Ultrafine Brand Film

[Arctic amateur]

This print-transfer is pretty much identical to what happens with some rolls of Shanghai GP3. I bought a brick a few years ago and it got worse with time, more or less. Didn't notice it on the first rolls, glaring on the last one I shot.

 

[ToddB]

I had the same effect on the that film too. The dots are for those MF cameras that have the red window on the back and the number are pretty obvious. The film is not even worth "Playing with" complete crap. The grain was massive too. I tossed what I had left.

ToddB

 

[DannL.]

We'll, now I'm not feeling so alone. I tried the 120 ISO 100 film in February and discovered that I no longer possessed the skills to spool 120 film onto Jobo and Patterson reels. The challenge was there, and I couldn't resist. But, even after trying four different rolls with the "lights turned on", I couldn't manage it. Either the film base was made of spring steel, or it was petrified from age. But what I really suspect is that the base material was too thick, the manufacturer used it, and then sold the film it at a reduced price. Whatever the cause, we came to a unanimous decision . . . "Never Again". I simply can't afford repeating mistakes like this.

 

[JW PHOTO]

We'll, now I'm not feeling so alone. I tried the 120 ISO 100 film in February and discovered that I no longer possessed the skills to spool 120 film onto Jobo and Patterson reels. The challenge was there, and I couldn't resist. But, even after trying four different rolls with the "lights turned on", I couldn't manage it. Either the film base was made of spring steel, or it was petrified from age. But what I really suspect is that the base material was too thick, and the manufacturer used it, and then sold the film it at a reduced price. Whatever the cause, we came to a unanimous decision . . . "Never Again". I simply can't afford repeating mistakes like this.

The sad part is that Photo Warehouse knows about this and plays DUMB. Shame on them! I bought a bulk roll of the ISO 100 35mm film from them at the same time and really like that, but this 120 junk is no good at all. JohnW

 

[mr rusty]

I think you can totally discount the 120 is harman sourced. One of the things they have to buy in bulk is the backing paper, so even if they were manufacturing for someone else, why would they use a different backing, and that backing isn't Ilford, which as we know has little outline dotted circle shapes plus numbers and not solid dots like the image.

 

[timor]

I think you can totally discount the 120 is harman sourced. One of the things they have to buy in bulk is the backing paper, so even if they were manufacturing for someone else, why would they use a different backing, and that backing isn't Ilford, which as we know has little outline dotted circle shapes plus numbers and not solid dots like the image.

What about the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120 format ? It looks like Harman made, just without any AH layer.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

To me, the worst thing that can happen with film is to not know what to expect. This film seems to be hugely unpredictable.

It's a shame that a vendor that people have depended on for years and decades, to suddenly provide a product with such inferior and completely unpredictable, and sometimes unusable results. Some of the results shown in this thread are truly horrible, and something I wouldn't take money to use. It just isn't worth spending time with.
Many years ago I used some Agfa APX 25 that was kindly given to me. I took it with me on a photo trip, and when I processed the film there was chemical fogging on it where the dye on the film backing paper was imprinted on the film, and ruined every single frame from that trip.

I hope they can realize that it will hurt their reputation to continue selling it. But what's worse is that it gives film photography, as an industry, a reputation for being an unreliable method of photography, something that is absolutely avoidable if it's just given half a chance with the correct methods and appropriate attention to quality parameters.

 

[pentaxuser]

What about the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120 format ? It looks like Harman made, just without any AH layer.

What is it about it that makes it look like Harman made? What are the Harman tell-tale signs.Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[JW PHOTO]

To me, the worst thing that can happen with film is to not know what to expect. This film seems to be hugely unpredictable.

It's a shame that a vendor that people have depended on for years and decades, to suddenly provide a product with such inferior and completely unpredictable, and sometimes unusable results. Some of the results shown in this thread are truly horrible, and something I wouldn't take money to use. It just isn't worth spending time with.
Many years ago I used some Agfa APX 25 that was kindly given to me. I took it with me on a photo trip, and when I processed the film there was chemical fogging on it where the dye on the film backing paper was imprinted on the film, and ruined every single frame from that trip.

I hope they can realize that it will hurt their reputation to continue selling it. But what's worse is that it gives film photography, as an industry, a reputation for being an unreliable method of photography, something that is absolutely avoidable if it's just given half a chance with the correct methods and appropriate attention to quality parameters.

