NEW Ultrafine Plus Black-and-White Films

[Photo-gear]

Here a more complete chart where Ultrafine Plus 100 times are included. Click on the image to enlarge it:



Personally, I don't find that Ultrafine Plus 100 has that much of that purple base. On contrary, I find the base quite grey or transparent, although it curls quite a lot.

Did try to develop the film with Rodinal 1:100 (14 min at 68 F) - according to the Mass. Chart - and it looks like it ain't enough.

 

[muhacakep]

Here a more complete chart where Ultrafine Plus 100 times are included. Click on the image to enlarge it:

View attachment 43342

Personally, I don't find that Ultrafine Plus 100 has that much of that purple base. On contrary, I find the base quite grey or transparent, although it curls quite a lot.

Did try to develop the film with Rodinal 1:100 (14 min at 68 F) - according to the Mass. Chart - and it looks like it ain't enough.

ups...sorry..actually it just a little purple, or..maybe I just too subjective to equate ultrafine with lucky (as lucky has a little purple base too)
i'll edit my comment below
thanks for the corrections

 

[desertrat]

I just bought a 5 roll pack of Ultrafine Plus 100 in 120 size, and compared it to some old rolls of J&C Pro 100. The J&C film had a 'firecracker' red inner wrapper and was widely considered to be Shanghai GP3, based mostly on the identical red inner wrapper and same black backing paper.

The Ultrafine film has a metallic silver colored plastic inner wrapper and same black backing paper as the old J&C film. I examined some narrow clips of each film. Both have a slightly purple gray emulsion area. The J&C film has a blue backing that leaves a blue tint in water if I give it a soak. The Ultrafine film doesn't seem to have any backing dye at all, and the back looks like the emulsion side. Soaking it in water doesn't leave any coloration in the water.

Based on this, I'm thinking the Ultrafine film may be Lucky 100. The rest of the description seems to fit. This could be useful if true, because there is a lot more developer info such as times and dilution for the Lucky film than there is for the Ultrafine. The box containing the five rolls has no information on country of manufacture or any expiration date.

I shot one roll at rated box speed in a mid-1930s Voigtlander Bessa with f4.5 Skopar in a Compur shutter that seems to be accurate. The scene was some tree trunks and bushes in direct sunlight, with some shaded areas and a few deeper shadows. The exposure was 1/100 sec at f16. The film was cut into short strips and developed in a homebrew PC-borax mixture at increasing times. My best negs were a little thin, but definitely looked underexposed for this scene. There was no fog. The sunlit objects looked good, the shaded areas had faint density, and the deeper shadows were blank. I shot another roll yesterday of the same scene at EI 25 and will see how that works.

I'm experimenting with an oddball developer, but thinking this film might work best with an EI a bit less than 100 in a 'normal' developer.

 

[Paul Howell]

I bought a couple of rolls a few months ago, seemed more like Forma, had the same blue tint the base.

 

[desertrat]

I bought a couple of rolls a few months ago, seemed more like Forma, had the same blue tint the base.

The base of my batch, after developing and fixing, is clear with a very slight gray tint. It has a strong curl, too. I'm wondering if Ultrafine Plus might a generic label for any of several 100 speed films that might be available at discount at different times.

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree that it may just a name given to any 100 speed film, the development times for the film I bought seem to match Forma as well, have you check the recommened times to see if there is a match for Lucky?

 

[desertrat]

I agree that it may just a name given to any 100 speed film, the development times for the film I bought seem to match Forma as well, have you check the recommened times to see if there is a match for Lucky?

I checked the times for Ultrafine Plus 100, and they don't match with Lucky. But I can't think of any other film it might be. The film I'm using can't be Foma, the base is almost completely clear, no blue tint. It can't be Shanghai GP3 because it doesn't have an anti-halation layer on the base side of the film. Lucky is the only film that has the same basic characteristics. The times didn't match, but I had to use two different charts. Different charts might have different times for the same film and developer combination.

 

[Photo-gear]

I checked the times for Ultrafine Plus 100, and they don't match with Lucky. But I can't think of any other film it might be. The film I'm using can't be Foma, the base is almost completely clear, no blue tint. It can't be Shanghai GP3 because it doesn't have an anti-halation layer on the base side of the film. Lucky is the only film that has the same basic characteristics. The times didn't match, but I had to use two different charts. Different charts might have different times for the same film and developer combination.

I did check out times and neither Lucky or Foma match.

Personally, I use HC-110 dil. B 10 min at 20C and the results are just fine. This time dev. isn't even recommanded by Ultrafin Online.

Amazing.

 

[newcan1]

I am pretty sure the Ultrafine Plus 100 120 stuff is or at least was Fomapan - the rolls I bought a few months ago have the same bluish base and seem to perform the same. I just bought 100 more rolls of the 120 format stuff because when it's gone, it's probably gone - at least at current prices. Per the comment above, though, if more recent rolls lack the bluish base, then perhaps they have changed what it is.

The last roll I shot was a bit contrasty - I think next time I will shoot at 80 or even 64 ASA and slightly underdevelop and see what happens. For 100 ASA it has a bit more grain than one might expect, but it is very pleasing, rather "old school."

It will be interesting to see if the new rolls when I receive them have the bluish base or not.