Getting good results from Ultrafine Extreme & Ilfosol-3

Hi all,

I have read everything I could find about this film on Google, APUG, and also on other forums. I hope this post is not repetitive - and my humble apologies if otherwise.

I am getting back to film photography after a break of many years. I wanted to commit to shooting a significant amount of film, and since I need to stay on a budget, I sprung for the Ultrafine Extreme film.

- This is in 35mm; I have 100' rolls of both 100 & 400
- Has to be current-dated (no expiry printed but I bought early this spring direct from their website)
- I am using box speeds and dev times of 7:30 (ISO 100) and 11:00 (ISO 400) with Ilfosol-3, 1:14 dil., 68 deg F (got these from the Massive Dev Chart)
- I am scanning & hope to print digitally
- Mainly portraits and also hope to do some landscape (to extent possible)

It is very likely my technique is subpar, but I have a few questions I wanted to request your help & expertise -

1. The film base itself seems thinner to me compared to my old film (negatives). Which I don't really care about, but the film has been hard to get on to the reels and I have managed to strain it in places quite often (which leaves bend marks on the base). Is this indeed common? Or am I loading wrong?

2. The results have been "meh" (no, the scanning is not at fault - I have gone back and scanned my old negatives as a check). Specifically - my current results are grainy / gray and dull. Is it my development? Or should I be using a more expensive film / developer / the 1:9 dilution of Ilfosol?

3. It seems to me that there is a significant loss of contrast in shooting (portraits) against the light (evening sun). This is not a lens issue. I have old Nikon manual focus equipment, well-kept, and the lenses work fine on my DSLR shooting into the light.

4. Please can you share recommended box speed and development times?

Overall - I want to like the film, and certainly want to learn how to get the best from it. I am mindful of my own limitations and constraints (e.g. expense) and know I cannot ask for Pan-F performance at the lowest price. But I do want to learn and get the best from the materials I can work with.

Many thanks in advance.

I like the 400 film.

1. I think it is probably the lack of an anti-halation layer that you notice. I have no problem loading it, but I keep my rolls to 24 or under. I have a hard time getting the last bit of a 36 frame roll onto a reel, no matter what brand. I REALLY like how flat this film lies for scanning.

2. The grain is there. This is not a finely grained film. If you need that, I would try T-Max or some other film. Acros gets good reviews for fine grain. You are going to spend money, though.

3. The contrast is better at 1600, where I usually shoot it, but of course you lose shadow detail. I love the contrast at 1600.

4. Like I said, I shoot the 400 film at 1600, but I use HC110b, so my dev times won't help. I don't know it off hand but can look it up if you want.

This film is really great to me, especially for the price of the 100-foot roll. It's what I use 90% of the time.

First, welcome to the forum! Generally speaking, there are lots of helpful and friendly people here. I've been shooting Ultrafine eXtreme 400 for the past few months, so I can also share a bit of my experiences. I can't speak to the ASA/ISO 100 film, but I have an album on my Flickr for Ultrafine eXtreme 400, in both 135 (loaded from bulk) and 120.

1. What tank/reels are you using? I use the Paterson Super System 4, and don't have any issues loading. Compared to other film, I haven't had to take any extra precautions either, so can't comment if it's a common problem or not. Like Ariston noted, it dries really flat, maybe because of the thinner base.
2. I don't find the film to be overly grainy, but I mostly shoot 400 speed films, and don't mind a bit of grain. I can't speak to Ilfosol, but I use LegacyPro L110. It's a HC-110 clone, so not an "expensive" developer. Perhaps other members with experience with Ifosol can comment on dilutions/times.
3. In my experience, Ultrafine eXtreme 400 doesn't perform quite as well as say Tri-X or HP5+ in strongly backlit, high contrast scenes. With really bright sources, there is some mild halation. I've read elsewhere it might be because it has less anti-halation undercoating (AHU). I have no way of confirming, but that might also contribute to the thinner base. When I dump out my pre-soak water, the liquid is clear, compared to Tri-X which comes out purplish.
4. I haven't tried pushing or pulling Ultrafine eXtreme 400. I generally shoot at box speed and meter for the shadows. I develop using LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes at 68 degrees.

Hope that helps!

Hello,

Sorry to hear you're not getting good results. I cannot offer any advice with Ilfosol 3, I haven't used this developer. However, Ultrafine 100 and 400 are my favorite films regardless of the price. For the record, they are re-branded Ilford Kentmere 100 and 400 and the image I get from them is nicer than FP4+ and HP5+ to my eye, I honestly don't understand why Ilford charges less money for superior films, but happy to take advantage of it!

I disagree with the lack of halation layer (look at Foma if you want high halation). Also, I wouldn't call these films low-contrast, they're normal contrast to my eye. I like to describe their character as "gentle" or "subtle", with wonderful midtone separation and good highlight detail.

I use Ultrafine D76 developer for both at stock dilution, not 1+1. This lowers grain and offers wonderful tonality. In fact, I shoot nothing but Ultrafine 400 in my medium format camera lately.

Here are some Ultrafine 400 samples developed in Ultrafine D76 developer (I used D76 time for Kentmere 400), they're all medium format though. If you like these results, I hope this will keep you motivated to nail your process:

Golden Gate Bridge


Surfer Van


Sausalito BIker

I pretty much agree with Bormental. I don't think the halation is bad at all, but it does show up from time to time. Here's an example, though I wonder how Tri-X or HP5+ would fare under the same conditions:

Here's an example shooting into the sun:

And here are some of those subtle, gentle tones that Bormental mentioned. You can also see some slight halation on the bridge of the guitar:

@Bormental, I've read rumors that Ultrafine eXtreme is re-badged Kentmere. I've never tried Kentmere myself, but you seem confident enough to go on record that it is Kentmere. Have you shot them side by side? Or some other inside knowledge or source? Either way, like you said, it's a great film regardless of the price (and actual provenance).

dourbalistar said:

've read rumors that Ultrafine eXtreme is re-badged Kentmere. I've never tried Kentmere myself, but you seem confident enough to go on record that it is Kentmere. Have you shot them side by side? Or some other inside knowledge or source?

