Ultrafine Brand Film

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Hi Chris,

Thanks for your information. Rebranded film can be very confusing. I can only say that Kodak never knowingly permits its film to be rebranded.

Unless you sell a gazillion rolls of it, have a business named Freestyle, and sell Plus-X and Tri-X as Arista Premium... Link
But that's the only case I'm aware of to date.

And Ilford has openly stated that they don't do OEM film deals any more, after Harman bought the business following their stint in receivership.

 

[MattKing]

Unless you sell a gazillion rolls of it, have a business named Freestyle, and sell Plus-X and Tri-X as Arista Premium... Link
But that's the only case I'm aware of to date.

And Ilford has openly stated that they don't do OEM film deals any more, after Harman bought the business following their stint in receivership.

Ilford will, however, manufacture film for others on a custom, "you supply your desired characteristics" basis.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Ilford will, however, manufacture film for others on a custom, "you supply your desired characteristics" basis.

True. Like Kentmere film. (Even though they technically own the company).

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

From what ive heard the 35mm ultrafine films have not been so great. I would be really surprised to see that their 120s are ilford! Id get myself a case and not chase after ebay deals lol

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Ilford will, however, manufacture film for others on a custom, "you supply your desired characteristics" basis.

I have been advised that Kodak may also be doing this. Since Kodak no longer manufactures Plus-X the Arista Premium 100 may be a custom formulation.

 

[brucemuir]

I have been advised that Kodak may also be doing this. Since Kodak no longer manufactures Plus-X the Arista Premium 100 may be a custom formulation.

AP100 is done for too.
24 exposure rolls are all thats left.

I grabbed a few 100 footer's and when I went back to re up...it was gone

 

[wogster]

I have been advised that Kodak may also be doing this. Since Kodak no longer manufactures Plus-X the Arista Premium 100 may be a custom formulation.

One has to be careful with the statement company X no longer manufactures product Y, when dealing with a product that is made in large batches like film.

It's not uncommon with film to set up a line, run off several master rolls, break down the line, set it up for another film, then run off several master rolls, break down the line, continuing to run through a bunch of products, eventually looping back to the first one. It's completely possible to manufacture a modern B&W emulsion on the same line as colour emulsions, many are coated in several layers, just like colour. For Kodak the odd man out was Kodachrome, it needed special manufacturing, which took a long time to set up. The master rolls sit in the freezer until there is a call for product, they take them out, thaw them, package them, and ship the film out.

Technically therefore, most products, except the ones in the coating plant, and the ones being slit and packaged, are no longer being manufactured. Now I just looked on Kodak Canada website for Plus-X, normally when Kodak discontinues a product, they post a discontinued notice on the website, there is no discontinued notice for Plus-X.

 

[tkamiya]

Officially, only Plus-X in 120 was discontinued. 135 is still a current product. I have no idea if they are still intending to produce master rolls when the current one is gone.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Officially, only Plus-X in 120 was discontinued. 135 is still a current product. I have no idea if they are still intending to produce master rolls when the current one is gone.

Now that you mention it you are correct, the 35mm film is still made. Sorry to have prematurely killed Plus-X.

 

[removed account4]

Now that you mention it you are correct, the 35mm film is still made. Sorry to have prematurely killed Pluis-X.

no worries gerald !
i am sure it won't be long before bigK does it for real ...

 

[cmacd123]

Now that you mention it you are correct, the 35mm film is still made. Sorry to have prematurely killed Plus-X.

Although it is now apperently only made in single rolls and not bulk rolls.

 

[wogster]

no worries gerald !
i am sure it won't be long before bigK does it for real ...

There would still be TMX and FP4, Delta 100 so all is still right with the world. The problem for Kodak will be that eventually they will have killed off so many films, sending customers elsewhere that they will no longer have enough to justify keeping their film production equipment in a good state of repair. This is where it gets interesting, what the corporate MBA's in charge seem to forget in Kodak's case, the biggest asset the company has is locked up in the files and archives in the film engineering labs. Yet if they stop making film, they will probably sell off those assets for a song....

