08/2025