Is Ultrafine Xtreme 400 Discontinued?

[pentaxuser]

The photography business, such as it is, is really screwy. Having a seller refuse to say where something is made is unheard of in any other business or art form. What's even screwier is that we think that's OK.

Most of the discussion about the Catlabs 320 film centres around this very aspect, doesn't it?

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

This is Kentmere. I've been shooting both simultaneously, mixing them in the same developing tank and getting absolutely identical results. So if you love it you can just buy Kentmere. BUT... Kentmere is not available in 120 and yes that sucks.

If it's Kentmere, how do we reconcile this with the comments that whoever made the "Extreme" could not get a commitment out of the maker?

pentaxuser

 

[Ariston]

I'm not convinced it is Kentmere. In the examples on that web page I posted, the tonality is pretty different. The guy shot them both at the same time, and explicitly says he scanned them the same. I'm not sure why he would develop them differently. I don't know how using a different camera would change the tonality, unless one of the cameras had a bad meter. Too bad he doesn't show the negatives.

I bought a 100' roll of Foma, wondering if that was it. I can tell you it definitely is not.

 

[koraks]

The guy shot them both at the same time, and explicitly says he scanned them the same.

With different cameras, each with its own light meter which may or may not agree with each other. And 'scanned the same' only means anything if the person operating the scanner is aware of the possibilities and limitations of their scanner and capable of actually making identical scans (thus bypassing any AI built into the scanner software, for instance).

I'm very, very skeptical of the methodology used and the conclusions attributed on its basis. This isn't proper testing; it's a quick & dirty evaluation that doesn't allow for any firm conclusions one way or another.

 

[Ariston]

I think it is fine for what it is - an internet article. Unless someone else has done a more thorough analysis, we are stuck with it.

I just wish UFX were still available, regardless. I will give Kentmere a try. I regret buying 100' of Fomapan.

 

[reddesert]

With different cameras, each with its own light meter which may or may not agree with each other. And 'scanned the same' only means anything if the person operating the scanner is aware of the possibilities and limitations of their scanner and capable of actually making identical scans (thus bypassing any AI built into the scanner software, for instance).

I'm very, very skeptical of the methodology used and the conclusions attributed on its basis. This isn't proper testing; it's a quick & dirty evaluation that doesn't allow for any firm conclusions one way or another.

This is legitimate, but it's also worth thinking about the goals of measurement. To actually determine if Film A is almost the same as Kentmere, one would have to carefully control some or many tests. On the other hand, if Person X processes Film A and Kentmere through their normal photographic workflow (metering, development, scanning, etc) and the results come out very similar, then maybe Film A and Kentmere are close enough for Person X, if their end goals are making photographs with it. This gets back to the question that keeps underlying these threads: how precisely do we need to know the origins of a film stock, or do we just need to know how it behaves?

 

[aparat]

I'm not convinced it is Kentmere. In the examples on that web page I posted, the tonality is pretty different. The guy shot them both at the same time, and explicitly says he scanned them the same. I'm not sure why he would develop them differently. I don't know how using a different camera would change the tonality, unless one of the cameras had a bad meter. Too bad he doesn't show the negatives.

I bought a 100' roll of Foma, wondering if that was it. I can tell you it definitely is not.

If you're interested in a comparison, I'd be happy to run a test for you. If I have the films in question, I'd just do it, but if not, you could just send me a couple of strips of each (about 5 inches long, in a light-proof bag). Such a test would help us find out if the films respond to light and development in a similar way. It would probably not be a definitive test, but I think it would get you in the ballpark.

 

[koraks]

I think it is fine for what it is - an internet article

Don't get me wrong, so do I. It's fine as it is, and I'm only warning against interpreting as more than its likely intended to be.

Did you get the 400 fomapan? I never got along with that either.

 

[Ariston]

Don't get me wrong, so do I. It's fine as it is, and I'm only warning against interpreting as more than its likely intended to be.

Did you get the 400 fomapan? I never got along with that either.

Yes, it's the 400. I have a lot of the roll left, and it is hard to convince myself to finish it. It may get relegated to being test film.

I like Tri-X but, honestly, I was just as happy with the much cheaper Ultrafine. And since it didn't have an anti-halation layer, it lay so much more flatly. It was just a competent film that was easy to work with.

 

[Ariston]

If you're interested in a comparison, I'd be happy to run a test for you. If I have the films in question, I'd just do it, but if not, you could just send me a couple of strips of each (about 5 inches long, in a light-proof bag). Such a test would help us find out if the films respond to light and development in a similar way. It would probably not be a definitive test, but I think it would get you in the ballpark.

I would like to send you some, but I don't have any more Ultrafine Xtreme 400 (I wish!). If someone has a roll they would like to donate, I would be HAPPY to buy you a roll of Kentmere to compare it to.

 

[MattKing]

And since it didn't have an anti-halation layer, it lay so much more flatly.

I hate to disappoint you, but there are all sorts of different approaches to anti-halation, and it is unlikely that any of them have much influence on how flat film may lay.

 

[dourbalistar]

I'm not convinced it is Kentmere. In the examples on that web page I posted, the tonality is pretty different. The guy shot them both at the same time, and explicitly says he scanned them the same. I'm not sure why he would develop them differently. I don't know how using a different camera would change the tonality, unless one of the cameras had a bad meter. Too bad he doesn't show the negatives.

I bought a 100' roll of Foma, wondering if that was it. I can tell you it definitely is not.

I also miss Ultrafine eXtreme 400, not just for the price. When it became unavailable (functionally if not officially discontinued), I switched to Kentmere Pan 400. I home developed both using the same developer and time/dilution, and digitized them using the same process. Not scientific testing per se, but at least there's internal consistency within my own workflow, using the same cameras and lenses for both films. The differences in tonality are subtle, but the two look different to my eye. I have examples of Ultrafine eXtreme 400 and Kentmere Pan 400 on my Flickr, so you can compare for yourself and make your own conclusions.

 

[aparat]

I would like to send you some, but I don't have any more Ultrafine Xtreme 400 (I wish!). If someone has a roll they would like to donate, I would be HAPPY to buy you a roll of Kentmere to compare it to.

No worries. I am afraid Ultrafine Xtreme 400 has probably disappeared for good. I also liked the film a lot, esp. in 120, and for portraits. It had very subtle, soft highlights.

 

[AZD]

Well speak of the devil… What should fall into my hands today but a lone 120 roll of Ultrafine Extreme 400. It was hiding in a mini fridge at a local shop. The only problem now is deciding what to do with it.

 

[Ariston]

I hate to disappoint you, but there are all sorts of different approaches to anti-halation, and it is unlikely that any of them have much influence on how flat film may lay.

No disappointment - I am not a technician. All I know is that all the films that leave my wash dirty seem to curl a lot. Whatever the cause (or lack of it), UFX lies flatter than most.