When I originally wrote this review back in 2019, Ilford had not yet done a major brand refresh of Kentmere 400 or made any tweaks to the formula. Since then, I’ve shot a lot more of the film and decided that in my original review, I did Kentmere 400 a disservice. As of today (2026), I have found it to be a rather good film in the right conditions and with the right developers. So I made a point of reshooting the entire review, all in 35mm again, to refresh and show off that Kentmere 400 isn’t as bad a film as I first thought.
Film Specs
Type: Panchromatic B&W
Film Base: Acetate
Film Speed: ASA-400, Latitude: 200-800
Formats Available: 35mm & 120
Roll 01 – FlicFilm Classic MQ
I’m not afraid to admit when I don’t like a combination, and this certainly is one of them. But don’t get me wrong, it’s not a terrible combination, it’s just one I’m not a fan of. First off, the contrast isn’t the best; sure, it’s better than the original roll for the review, thanks to the yellow filter. But there’s still a low-middle appearance and not in a good way. I also don’t think the weather helped either. Yes, there’s an okay tonality, but it’s not the best, and then there’s the grain. It’s present, it sticks its head in the door and stays there. It adds to the film’s sharpness, and it certainly has a classic look. Using an MQ developer works in a pinch, but it wouldn’t be my first choice either.
Roll 02 – Kodak HC-110
Now, there’s nothing wrong with the combination of HC-110 and Kentmere 400, but I happened across this combination last summer, and honestly, it made Kentmere 400 sing. That’s giving a stop of overexposure (ASA-200) and developing in a dilute HC-110 mix, in this case Dilution F (1+79). The only thing I found was that it suffered from the same low contrast that Kentmere 400 is known for, so I added a yellow filter, and let me say it was exactly what the film needed. The results are probably my favourite that I’ve seen. First off, there is a serious reduction in visible grain without any real loss of sharpness. Then there’s the contrast, it’s dead on the money with amazing tonality without loosing highlights or blocking out shadows. There is a time for shooting at box speed, which I do still need to try, but if it delivers these results at 200, the 400 must be just as good.
Roll 03 – Rodinal
When I originally reviewed Kentmere 400, I deliberately left Rodinal out of that review. But after seeing what Rodinal did with Kentmere 200, I wanted to give it a second chance with Kentmere 400. So, in all fairness, I shot these during a snowstorm, which probably had a big effect on the overall look. Of course, the one thing that you dislike about Kentmere 400 is on full display: grain. But you know, the grain is a beautiful classic look and feel, think old school Tri-X. But it’s not as bad as the Classic MQ roll in my view. Now I’ve added a yellow filter again and used the 1+25 dilution to bump up that flat contrast. And yes, the contrast here is far higher than the previous two entries. But you aren’t crushing your blacks and losing too much in your highlights, but there’s some decent tonal range in between them. Would this be my first choice? No, but it’s not as bad as I thought it would be. What might help here is a split development, Rodinal and HC-110.
Roll 04 – Ilford Ilfotec LC29
I was a bit concerned after pulling these negatives out from the tank, they looked a little overcooked. I’m not sure if it was the conditions, the camera, or just too long in the tank. But I think it was the final one, a little too long in the tank, or a little less exposure. Either way, these aren’t too bad but certainly could be better. First off, there is still plenty of visible grain, but you do maintain sharpness. The contrast and the tone are great, again could be a bit better. Honestly, this is a great combination with Ilfotec LC29, I think using the ASA-250 times and shooting at that slower speed is a great idea, I would in the future either shoot it at ASA-320 or drop the development times by thirty-seconds.
Final Thoughts
Like I said in the introduction, when I first reviewed Kentmere 400 I did this film stock a disservice. Kentmere 400 is a good film, it has a classic look and feel but it also is fairly flat with its contrast. I do reccomend whenever possible either under-expose and develop normally or keep a yellow filter on hand at all times and you’ll see this film come to life. It also is a film stock that won’t break the bank if you’re learning film photography and home development because at ~10$ per roll here in Canada you can get a lot of bang for your buck. Now there are some other developers out there that work well, I have gotten good results from ZoneImaging 510-Pyro, Adox Atomal 49, Kodak TMax Developer, and Ilford Microphen. I do reccomend this film to anyone who likes that classic grain and feel to their B&W films, I know I always keep a few rolls on hand these days to test out cameras so I’m not out an expensive roll of film when something goes wrong.
Further Reading
Don’t just take my word on Kentmere 400, you can check out the reviews by other awesome camera reviewers!
Down the Road – First roll impressions: Kentmere 400
Mr. Leica – Kentmere 400 Review + Photos (Best Budget Ilford Film? – 35mm)
My Favourite Lens – Kentmere Pan 400 35mm Film Review
Pixels & Film – Kentmere 400 Film Review
Eric L. Woods – Analog Therapy/Film Test: Kentmere Pan 400 120
Parallax Photo Coop – Kentmere Pan 400 Film Review