Ultrafine extreme 120 Asa 100.. Disapointing results

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
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

Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
8,131
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
You have been given a painful lesson. For important photos use Kodak or Ilford film rather than some off brand.
 

pgomena

Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
1,391
Location
Portland, Or
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.
 
OP
OP

ToddB

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
1,134
Format
Medium Format
I tossed the other roll. Sticking with Ilford. What a B----!

todd
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,641
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 31, 2009
Messages
9,925
Location
Laurel Highlands
Format
8x10 Format
Somewhere I read that Ultrafine was Lucky--lucky you get any image at all
 

Ektagraphic

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
2,927
Location
Southeastern
Format
Medium Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,641
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Ektagraphic said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 

Roger Cole

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
jim appleyard said:
Too bad you threw it out. Rolls like this are good for ripening freshly mixed Diafine or a PPD dev.
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jim appleyard

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,641
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
destroya said:
didnt even know there was a 120 version at 100. I know they have a 400. the 35mm 100 is actually a good film
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
1,215
Location
Willamette Valley, OR
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,641
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
40
Location
Holly Hill,
Format
Medium Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
3,641
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
J.Marks said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 21, 2004
Messages
2,413
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
6,069
Location
Atlanta GA
Format
Multi Format
J.Marks said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
101
Format
Large Format
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

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
228
Location
Boise, ID
Format
Multi Format
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

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2011
Messages
101
Format
Large Format
desertrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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…