 

[Brac]

Ilford will, however, manufacture film for others on a custom, "you supply your desired characteristics" basis.

An example of that seems to be the Rollei RPX 100 & 400 films. These were apparently manufactured for the Hans O Mahn Company, who brand their films as Rollei, in the Harman/Ilford factory. Mahn/Rollei then had the master rolls cut & packaged elsewhere, possibly using different factories for the 35mm & 120 versions.

As far as Kentmere films are concerned, Harman took over Kentmere's photographic side (they also manufactured packaging) and closed the Kentmere coating line. All Kentmere products are coated in the Harman/Ilford factory in Mobberley. Kentmere is therefore now a Harman brand (not a subsidiary company) & the new films seem to have been launched as an economy line and in 35mm only.

 

[bluesun267]

Ultrafine Extreme 100 is Kentmere 100

Side by side comparison of 35mm Ultrafine Extreme 100 I ordered a couple weeks ago shows identical in every way to Kentmere 100 (aka Ilford Pan 100 in some countries.) The only difference is the brand ID on one side, "Ultrafine Extreme ISO 100". Frame numbers etc. are Ilford. More importantly, the emulsion (check the nice relief image when viewed at an angle), density, grain, developing times are the same as Kentmere. It's an excellent film and very close to FP4+ but with a little more grain (in Rodinal). Lovely film. It has the flattest acetate base of any manufacturer, which makes me even more certain it is Ilford. Photo warehouse is clearly bulk loading this themselves as the frame numbers don't always start on 0 or 1 and often proceed to 42 with a space, then restart at 0 on the same roll. The rolls are 36 exp. length.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

Anyone tried and perhaps have examples of the 400 version?

 

[John Austin]

Bottom line is

Given the cost of the stuff I bought a 30mtr roll of the Xtreme 100, it is a bit soft with a fairly low D-max but is a good 100 asa and works well in replenished D76d made up in 1985 and prints well in my Leitz Focomats to 10x8', all I bother with for snaps - I have not tried it in either of my DeVeres - I may try extending the development when the light gets soft, but as my current snapshot camera is a Retina 119 with an uncoated lens I am not going to argue about its quality - One can make a lot of pix with this film and not worry about the cost

On which subject, and being my own Devil's Advocate, the cost of petrol/diesel, model fees, accommodation, insurance, location hire and all the other things involved with making pictures, the difference in the cost of film should not be considered - Work out what you want a film to do and buy the very best quality fresh film you can get, for me it is Ilford Delta, but that is based as much on my knowing the emulsion as its inherent quality - I don't bother trying other emulsions once I am getting the results I require, apart from the Xtreme for snapshots, but that is a one off, perhaps

I have been using Foma 100 10x8" film, but will return to Ilford Delta 100 once I have used the stock I have - I may even sell the 5 unopened boxes here for a very attractive price

 

[cmacd123]

Frame numbers etc. are Ilford.

That is hard to tell. When AGFA Photo closed The rumor is that there their packaging equipment was sold, with one line travelling across the channel to Harman, and the other travelling across Germany to Maco. These are Computer controlled and so the Markings can be any arbitrary text, and the numbers will look identical for film packaged in any of the three locations. Current Ilford brand film has numbering that resembles the last of the AGFA brand stuff. I recall that Simon from Harman acknowledged that they were happy to make a lucky purchase of a fairly new Packaging line form the liquidators.

Of course if the film is being bought as frame numbered bulk, it would also have those numbers.

Kentmere 100 (aka Ilford Pan 100

It is not clear that the Kentmere is the same as Ilford Pan. Simon indicated that it was a new formula, as they did not want to break their policy of not private labelling their own products. Ilford Pan 100 and 400 are special lines sold in "Certain Countries" where the "distribution conditions are not ideal" And are possibly sold at a different price than the Normal HP5+ FP4+ line. I have not tried the Ilford pan 100, but the Pan 400 does not have anywhere near the same development recommendations as the Kentmere 400. the roll I got from a dealer in asia does have a bit of resemblance to the HP5 of Old.

