Ultrafine extreme 120 Asa 100.. Disapointing results

[ToddB]

Hey guys,

I loaded a roll in my Rollei 3.5f yesterday and processed it with disappointing results. The biggest thing was that the film was somehow imprinted with frame number and dots from the other side of dark paper. Like the paper wasn't light proof enough. This happened all through the roll. The next was it lacked dynamic range, granted maybe it was unfair to expect it to be like Ilford Delta 100, but come on..! It,s 100. The worst thing is that I shot 4 beautiful images of a Spanish Colonial church that was decommissioned for music and art events. Last night They had a musician playing last night as the sun was going down behind it with gradient sky and they had the front doors open, illuminating light coming out. The image was beautiful in the viewfinder. Unfortunately.. Thats all I got, a memory. The film didn't perform like the music inside. The best thing is I didn't get more than 1 roll of this stuff.

ToddB

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You have been given a painful lesson. For important photos use Kodak or Ilford film rather than some off brand.

 

[pgomena]

Film is the least expensive part of any photographic outing. (You'll spend more on gas getting to and from your destination.) As Gerald said, buy the good stuff. I'll add Fuji Acros to his list of Kodak and Ilford.

 

[ToddB]

I tossed the other roll. Sticking with Ilford. What a B----!

todd

 

[John Wiegerink]

I bought a 5 roll pack of this stuff and find it perfect! What is it perfect for? Adjusting/setting focus on my old folders and for checking the bellows/backs for light leaks. For anything else it's almost worthless. I sure am glad I didn't take that "once in a lifetime" picture with it. Cheap test film is about it. JohnW

 

[Rick A]

Somewhere I read that Ultrafine was Lucky--lucky you get any image at all

 

[Ektagraphic]

That's quite sad. Did you contact Ultrafine? I've been pleased with their products. I just bought a roll of 120 from them to try out...Maybe they don't know of the problem

 

[John Wiegerink]

That's quite sad. Did you contact Ultrafine? I've been pleased with their products. I just bought a roll of 120 from them to try out...Maybe they don't know of the problem

Oh, I'm pretty sure they know by now. I did a search and found several people with the same type of defects saw and they saw them some time ago. Some said they even had bleed through from the backing numbers onto the film. I did not. I did see an emulsion defect and it's the reason I and some others won't use it for anything but testing. It's almost like there is a mold in the emulsion, which shows up in the dense areas of the negative. After you process and dry check it out and tell us what you see. Actually, I liked the tonality when I processed it in FX37, but the blasted mold/molting just doesn't cut it. JohnW

 

[jim appleyard]

I tossed the other roll. Sticking with Ilford. What a B----!

todd

Too bad you threw it out. Rolls like this are good for ripening freshly mixed Diafine or a PPD dev.

 

[jim appleyard]

Somewhere I read that Ultrafine was Lucky--lucky you get any image at all

I thought that applied to Miracle Film, "If you get anything, it's a Miracle!"

 

[Roger Cole]

Too bad you threw it out. Rolls like this are good for ripening freshly mixed Diafine or a PPD dev.

Why would you "ripen" Diafine? I've never seen any difference in it from the day I mix it until it starts to eventually deteriorate from use, which it does in spite of claims, but not for a long time and a lot of film.

 

[jim appleyard]

Roger, to be honest, because I read it here. I don't remember who suggested it, but it was a longtime member & Diafine user who suggested that. I'll see if it's in my notes somewhere.

 

[Roger Cole]

Ok. Just curious.

 

[jim appleyard]

It's something to do with adding some Bromine to the soup. I'm not a chem nut, but maybe one of them will see this and explain it like I can't. Meanwhile, I'll see if I can find it in my notes.

 

[destroya]

didnt even know there was a 120 version at 100. I know they have a 400. the 35mm 100 is actually a good film

 

[John Wiegerink]

didnt even know there was a 120 version at 100. I know they have a 400. the 35mm 100 is actually a good film

I haven't tried the 400 120 film, but bought a bulk roll of 35mm ISO 100 and it's really very good stuff. I'm more than happy with it and find no flaws at all, but this ISO 100 120 film is the pits. JohnW

 

[destroya]

are you talking about the 100 ultrafine plus? there is no 100 in 120 extreme on their site. yes the 100 120 plus is not a good film.

i have a few rolls of the 400 xtreme in 120 but haven't tried it yet. might shoot it this weekend to try it out

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, it's Ultrafine Plus and I don't see any pluses to it. I think they would be wise to have a "fire sale" on this stuff. Like, buy 5 rolls and get 20 rolls free. The sooner this stuff is gone, the better. I also think they should add to their description of this film to let people know about the odd pattern in the denser areas, but of course that would be the right thing to do and hurts the profits. Plus, they then would surely have to have a fire sale. It's just my opinion, but I think this is older stock that may have been store in a slightly humid environment. You know, like southern China! JohnW

 

[J.Marks]

As has been said before stick to the real film, Ilford , Kodak, Fuji. I made the mistake one time and tried a "cheap" film. TOTAL disaster.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As has been said before stick to the real film, Ilford , Kodak, Fuji. I made the mistake one time and tried a "cheap" film. TOTAL disaster.

I agree, but I have and still do buy old roll film cameras and need cheap film to run test from time to time. This fits the bill as far as the "Cheap" part goes. JohnW

 

[jim appleyard]

Sorry Roger, I can't find anything in my notes about ripening Diafine, but I know I saw that somewhere... perhaps a new thread on this subject instead of stealing this one.

 

[Roger Cole]

As has been said before stick to the real film, Ilford , Kodak, Fuji. I made the mistake one time and tried a "cheap" film. TOTAL disaster.

Foma isn't bad - not great, but I've had no problems with it. The Freestyle rebranded stuff is a decent bargain. Efke was good film with poor QC. I know Foma had some problems at one time but seems to have gotten their act together as far as QC. The film isn't Kodak or Ilford but it's not bad.

I agree though - for important stuff right now it's Kodak or Ilford. I play around with Foma and I'm looking forward to getting some of the new Adox "like Efke with QC" film in 4x5. That could be cool. It has a different look.

EDIT: NP Jim, just wondering as I've used Diafine off and on since the late 70s and never saw a need, or really any change in it until it starts to fade.

 

[mkillmer]

I had the exact same problem with the film - I contacted them and was told there was no problem. hmmm
Unfortunately I was in the US on holiday from Australia and bought 15 rolls only to discover the issue!!!
Shanghai GP3 120 has the same issue in a certain lot number.
I've had Lucky film with the same issue.
You'd think I would've learned... eventually i did.
I really like Ilford now...

 

[desertrat]

As has been mentioned above, the Ultrafine Plus 120 ISO 100 is good for testing old cameras and lenses. I also use it for testing developers and fixers for activity before using them if they haven't been used for a while. I've been able to keep the number bleed through from the backing paper to a minimum by keeping the red window covered except when advancing the film. The emulsion defects are really a shame, because the film has great tonality. I wouldn't use the film for anything important, either.

 

[mkillmer]

I've been able to keep the number bleed through from the backing paper to a minimum by keeping the red window covered except when advancing the film.

I was using a Mamiya 6 and Pentax 645N - neither have the red window - So my issue was with the emulsion and/or the backing paper.