1st try with Ultrafine Xtreme B&W 400ASA film

MattKing said:

This was scanned from Plus-X 35mm, but may very well have been done with a dedicated scanner:

Click to expand...

That's got it's own scanning issues (grid like pattern in the darker areas & such as the water), but even it has smoother tones than I've found in scanning my plus-x.

Here are two examples, both have been resampled to 1280 pixels on the long edge (so the antialiasing is covering up as much of the scanner induced noise as possible).
http://mattkrull.tumblr.com/post/85341849885/week-09-2014-olympus-om40-with-zuiko-om-50mm
In this one I find there isn't as much detail as in the actual negative.

http://mattkrull.tumblr.com/post/63198062682/oui-une-on-the-shores-of-the-ottawa-river-four
If you look at the water, sky, or her shirt, you can see less than smooth tones. This one was pushed two stops, but even still, I could make an okay 8x10 from it. There's no way I can print that scan at 8x10 and make it look smooth, 4x6 is as big as it gets.
My intention wasn't to alter the direction of the conversation, and certainly not to go down into some sort of "Plus-X sucks" (because it really realy does not) side track. I just wanted to say don't judge Ultrafine Xtreme based only on looking at scans. The scans change the way the negative looks for the worse, and need to be scaled down to cover up those changes.

MattKrull said:

That's got it's own scanning issues (grid like pattern in the darker areas & such as the water), but even it has smoother tones than I've found in scanning my plus-x.

...

I just wanted to say don't judge Ultrafine Xtreme based only on looking at scans. The scans change the way the negative looks for the worse, and need to be scaled down to cover up those changes.

Click to expand...

The grid pattern is only there when it is resized down for APUG (a problem I have regularly with APUG)

But more generally I agree - scanning adds so many potential issues that it is difficult if not impossible to use scanned images to comparatively evaluate the qualities of any film.

MattKing said:

scanning adds so many potential issues that it is difficult if not impossible to use scanned images to comparatively evaluate the qualities of any film.

Click to expand...

Amen.

I shoot ultrafine extreme, I develop it in good ole D-76, 1:1 @ 20c (my room is constantly 20c so I adjust my times accordingly) and I have great results with it.

Here's a shot I took with an Instamatic a few weekends ago (loaded ultrafine into a 126 cart).

I bulk load the Xtreme 100 and 400 in 135 and get good results. I develop it with D76 stock at the recommended times at 68F: 8 minutes for 100 and 7 minutes for 400 (4 rolls per liter of D76, reused). I use Ilford agitation: 4 inversions over the first 10 seconds, repeat every minute thereafter.

The Xtreme 120 films, 100 and 400, are very good too.

Another vote for the Xtreme films. I really love them, especially the 100. I have a theory that it's Ilford Pan 100 and 400, which are not sold here in the U.S.

Leica Z2X, Ultrafine Xtreme 400, Kodak XTOL 1+1.

ThatOverallsGuy said:

I shoot ultrafine extreme, I develop it in good ole D-76, 1:1 @ 20c (my room is constantly 20c so I adjust my times accordingly) and I have great results with it.

Here's a shot I took with an Instamatic a few weekends ago (loaded ultrafine into a 126 cart).

Click to expand...

Looks good, 100 or 400?

I used some Ultrafine 400 in 120 and the Ilford Pan 400 in 35mm (which is supposed to be the same as Ultrafine 400).

Pardon the compression level on both shots, as they were uploaded to Facebook, and suffer from their compression algorithms.

Both films have worked exceedingly well for me, and I think if you can't get good results with them then something in the work flow needs to be addressed.

Out of the two images the OP uploaded, the skin tones of the girls are not very good, all grey and lifeless. Bad light? Not enough processing? Not enough exposure? A combination? The second shot looks like highlights that are too thick due to overexposure, possibly in combination with overdevelopment, of subject matter in terrible lighting.

markbarendt said:

Looks good, 100 or 400?

Click to expand...

400

Camera is a Kodak 500 Instamatic. Great camera, great lens.

ThatOverallsGuy said:

400

Camera is a Kodak 500 Instamatic. Great camera, great lens.

Click to expand...

Thanks