Click to expand...

This thread on dpreview is very much aligned with my experience:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64005270

I have not used Ultrafine 400 in 135 format, and Kentmere 400 is not available in 120 AFAIK. But I have been buying 24-frame rolls of Kentmere 100 and Ultrafine 100 for a while now, sometimes even developing two rolls in the same tank, using the same development time and seeing zero difference in my results.

And since it's so likely that Ultrafine 100 = Kentmere 100, it would be only logical to conclude that the same is true for the 400 version.

Bormental said:

This thread on dpreview is very much aligned with my experience:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64005270

I have not used Ultrafine 400 in 135 format, and Kentmere 400 is not available in 120 AFAIK. But I have been buying 24-frame rolls of Kentmere 100 and Ultrafine 100 for a while now, sometimes even developing two rolls in the same tank, using the same development time and seeing zero difference in my results.

And since it's so likely that Ultrafine 100 = Kentmere 100, it would be only logical to conclude that the same is true for the 400 version.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the links, @Bormental, those are really interesting and insightful! In a blind test, I probably couldn't tell the difference. But in a wallet test, 100-feet of Ultrafine eXtreme 400 is cheaper than 100-feet of Kentmere 400. And honestly, I care more about Ultrafine keeping it in stock than what it actually is.

Anyway, you're getting great results, and I hope the OP can get there, too.

Hi All,

Thank you for the detailed & insightful replies.

Ariston said:

1. I think it is probably the lack of an anti-halation layer that you notice. I have no problem loading it, but I keep my rolls to 24 or under. I have a hard time getting the last bit of a 36 frame roll onto a reel, no matter what brand. I REALLY like how flat this film lies for scanning.

Click to expand...

I too am using the Paterson reels/tank - but I think you nailed it - I have been filling the cassettes to 40 usable shots - and probably have cheapened out too much and the film is proving hard to load. Bingo. Thank you. The problem is that I have already spooled and loaded the 400 speed film to make way for the 100 speed in the bulk loader. So will have to live with it and be more careful loading. Lesson learned.

dourbalistar said:

In my experience, Ultrafine eXtreme 400 doesn't perform quite as well as say Tri-X or HP5+ in strongly backlit, high contrast scenes. With really bright sources, there is some mild halation. I've read elsewhere it might be because it has less anti-halation undercoating (AHU). I have no way of confirming, but that might also contribute to the thinner base. When I dump out my pre-soak water, the liquid is clear, compared to Tri-X which comes out purplish.

Click to expand...

OK, I sort of knew what remjet was, from long ago, and had a rough idea what anti halation meant. Just went and read more. From the samples in the posts above (thanks!) - I would not have the slightest problem with the halation. I wouldn't have noticed it. Which leads me to conclude that I am probably not getting the contrast right in exposure & subsequent development.

dourbalistar said:

I haven't tried pushing or pulling Ultrafine eXtreme 400. I generally shoot at box speed and meter for the shadows. I develop using LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes at 68 degrees.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the tips on L110 and D76. I used to use D76 (1:1) 10+ years ago and now tried Ilfosol for the convenience, and trying to stick with it, at least for now. I will however look up the Kentmere films (which probably have more developers specified; and I am hoping Ilford supplies guidance on their own Ilfosol developer) and see how the times translate from D76/HC110 to Ilfosol and try to draw some parallels to Ilfosol times.

Also - good to know that it looks to be Kentmere based on more than conjecture / the box saying "made in UK" (by the way, my boxes don't say anything about where it is made).

Bormental said:

However, Ultrafine 100 and 400 are my favorite films regardless of the price

Click to expand...

That is good to know! I would love to be able to get the best from these films. It is a given today that the 'budget' products can be every bit as good or better than the luxury brands of a few years ago. And yes - I am planning to continue trying to get the best from this film.

I've been shooting extreme 100 and 400 for several years, more than several maybe 5 to 7. I develop in Patterson Tanks or in an old Unicolor rotary film drum. I tired several developers D76, Microdol X, MCM 100 and Ilford D3 as a divided developer, Rodinal and DDX. DDX and Rodinal are not my favs for 400, too much grain, very good with 100. I really like 400 in MCM 100, grain is really tight, good tones, but needs to be shot at lower than box speed, I shoot 320. If using a highly concentrated developer make sure you are using more than the tank calls for. D76 is right on target, balance of grain, speed, contrast, hold on to shadow details really well. Unless you are shooting a fair amount of film, enough to use a bottle of and use a bottel of Ilfosol-3, before it goes bad, I would think about HC 110, although the formula has changed it will keep for several years. Once you find your developer and nail the times keep with it.

All - many thanks for the helpful suggestions. After 12 rolls of the 400 speed and 3 of the 100 speed UFX, I have results I like.

In particular, I am pleased with my results from UFX100. Regarding the UFX400, I haven't yet figured out the film (despite shooting a dozen rolls)... in the majority of shots I don't like it (my results are too "mushy"), but for some images it just works.

Here are some of my results from the UFX100, in Ilfosol-3:

1. Log hut



2. Chopped



3. Skyline in wood



4. Bright flowers


5. Morning light