Ultrafine extreme 120 Asa 100.. Disapointing results

Pioneer · Aug 30, 2013

I have used some of the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120 and 35mm and had decent luck with it but by your explanation this appears to be a different film.

I do agree with the general consensus, if you cannot repeat the pictures then it is best to use a known quality film. For me that is almost always something from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, but I have also had very good experiences with Fomapan films.

mkillmer · Aug 31, 2013

mkillmer said:
I had the exact same problem with the film

I was referring to Ultrafine Plus B/W Film ISO 100 120.

destroya · Aug 31, 2013

just shot a roll of the xtreme 400 in 120. it is a much better film than the plus version. it is a film i will shoot again.

Simonh82 · Sep 1, 2013

I've had this problem with the Lomography Lady Grey film. It's rebranded Tmax 400 and I thought I was getting a bargain. When I complained they did the decent thing and refunded me for the 12 rolls that I had purchased based on one bad roll but I was still annoyed.

I continued to use it until recently as it only appeared to be the first frame or so that was affected but my last roll had the dots and frame numbers throughout the whole film. I was gutted as there were some nice shots on there that won't be repeatable.

This was shot with a Mamiya C330 so I can't blame the red window.

I guess I'll just get some kodak or ilford and save this for testing.

Truzi · Sep 1, 2013

For my birthday I was given a pro-pack of it so I can practice using my Bronica GS-1. It won't matter too much as I will be experimenting to get the hang of the camera - though I hope to get some good results. I was also given a pro-pack of Acros, which I will use for important photos.

kreeger · Sep 1, 2013

jim appleyard said:
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.

I think you meant to say "bromide" to the developer or "soup". Silver bromide remains present in the developer if you are using two bath developers like DIAFINE or with replenished developers, such as TMAX RS or ACUFINE, instead of one shot developers where all the bromide goes away when you dump the developer down the sink.

Processing fully exposed film accelerates the process and in the end takes the edge off the developer's activity to certain extent which can lead to more desired compensating effect. After a few rolls normally the same effect takes place, it was just good advice if that's what type of developer you use.

Roger Cole · Sep 1, 2013

One clarification - Acufine is NOT a two bath developer. DIAFINE is a two bath developer. Acufine (they are made by the same company and the name of the company used to be Acufine as well as the name of one of their products but I don't think this is the case anymore) is a pretty conventional but active developer, PQ I think, which can be used replenished or diluted and used one shot but is not normally a two bath.

cmacd123 · Sep 1, 2013

Simonh82 said:
I've had this problem with the Lomography Lady Grey film. It's rebranded Tmax 400 and I thought I was getting a bargain.
This was shot with a Mamiya C330 so I can't blame the red window.

The 35mm Lady grey I got was packaged by Kodak, but the 120 is made in China! I bought three rolls and the first one I shot has the print thru problem, again shot with a Yashica D which is red-window-less. The backing paper talks about "Analog Love" and the film has "LOMO" printed down BOTH sides, so they have had their supplier tool up to package it. BUT the print through problem is a hard one to contain.

kreeger · Sep 1, 2013

Roger Cole said:
One clarification - Acufine is NOT a two bath developer. DIAFINE is a two bath developer. Acufine (they are made by the same company and the name of the company used to be Acufine as well as the name of one of their products but I don't think this is the case anymore) is a pretty conventional but active developer, PQ I think, which can be used replenished or diluted and used one shot but is not normally a two bath.

No question Roger, I meant DIAFINE and didn't catch my mistake, I changed it above.

Roger Cole · Sep 1, 2013

Ah, yeah, I should have seen you listed Acufine separately. Sorry to nit pick.

Truzi · Dec 31, 2013

Sorry to resurrect this old thread.

I finally used a roll of Ultrafine Plus in 120 that I had requested for my birthday (I also got TMAX and Acros). Well, I got the dot and number transfer to the emulsion. I'd expected it, and had wanted the film because it was cheap and I ran out of expired film to learn/experiment with. My Bronica GS-1 is very different from any 35mm I've used, so I am learning to use it.

In this regard, the film is good. As it was, only 5 shots came out because of user error; not having a good feel for the camera while experimenting with low-light photographs. This is something I know I can do with my 35mm w/o problems.
I'm glad I did not use more expensive film to get the feel for the lens' DOF, experiment with "dragging" the shutter (something I'd not been aware of until APUG), or even have 10 identical shots with only minor variations. I'll probably experiment with metering snow next - I've never taken B&W pictures of snow.

I kind of like it. This film would be nice if not for the easily avoidable (at manufacture) problems. Also, when people mention the curl problem, I did not think it would be along the horizontal axis

Photo-gear · Dec 31, 2013

It looks like there should be a distinction to be made between 2 Ultrafine films: Xtreme and Plus.

The Ultrafine Plus (100 & 400) is most probably re-branded Lucky film while the Xtreme (100 & 400) is more likely to be Kentmere films. Speaking of 35mm films, of course.

Concerning the 120 format, I wonder whether it is the same sort of films for both "Xtreme" and "Plus"... I haven't shot the 120 format yet.

JW PHOTO · Dec 31, 2013

Truzi,
At least you knew what to expect and unfortunately got it. Many folks thought they were getting a useable film only to find out it was junk to start with. It's not only the number bleeding that's bad, but it looks like the emulsion is loaded with mold/fungi when examined with a 10x loupe. Still say the retailer is doing folks an injustice by not disclosing the flaws since it has been reported to them several times already. I suppose it still makes a good practice film and should be sold as exactly that. Just my 2 cents! JohnW

Truzi · Dec 31, 2013

I had hoped I'd not get the bleed-through, but knew it was a possibility, so was not upset.

destroya · Dec 31, 2013

Photo-gear said:
It looks like there should be a distinction to be made between 2 Ultrafine films: Xtreme and Plus.

The Ultrafine Plus (100 & 400) is most probably re-branded Lucky film while the Xtreme (100 & 400) is more likely to be Kentmere films. Speaking of 35mm films, of course.

Concerning the 120 format, I wonder whether it is the same sort of films for both "Xtreme" and "Plus"... I haven't shot the 120 format yet.

the xtreme 100 in 35mm is a great film. the best B&W neg film for reversal I've shot. I also think there is a chance that this could be Orwo 54 if it's not kentmere.

The 120 xtreme 400 is not a bad film. reminds me quite a bit of HP5 in 120

Ultrafine extreme 120 Asa 100.. Disapointing results

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency