Ultrafine 100 extreme, developer you like?

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
I'm just getting back into shooting film again. 20 years ago shooting B&W, I settled on Ilford delta 100 and Kodak T-max 400 as my favorite films. I used HC110 back then, but D76 to me also seems to give very good results. I also shot with APX-25 and it seemed best in rodinal as I recall.

I thought I would experiment with the ultrafine films in 35mm, and the 400 speed in D-76 looks really nice and I am happy with the results. But the 100 speed, shot at EI-100 , not so much. It's hard to describe but the results look muddy and mushy, like there is very little mid tone contrast but at the same time the highlights block up easily and the shadow detail is lacking. It also just has a kinda smeared look, as in it's not very sharp. I tried both: stock D-76 at 9 minutes and D-76 1-1 at 11.5 and neither looked good. This was shot using a light yellow filter and also a slightly darker yellow filter, which seem to work fine with the other films. Both times it was on a bright sunny day.

So I guess I'm wondering, has anyone found a developer/time combo they like with this film? My next roll I'm going to see how rodinal 1-50 works. Or should I maybe try rating it at 50 and pull develop it? I have about 8 more rolls to play with before I just give up on this film
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,796
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
I have used the Ultrafine Extreme 100 in 120 and like it in Xtol-R, Pyrocat-HDC and Rodinal. As for Rodinal? I've only developed the film in 1+100 semi-stand 1Hr. The results were sharp with medium contrast and grain was almost invisible. Oh, I also used it a box speed.
 

destroya

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
1,223
Location
Willamette Valley, OR
Format
Multi Format
Like John above, I use Pyro-m for my x100 in 35mm and 120. I expose it at 50. 72 degrees, 15 min in pyro-m or pyro-hdc, whichever i mix up. 1 min initial agitation, then 10 seconds every 3 min after. If i have to shoot it at box speed, I use same as above but 18 min.

john
 

manualcrank

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
23
Format
Multi Format
How do you know, with rebranded film, if it's the same film from one roll to the next?
 

mgb74

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 24, 2005
Messages
4,780
Location
MN and MA US
Format
Multi Format
manualcrank said:
How do you know, with rebranded film, if it's the same film from one roll to the next?
Click to expand...

In the case of Ultrafine, I know folks who have used it - consistently and in significant volume- for years. I personally have no doubt that its an emulsion made by a major player (most likely Harmon). I also believe Harmon's comments that they don't private label HP5+ and FP4+, so I don't believe its exactly the same as those emulsions. Maybe its the old HP5 and FP4 (no +). Maybe it's HP5 and FP4 with half a plus. Maybe it's the Kentmere emulsion. Who knows.

I don't use it all that much myself because, at the volumes I buy, I find their shipping cost high. I can buy 10 rolls of Ilford with free shipping for just a bit more. I can buy 10 rolls of Kentmere for the same net cost. But when I have used it over the past few years, developing in D-76 at the same times, the results were consistent.
 

mklw1954

Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2009
Messages
397
Location
Monroe, NY
Format
Medium Format
I like the results for 135 and 120 Ultrafine Xtreme 100 films, shot a box speed, using D76 stock at 68F., and agitating 5-7 times for the first 5 seconds, then 2 inversions over 5 seconds every 30 seconds thereafter (a modified Kodak inversion regime). I use a water bath to maintain the 68F temp.
 
OP
OP

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
A follow up, I tried another roll in rodinal 1:50 with less agitation (3 gentle inversions every minute) shot at 100 and souped for 13 min which seems a little better but still doesn't look great to my eye, even bracketed test shots. But I shot a roll of delta 100 the same day, processed it in D76 1:1 in my normal 3 inversions ever 30 second and concluded: I'm going to stick to using Delta 100 as long as it's available. The difference is just night and day. It's weird that the 400 speed version of this brand seems IMHO so much better tonally and less grainy than the 100 speed does. I still have some rolls of this to play with so might try shooting it at IE 50 and pull processing.
 

