Battle of the Bargain Brands

[aparat]

@relistan @Paul Howell You mean the Finesse 100 might be Fomapan 200? I haven't thought of that. Now, I am really intrigued. I should probably get a couple of rolls of Fomapan 200 and test it.

I found Arista Edu Ultra 400 and Ultrafine Finesse 400 to be very similar, not just in tests, but in use. They resemble each other in the way the emulsion looks and feels prior to and after development, in their spectral response, base fog density, etc. Both films' emulsion is somewhat delicate and easily scratched. There are some differences, but I think they might just be down to normal sample variation.

Here are the curve families for Arista Edu Ultra 400 and Ultrafine Finesse 400.


They both have that interesting highlight glow, which you can see in these photographs:
Arista Edu Ultra 400:


Ultrafine Finesse 400:


And here are a couple of interesting bits. First, I found this odd-looking flaw in most of the photographs from the Ultrafine Finesse 400 roll. It's a thin, dark, irregular line across the film (lengthwise). You can see it near the top right corner of the flag. Have you guys come across this kind of thing before? This doesn't look like a typical scratch that a user or camera can cause.



Finally, here's an image of the edge markings of the Arista Edu Ultra 400. It's the only film in this group with any edge markings.


This was a interesting test for me. I did not know what to expect from Ultrafine Finesse, as it is a pretty new product and not much has been written about it. I came away impressed, especially by the Finesse 100, which I found to be a really decent film. Perhaps the biggest surprise came from developing the Arista Edu Ultra 400 and Ultrafine Finesse 400 in XTOL. Both grain and tonality were better, to my eye, than what I'd gotten with D76 1+1 (my staple) before. And it wasn't even close. I might have to give XTOL a serious consideration. The replenishment regime is a bit cumbersome, but it's far from being a deal breaker.

 

[Paul Howell]

Looks like you figured it out, I shoot Foma 400 at 200 when using MCM 100.

 

[relistan]

@relistan @Paul Howell You mean the Finesse 100 might be Fomapan 200? I haven't thought of that. Now, I am really intrigued. I should probably get a couple of rolls of Fomapan 200 and test it.

Yes, that's what I was starting to wonder. Fomapan 200 is quite different from 100 but many people do shoot it at 100. So if the curves and spectral response don't match for Fomapan 100, it would be interesting to see if they do for Fomapan 200. The 400 by all appearances from your testing really does appear to be Fomapan 400.

 

[Romanko]

It's the only film in this group with any edge markings.

I developed two rolls of Fomapan 100 in 120 format and they also had the "ULTRA" edgemarks. Strange.

 

[FotoD]

Yes it's curious why Foma chose the word "Ultra". But it's no surprise to find it on Fomapan 100. From the tech sheet:

"FOMAPAN 100 Classic is available in the following sorts:
– 120 rollfilm 60 mm wide, exlusively on a 120 spool; identification edge markings:
„ULTRA 100“
– double-edge perforated 35 mm film in 135-36 and 135-24 cartridges for 36 and 24
exposures 24x36 mm; identification edge markings: „ULTRA 100“, bulk lengths of
17, 30.5 and 50 m in a darkroom packaging;"

 

[Nitroplait]

Absolutely love Kentmere 400 which often is cheaper per roll than Foma or Arista.

In the US it appears to be the case.
Foma is still cheapest pr. roll in the EU, by a huge margin if looking for bulk rolls.

 

[snusmumriken]

@cmacd123 When I was browsing over at Photo Warehouse, I came across their Double-X 5222 film sold as 36-exposure rolls, which they probably spool themselves. I ordered three rolls, hoping to test them vs. 400TX. It'll take a while, but I may end up doing the test. I agree with you that it would be nice to know more about Double-X 5222.

Excellent, I particularly look forward to that. Extremely interesting, this whole exercise, thanks.

 

[aparat]

I developed a roll of Ultrafine 100, exposed at EI64, in XTOL for 7:30 min. at 20C in Jobo. My XTOL is almost fully seasoned now, so the time might not be right, but I am impressed with this film's tonality and overall emulsion quality. I have found no major defects so far. It dries flat. In XTOL, the emulsion side is shiny, so my aging eyes had trouble telling the sides apart. I also like how it renders skin tones and skies. It turns out to be a decent film, despite the bargain price and packaging. I probably would still prefer Fomapan 100 / Arista Edu Ultra 100 because it's a film I have been using for years and have come to like it a lot.

