Compare Ultrafine Silver Eagle VCFB to Adox and Foma?

Todd Foster · Aug 2, 2014

Can anyone share an opinion on how the Ultrafine material compares to the Adox and Foma papers I've been getting from Freestyle?

I just ran across the site for Ultrafine. Likely it's made by Foma or Ilford but packaged for them. Aren't that many actual manufacturers left.
I prefer to keep supporting Freestyle but I'd like to know what else is currently being made and sold.

I'm also interested in the current iteration of Ilford's Multigrade if anyone can comment on how good that seems to be this time around.

A couple of my own user observations: I was not impressed with the Adox Warmtone material, which is made in England, unlike the amazing and expensive Adox MCC110 from Germany. The best economy but very good VCFB I've found is Freestyle's Arista.Edu paper. I just hope it's the same next time I buy it. May depend on who is currently making it, is my guess. I wouldn't be surprised if the surface gloss had changed, for example. That's the problem with house brand type products from any seller.

Thanks, Todd F.

madgardener · Aug 2, 2014

My experience with Freestyle is that they will stick with the same manufacturer until they are unable to get that particular product. When they get a new manufacturer, the brand name also changes. They are very good that way.

EDIT: Ultrafine, I have no idea what they do, a lot of their stuff doesn't have a statement of origin which BTW is against US law.

gone · Aug 2, 2014

I had nothing bu trouble w/ Ultrafine film. Others had the same problem that I had, namely a bunch of circles and numbers on the film itself. I won't use it after that experience, and do not recommend their film.

Maris · Aug 2, 2014

I've used hundreds of sheets of Ultrafine Silver Eagle VC FB and a lot of Fomabrom Variant III VC FB. Fomabrom has a slightly warmer base than Silver Eagle which is white+white in comparison. The Fomabrom dries to a glossier surface and Silver Eagle is a bit duller but the difference is slight and noticable only in a side by side comparison. Silver Eagle is a good cheap paper with no flaws and no obtrusive character. That's the way I like it.

Pat Erson · Aug 3, 2014

Todd Foster said:
A couple of my own user observations: I was not impressed with the Adox Warmtone material, which is made in England, unlike the amazing and expensive Adox MCC110 from Germany
Todd F.

Hello Todd,

could you expand on that point? Thx! I was just about to try the 110...

Todd Foster · Aug 4, 2014

Pat Erson said:
Hello Todd,

could you expand on that point? Thx! I was just about to try the 110...

Thanks to those who commented on Ultrafine materials. Very helpful.

On MCC110 VCFB. This is the best paper I've yet used. IMO it's equal to if not better than the best of the past best, such the original Oriental Seagull. Glossy, rich, very responsive to the color dichroic head I use for grade selection on enlarger. It just looks really good to me. No reason to go beyond that because it's personal preference anyway. Like it a lot for full scale landscapes. Developing in Arista Print Developer at 10% and selenium toning for just slight visible effect on color and dark intensity, not more. Hate that purple selenium look if taken too far. My intention is to try it with a warm tone developer to see if a move in that direction is helpful, since I didn't like the Adox warmtone. Got a quart of Arista Warmtone HQ to try with it.

Curious thing is that, last I checked, the 110 is the most expensive paper from Freestyle in the VCFB category, and Arista.EDU is the cheapest. I'm finding a use for both. I use 8 X 10 paper only for enlarged proofs of 4 X 5 negs that have first been rough contact proofed by just laying 6 negs in mylar sleeves on top of 11 X 14 RC paper with no cover glass. Only thing I use RC for. This speeds up the proofing process tremendously. Quality is poor, but those little contact prints are too small to do much good anyway. They mostly do nothing but let me see a positive image. They can be out of focus in some areas and this only shows up on enlargement. On RC they dry fast and flat for filing. I make choices from these RC positives, then enlarge proof those on 8 X 10 fiber so I can really see what's going on with that image. I like to dry mount the best of these on 11 X 14 board so I can really get to know them under lights. Everything is revealed, and as a real, mounted print instead of a tiny, wrinkly postage stamp, planning a big print is easier and a real pleasure. I''ll be trying 8 X 10 EDU for this now that I've finally used up all my old graded 8 X 10 material. I was surprised at how good it looked in some 11 X 14's I tried with it.

I got a pack of 16 X 20 EDU VCFB to try out with larger prints. If nothing else, I might be using this for initial printing of images in that size, then switching to the Adox 110 if I get somewhere and want to go for a final print. The 16 X 20 MCC110 gets really pricey if you're burning through much of it. If making first attempts on the EDU material ends up not being a good idea, I can cut the rest of it into 8 X 10's for enlarged proofs.

mklw1954 · Aug 4, 2014

momus said:
I had nothing bu trouble w/ Ultrafine film. Others had the same problem that I had, namely a bunch of circles and numbers on the film itself. I won't use it after that experience, and do not recommend their film.