 

[Jeff Searust]

Just developed a bunch of the 120 Ultafine film, and found that I could see numbers and dots from the backing paper. This was on rolls that had been through different cameras and on different film backs so it wasn't on my end. Grain was giant and very obtrusive.

I WON'T be buying anymore.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Just developed a bunch of the 120 Ultafine film, and found that I could see numbers and dots from the backing paper. This was on rolls that had been through different cameras and on different film backs so it wasn't on my end. Grain was giant and very obtrusive.

I WON'T be buying anymore.

Yup, join the club! I only use it for testing camera's and that's all it's good for. I do like their bulk 35mm ISO 100 film and think it's first rate, but the 120 is absolute junk. They should give it away because it's not doing their reputation any good at all.

 

[Surrealistic]

I had bought from ultra fine but just found out my recent batch of 120 film has been fogged in some way that has migrated the film numbers and dots from the paper backing onto the film! When I called to complain an ignorant and rude support person told me too bad. They refuse to do anything about it. Dubious quality film and a rude support staff. Never again!

Curt

 

[JW PHOTO]

I had bought from ultra fine but just found out my recent batch of 120 film has been fogged in some way that has migrated the film numbers and dots from the paper backing onto the film! When I called to complain an ignorant and rude support person told me too bad. They refuse to do anything about it. Dubious quality film and a rude support staff. Never again!

Curt

That's why I said in a different thread that they should come clean and sell this junk at a very big discount just to get rid of it. This is the kind of thing that really pisses me of with certain companies. They know this stuff is junk and they expect you to buy it and be happy. They should advertise it as "Just for testing only"! At this rate I'd have to say, "Junk film from a Junk Company". Pass the word since that's the only way you'll get jerks like this to straighten up and fly right. JohnW

 

[gone]

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.

 

[JW PHOTO]

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.

My results were pretty much like yours and upon close inspection with a loupe I noticed a pattern that reminds me of fungi growth in the emulsion itself. Like I said, "JUNK"!

 

[pentaxuser]

Well having read what the majority has to say about this film especially the recent posts then I find it difficult to accept that some would have me believe that Harman is behind this film. This is a company that at great risk to the directors' own financial future, decided on a management buy-out of the defunct Ilford so a death wish for themselves and the end of the company would hardly be high on their list of objectives. The QC that impresses all who go on the tours ( now on tour 4) is hardly a pretence.

Simon Galley,the other directors and other employees I and others have seen and spoken to on the tours never seemed to show any death wish or desire to go out of business, given that it pays their mortgages etc by employing a "devil may care/ cavalier" approach to their products or those produced at Mobberley and its hard earned reputation for quality.

Based on all I have seen and heard at Mobberley and from other APUGers, Harman and this film's defects would seem to have nothing in common.

I submit that a "Not Guilty" verdict on Harman's involvement is the only one that can be reached

pentaxuser

 

[JW PHOTO]

Well having read what the majority has to say about this film especially the recent posts then I find it difficult to accept that some would have me believe that Harman is behind this film. This is a company that at great risk to the directors' own financial future, decided on a management buy-out of the defunct Ilford so a death wish for themselves and the end of the company would hardly be high on their list of objectives. The QC that impresses all who go on the tours ( now on tour 4) is hardly a pretence.

Simon Galley,the other directors and other employees I and others have seen and spoken to on the tours never seemed to show any death wish or desire to go out of business, given that it pays their mortgages etc by employing a "devil may care/ cavalier" approach to their products or those produced at Mobberley and its hard earned reputation for quality.

Based on all I have seen and heard at Mobberley and from other APUGers, Harman and this film's defects would seem to have nothing in common.

I submit that a "Not Guilty" verdict on Harman's involvement is the only one that can be reached

pentaxuser

I couldn't agree more! From seeing the "fungi" pattern with a loupe I'd say it comes from a place where the was high humidity and poor storage. Like, maybe the Orient? I'd guess China, but could be wrong. I don't believe Harman/Ilford would even give this stuff away for fear of liking this junk film with their good name. I really don't have a problem with PhotoWarehouse selling this film, but I do have a problem with them selling a defective product as one that has "NO" defects. That to me is fraud. JohnW