These are all straight scans out of Vuescan default settings for a generic black and white negative. Yes, I know, Vuescan does apply some processing of its own, but these are otherwise unmanipulated.

 

[aparat]

I ended up running another five-curve film test of the Ultrafine Finesse 100, this time in replenished XTOL. I really like the combination. The Finesse 100 turns out to be around ISO 64, fairly inexpensive, and capable of respectable results. Here's a summary of the analysis:

 

[aparat]

I have shot and developed another roll of Ultrafine Finesse 100. I exposed at EI 64. This time, I developed it in Adox Rodinal 1+100 for 40 minutes with a semi-stand agitation (2 minutes continuous, then two inversions after 20 minutes, then stand). The film responds to Rodinal very well. It gives just the right amount of contrast, good sharpness, and good tonality. Grain is fairly small. These are all "straight" Vuescan scans, just resized.

 

[relistan]

I have shot and developed another roll of Ultrafine Finesse 100. I exposed at EI 64. This time, I developed it in Adox Rodinal 1+100 for 40 minutes with a semi-stand agitation (2 minutes continuous, then two inversions after 20 minutes, then stand). The film responds to Rodinal very well. It gives just the right amount of contrast, good sharpness, and good tonality. Grain is fairly small. These are all "straight" Vuescan scans, just resized.

View attachment 324866View attachment 324868
View attachment 324867View attachment 324869View attachment 324870View attachment 324871View attachment 324872

Looks nice! Seems you’ve dialed in the exposure and dev times.

 

[Arvee]

Seems like this is probably the proper place to post this, so...just ran a quick and dirty zone I speed point test (0.1D) on a 100' roll of UF Finesse 400 dev'd in D-76 stock @ 7.5' @ 20C and got (just barely) an effective film speed of 100. Used the Minolta Spot to measure the 0.3 stop difference between clear unexposed frame and the frame that gave the expected density.

So it would seem that PhotoWarehouse is packaging just one emulsion (probably EFS 100) and pasting different labels on the box?
I've read elsewhere that a testier turned up a probable EFS of 160 with far more sophisticated equipment than I used so I'm thinking my Q 'n' D test isn't too far off the true mark of actual film speed.

Actually ran the test twice thinking I screwed up the process. Same result. (I also performed the same testing procedure on HP5+ and came up with the advertised film speed of 400).

WTF??

 

[relistan]

Seems like this is probably the proper place to post this, so...just ran a quick and dirty zone I speed point test (0.1D) on a 100' roll of UF Finesse 400 dev'd in D-76 stock @ 7.5' @ 20C and got (just barely) an effective film speed of 100. Used the Minolta Spot to measure the 0.3 stop difference between clear unexposed frame and the frame that gave the expected density.

So it would seem that PhotoWarehouse is packaging just one emulsion (probably EFS 100) and pasting different labels on the box?
I've read elsewhere that a testier turned up a probable EFS of 160 with far more sophisticated equipment than I used so I'm thinking my Q 'n D test isn't too far off the true mark of actual film speed.

Actually ran the test twice thinking I screwed up the process. Same result. (I also performed the same testing procedure on HP5+ and came up with the advertised film speed of 400).

WTF??

When @aparat tested the 100 speed film above, he got an effective speed of 64. So that indicates it’s probably not the same emulsion. But seems likely they are nowhere near box speed.

 

[Arvee]

When @aparat tested the 100 speed film above, he got an effective speed of 64. So that indicates it’s probably not the same emulsion. But seems likely they are nowhere near box speed.

What ticked me off was that I ordered and paid for 400 speed film with the expectation that it wouldn't actually come in at advertised speed; coming in at 100 was a nasty surprise. As I said, it just barely made 100 with my testing methodology and might be closer to 64 as measured by aparat with his far more sophisticated setup which suggests to me that the product line is indeed a single emulsion.

 

[pentaxuser]

So it would seem that PhotoWarehouse is packaging just one emulsion (probably EFS 100) and pasting different labels on the box?


Actually ran the test twice thinking I screwed up the process. Same result. (I also performed the same testing procedure on HP5+ and came up with the advertised film speed of 400).

WTF??

Looks like the answer to your WTF is Ilford's honesty with film speeds and labels

If you are right in your first sentence above, then that is downright and I would have thought criminal( in the legal sense) dishonesty

pentaxuser