Ultrafine Extreme - what's your EI

[OptiKen]

I find myself using Ultrafine Extreme 100 and 400 more and more.
Ok...I admit it, I'm cheap.
100ASA comes out very nice at box speed and the 400ASA is nicely pushable to an EI800.
I'm thinking of trying the 100 at 50 or 64 and the 400 at 200 just to see 'what develops'.
Has anyone done any testing on these films? If yes, what is your personal EI?

 

[mdarnton]

I shoot and develop it indiscriminately with my Tri-X, and I have, for years, exposed at EI200 and under-developed about 10% or so. That's a personal decision based on my dislike of soot-and-whitewash, and love of max shadow detail, with minimal empty black or white areas. Lately I've been moving a little darker in my renditions, but the negs are still the same.

 

[Cholentpot]

I find myself using Ultrafine Extreme 100 and 400 more and more.
Ok...I admit it, I'm cheap.
100ASA comes out very nice at box speed and the 400ASA is nicely pushable to an EI800.
I'm thinking of trying the 100 at 50 or 64 and the 400 at 200 just to see 'what develops'.
Has anyone done any testing on these films? If yes, what is your personal EI?

I've shot the 400 stuff at 1600 stand developed in Rodinal and got very nice prints from the negative. It might be cheap but it works fine for me. It is a bit dull compared to say, Tmax 400 but for the price it's pretty darn good.

 

[thuggins]

I've shot the 400 and developed it in DDX, per the book. The negatives are sharp and contrasty. It is certainly not Pan-F, but compares favorably to it.