Lanline

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2008
Messages
187
Location
Minneapolis, Mn
Format
Multi Format
I use Ultrafine Xtreme 100 & 400 almost exclusively since 2014.With D76/Sprint the results are amazing. I did try the film in Rodinal 1:25 and 1:50 and hated it, it was grainy and harsh contrast.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,907
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I use a lot extreme, both 100 and 400, it's become my standard general purpose films. II have tested both, found that with my set set ISO 100 shoots are 80, develop in Unicolor film drum with motor base, D 76 stock at 7 mints, 400 at ISO 320 D 76 stock 6.5 mints. I dont recall the times I worked out for DDX, Rodinal or MCM 100. I do use Rodinal 1:25 with 100, not with 400. I print grade 2 to 3, get good tones, reasonable grain. My take is that 100 is very similar to old Plus X or older versions of Ilford PF4, but the 400 is closer to Foma 400 in terms of grain and resolution. I still use Tmax 400 and 100 as needed, 400 when I need to push. As I get both 35mm and 120 I only use Foma 400 in 4X5.
 

newcan1

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
719
Location
Chattanooga
Format
35mm
I have become obsessed generally with the D-76d variant of D-76. D-23 would also be worth a look.
 

wombat2go

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
352
Location
Michigan
Format
Medium Format
I recently used my first roll of Ultrfine 100 extreme (120 size),
while testing the focus setting on the Super Angulon 65mm on the Century 2x3.

https://app.box.com/s/l6lpfxkm1mja7fdord85r48kaibnmaq7

This was developed with a new mix of Ilford Microphen.

This is uncroppped scan. Note the dark bar a little bit down from the top
The bar is on all exposures, and wanders up and down a bit across them, so I doubt it is the scanner
The tank was not low on fluids, as I had 600mm in.
I wondered if it is a film coating inconsistency.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,907
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Might be, I have yet to have any issues with Ultrafine, a few years ago before I started using it in 120 there were a few comments about the paper backing, seems to have fixed.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
54,017
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Any chance that the reel rode up on the centre column and left one edge partially submerged?
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,796
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Any chance that the reel rode up on the centre column and left one edge partially submerged?
Click to expand...
I have to agree with Matt. This looks like a development issue.That "line" you point out would show up as lighter on the negative, which leads me to think it could be what Matt's getting at. I've also had "surge edges" that looked somewhat like that, but they usually show up on both top and bottom edges. JohnW
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
24,822
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
What development tank type and what agitation scheme? This looks like a typical processing error, for which particularly 120 film is prone IME.
 

wombat2go

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Messages
352
Location
Michigan
Format
Medium Format
It is a black generic plastic tank from MacoDirect, made in Spain. I have been using it for 6 years.
It is rated 550cc for one 120 roll and I use 600ml .
I use slow inversions for first 30 sec, then one slow each 30 sec.
The tank remains upright for the rest of the time.

Yes it is possible that the reel rode up as Matt mentioned.
The Samigon ESA325 reels are fairly tight on the column, perhaps I did not push it completely down.

To counter that, I can increase the fluids from 600 to 650ml.
Then the level will be at the lid cone so the reel will always be immmersed.

But note that there seems to be a band right at the top that looks to be the same as the sky in the good part.

Here is the test exposure immediately before, with the camera focussed on my infinity estimation.
Notice the swirls in the dark band.
https://app.box.com/s/40lrsui3uauwnuwh9b7cfvcfmfhuowxq

Otherwise, the UltraFine 100 looks good contrast wise, in these early morning photos at f/11 and 30th.
I used the UfRaw "Auto" button to get the range.

Thanks for the comments.
 

ritternathan

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
193
Location
Jersey City,
Format
4x5 Format
I've used this film, Ultrafine Xtreme and been happy with it (35mm, 100/400, usually enlarged to 5x7 and 8x10) souped in Xtol or DS-10. Other developers did not work as well for me. YMMV.
 

Grim Tuesday

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2018
Messages
739
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
I just wanted to bring this thread back up because I went through a ton of my negatives, scans and notes last night and found that one of my favorite rolls of film ever was Ultrafine 100, shot at 200, developed with HC-110 Dilution B at 68 degrees for 11:40. It was a gray dark cloudy day and this roll has gorgeous inky dark shadows combined with nice mid tones and shining highlights, a combination I rarely see with any other film. An example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/132764966@N03/46118837252/in/dateposted-public/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…