I am not sure how to judge Kentmere 100. It worked fine and was easy to scan. This week I will try printing the negatives in a darkroom on fiber paper, but I do not think there will be a problem. I will have to try some Delta 100 and see how it compares. 
I shot these images at Grayland, Washington, using my Nikon FM2. I used two lenses, the Nikon 50mm 1.8 Series E Lens, and the Nikon 24mm 2.8D Lens. I developed the film in Kodak D-76(1:1) for 11 minutes, 15 seconds, @20C.
Steven Lawrence Pictures 
I find Kentmere 100 tends toward blown highlights. But I hear that this is a film you want to process yourself so you can control that better.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am just not that talented when it comes to evaluating films. Controlling highlights is easier if you shoot sheet film but I guess longer development times would protect or at least let the highlights fully develop. I plan on shooting the 400 version at 200 and develop at 400. That should tell me something. When not shooting street I shoot both 400TX and HP5+ at 200 and develop at 400. I get much better negatives, at least that is what my teacher tells me.
LikeLike
I like these pictures.
I’m no authority on critiquing negatives but I like the scans I get with the K100 developed along the lines of what you’re using. I’ve used K400 aT 400 and like that but it is grainier; it’s major advantage over TriX is that it dries flat and so I get sharper scans, even if the dynamic range doesn’t seem to be as wide as TriX. I’ve shot K400 at 100 – could look up development times but it’s somewhere on the order of 17 minutes. For the bother I prefer K100.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am just curious to see how it is at 200. At school, they assigned me that speed because of how my negatives at 400 looked. I will probably develop the film in HC-110 for the same time as I developed my earlier roll of Kentmere 400.
LikeLike