I agree the Ultrafine Plus films are really poor. But I like the Ultrafine Xtreme series of films. I haven't had an instance of those quality problems and I've shot a couple of 100 ft. rolls of 135-100 and 135-400. I also use the Xtreme 120-100, and 120-400. On a recent outing I shot 2 rolls of Ultrafine 120-400 and two rolls of 120-Tri-X and the pints from the Ultrafine films were just as good as those from the Tri-X.

JW PHOTO · Aug 5, 2014

mklw1954 said:
I agree the Ultrafine Plus films are really poor. But I like the Ultrafine Xtreme series of films. I haven't had an instance of those quality problems and I've shot a couple of 100 ft. rolls of 135-100 and 135-400. I also use the Xtreme 120-100, and 120-400. On a recent outing I shot 2 rolls of Ultrafine 120-400 and two rolls of 120-Tri-X and the pints from the Ultrafine films were just as good as those from the Tri-X.

Shhh! Don't let the cat out of the bag on the Xtreme series. I've been using the 135-ISO100 and think it's the cat's meow. Same now with the ISO100 in 120, but I haven't tried any of the ISO 400 films yet. To many folks find out and there will be a price increase. So, keep it hush. JW

Thomas Bertilsson · Aug 5, 2014

It would be better to make a small print on the same paper and then go up in size, than printing on a different paper with a different response at the same size for proofing purposes.
It's a less expensive method too.

The ADOX MCC 110 is the old Agfa MCC Multigrade paper emulsion, but on a brighter base. It's a phenomenal paper that prints with really great contrast and depth in the shadows. Ilford Multigrade is a little murky in the shadows and not as well defined, but some may like that look better. I buy Ilford because it's easy to get where I live.
The Foma papers are also very excellent products, and I used a lot of the matte version of the paper you are trying. It has a slightly warmer base and warmer tone, which is not at all a bad thing, but it is different in that way. I think that the tonality of the paper is beautiful with really punchy blacks that land somewhere in between Ilford and ADOX MCC, and the glossy version dries very glossy. The tonality of the Foma paper is very rich, that of the ADOX equally so. The Ilford is a bit more subtle. The Foma paper tones exceptionally well, where the Ilford takes a bit more coaxing, and the ADOX I have little experience with. Looking at the Moersch web site it apperas that it's an exceptional paper for toning.

The Ultrafine stuff I am not going to try. Beware of some reports of strange behavior, particularly with their 120 films. It seems to me they only buy to sell, and they rely on whomever they buy their materials from for quality control. Consistency from batch to batch and quality may suffer or may be excellent, but it's that uncertainty that keeps me away from them. I don't have time with darkroom mysteries, when I have time to dive into the darkroom I want to know what to expect.

I hope that helps a little.

Todd Foster said:
Thanks to those who commented on Ultrafine materials. Very helpful.

On MCC110 VCFB. This is the best paper I've yet used. IMO it's equal to if not better than the best of the past best, such the original Oriental Seagull. Glossy, rich, very responsive to the color dichroic head I use for grade selection on enlarger. It just looks really good to me. No reason to go beyond that because it's personal preference anyway. Like it a lot for full scale landscapes. Developing in Arista Print Developer at 10% and selenium toning for just slight visible effect on color and dark intensity, not more. Hate that purple selenium look if taken too far. My intention is to try it with a warm tone developer to see if a move in that direction is helpful, since I didn't like the Adox warmtone. Got a quart of Arista Warmtone HQ to try with it.

Curious thing is that, last I checked, the 110 is the most expensive paper from Freestyle in the VCFB category, and Arista.EDU is the cheapest. I'm finding a use for both. I use 8 X 10 paper only for enlarged proofs of 4 X 5 negs that have first been rough contact proofed by just laying 6 negs in mylar sleeves on top of 11 X 14 RC paper with no cover glass. Only thing I use RC for. This speeds up the proofing process tremendously. Quality is poor, but those little contact prints are too small to do much good anyway. They mostly do nothing but let me see a positive image. They can be out of focus in some areas and this only shows up on enlargement. On RC they dry fast and flat for filing. I make choices from these RC positives, then enlarge proof those on 8 X 10 fiber so I can really see what's going on with that image. I like to dry mount the best of these on 11 X 14 board so I can really get to know them under lights. Everything is revealed, and as a real, mounted print instead of a tiny, wrinkly postage stamp, planning a big print is easier and a real pleasure. I''ll be trying 8 X 10 EDU for this now that I've finally used up all my old graded 8 X 10 material. I was surprised at how good it looked in some 11 X 14's I tried with it.

I got a pack of 16 X 20 EDU VCFB to try out with larger prints. If nothing else, I might be using this for initial printing of images in that size, then switching to the Adox 110 if I get somewhere and want to go for a final print. The 16 X 20 MCC110 gets really pricey if you're burning through much of it. If making first attempts on the EDU material ends up not being a good idea, I can cut the rest of it into 8 X 10's for enlarged proofs.

Compare Ultrafine Silver Eagle VCFB to Adox and Foma?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency