Kentmere 200 vs Fomapan 200
I didn't want to believe when people recommended it to me
100 was a disaster, 400 was kind of ok
Bought the Kentmere 100, 24 frame roll when it got released. I think like a year ago or maybe longer. It’s not a point. It was cheaper, sure 12 frames shorter but whatever. I wanted to find cheaper solution for my film photography.
It was a complete disaster. At least for me and my style of shooting.
Ok maybe that kind is not for me so I’ve bought 400.
Aaaand it was the same thing only a bit better. At the time of testing everything was developed with FOMADON or something similar. So not really a specialized developer but also not really a shitty one.
Still I couldn’t help myself. I just threw it away and never bought another one. Because why? When the results are bad.
Than the 200 came
In the spring of this year (2025) i was delivering some of my shot rolls to my local lab (FilmStore Prague).
We often chat about all sorts of things, scanners, cameras, people or events. But this time he recommended me a roll of Kentmere 200.
I was so surprised that he is recomending that. But I was assured that it would be ok. That I should at least try.
So the roll has now proper 36 exposures → Good, plus points for this.
Someone complains about the packaging but that’s the first thing you will throw out so I don’t care. It’s nothing major to me.
What I was interested about was how it will behave. What the results will be.
Results/Comparison
To be honest I wasn’t expecting much. I bought 2 35mm rolls and one 120 (still haven’t shot that).
As far as the 35mm goes, the film behaves like Foma 200. Sort of.
And hear me out on this. If you haven’t shot Foma 200 and you’re from Europe. Quickly get one roll and FX-39 developer. At least test it out.
The base of the film behaves almost the same. It’s maybe a tiny bit tougher than Foma 200 but when drying it gives the typical bow bend with the sides trying to curl inside.
TMAX P3200 does not do that, not that much. The base there is a bit tougher too. It’s heavier/thicker.
I haven’t shot side by side the same pictures for each of the films. Since both are 200 I shot them as I always do.
At 200 or at 400. Than it depends on the light if I pull it back to box ISO when developing.
This one was shot at 400 and developed at 200 with FX-39 II developer. I went directly the same way as I’m used to with Fomapan 200.
Since they are both panchromatic it should not be a problem. At least I thought.
Comparing with Foma 200 shot at 400 developed at 200 also with FX-39 II developer.
Foma 200 is muddy, if you don’t get back the contrast in developement it’s really bad for scanning.
And since I do scan pretty much all of my rolls I kind of need that. Also a benefit, there is a lot more information on the base than it would otherwise have.
Looking back at these 2 stocks side by side in different lightning conditions. I would say that Kentmere 200 delivers slightly better results. Or it could be me and my hands. It’s however nothing major.
It definitely does not justify the price. It’s about 1/3 more expensive than Foma 200. So in conclusion I have winner for me. The 200 first place goes to fomapan. Not just for it’s origin but also for the price/value ratio.
Also note on the 120 film. I won’t share any photos from this photoshoot. Maybe with time but not now.
The film base tends to have really nasty spots even when using photo-flo as a final 30-60 second wash. Had to clean it with 99% alcohol.
Compared with TMAX100 there were none, using the same process.
Quality on the other hand looked pretty good. So it’s a good value for the price.
Thanks for reading. I would be glad if you’ve left some comments of what you think about these 2 stocks of film. Their comparisons against each other? If you’re developing home which one is behaving better?
Feel free to add your experience.
Great light and till next time.
-Jakub-