I agree Tom and film photography needs all the help it can get. I'm beginning to think they don't care about their reputation and only care about unloading this junk on folks that don't read this forum. Screw me once, shame on you! Screw me twice, shame on me! I'm not even going to buy this stuff for testing anymore since I can buy Arista(Foma) brand at a good price and know that film is darn good.

 

[ambaker]

you sure it isn't Shanghai? Numbers printing through to film, curly, sounds pretty familiar...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Arctic amateur]

Here's my results from Ultrafine 100 in 120 format. Never again. I stick w/ Kodak and Ilford now. If you like circles, dots, and even film numbers on your images, this is your film. As for customer support, I called them on this. A very pleasant woman answered the phone, and said she was going to get someone who knew more than she did about the film to answer my questions. That was a couple of months ago. I'm still waiting.

By the by, Freestyle has Tri-X in 24 exp (35mm) for just $3.99, and the 36 exp is only $4.39 a roll after an instant rebate. We're all going to be kicking ourselves if we pass this one up.

Same mottling, same dot pattern and same font that I got on my negatives with Shanghai GP3.

 

[tokam]

Same mottling, same dot pattern and same font that I got on my negatives with Shanghai GP3.

That mottling and dot pattern looks very similar to a half roll of 35 mm Fuji Neopan SS 100 i recently processed as a test. Mind you, it had an expiry
date of Apr 1968 .

When it dried it curled up lengthwise to about the diameter of a pencil. I've never seen anything like it. Was a real b*gger to flatten and scan.:confused:

 

[presspass]

What about the 35mm, especially 400 speed? Is it also problematic, or is this decent film? Any help appreciated.

 

[alienmeatsack]

I've used and had very similar poor experiences with the Ultrafine Plus 100 film as noted here.

All of my film had the 'bleed through' numbers and dots on it regardless of what camera it was shot in and how little light was allowed into the roll itself. The grain was a mottled mess just like the samples here already and it curled so bad that I had to use a mask around each frame to hold it down enough to get a scan.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can report that I tried some of the Ultrafine 100 film that was given to me. Shot a test roll and got exactly the same marks as above, with numbers and dots being imprinted on the film from the backing paper text.

 

[Terry Christian]

Note that Ultrafine and Ultrafine Xtreme are not the same films. I've used the Xtreme in 35mm, and I've heard rumored that it is Kentmere. In any case, it is great stuff and well worth buying.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Note that Ultrafine and Ultrafine Xtreme are not the same films. I've used the Xtreme in 35mm, and I've heard rumored that it is Kentmere. In any case, it is great stuff and well worth buying.

Yes, they are different as night and day. I just developed two rolls of Ultrafine Xtreme 100 120 film in FX-37 and it came out just fine. Nothing like the Ultrafine 100 junk film with dot patterns. I wouldn't give that film to my worst enemy. Well, maybe I would. JohnW

 

[michr]

I shot and developed Ultrafine Xtreme 100 in 120 format over the summer, and am on my second batch of a ten-roll pack. I've seen no problems with the dot patterns on this film, though I am careful to load and examine the film numbers in shade. I will say that the film curls very tightly and is very difficult to load onto a spool. Last time I developed I ended up trashing a roll in frustration because I couldn't get it loaded. This was mostly due to lack of patience on my part, because I was able to load the other two rolls with some effort. As a hobbyist, the film is worth the frustration because of the cost, but I wouldn't recommend it for a professional.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm glad to hear the Xtreme version works well. Didn't mean to generalize and say all Ultrafine film is not fit for consumption.

I will use my remaining 9 rolls of the regular Ultrafine to season film developer since it is, for all practical purposes, useless.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I'm glad to hear the Xtreme version works well. Didn't mean to generalize and say all Ultrafine film is not fit for consumption.

I will use my remaining 9 rolls of the regular Ultrafine to season film developer since it is, for all practical purposes, useless.

Tom,
I could think of no better use for the Ultrafine 100. I have no more of it left. Thank God! The Ultrafine Xtreme 100 (new stuff exp. date 2016) has some curl, but I use Hewes reels and it takes me about 20 seconds to load one so it's not that bad. When dry it is pretty flat and easy to load in my scanners film holder. Oh, like has been said, it's priced right. The backing paper looks like Ilford, but I don't know who makes it. John W

 

[destroya]

for what its worth, I find that the development times for the xtreme 100 and FP4 are exactly the same. also the xtreme 400 and hp5 are the same for me. the base has a very slight difference, but for me I now use the Xtreme and fp4 interchangeably.