Ultrafine Finesse 400 35mm x 100 ft Black and White Film

[Wallendo]

Don't Rollei's bulk films come in a plastic package?

A recent roll of Rollei Infrared 400 came in a plastic box. The box is about the same size as the UltraFine box, but the box itself has some small differences.

I have loaded my Finesse into a loader and it felt like the film came on a reel, not a core. I am waiting for a new loader to arrive before loading my Rollei.

I did shoot a roll of Finesse over the weekend, and hope to develop it in the next day or two.

 

[Horatio]

A recent roll of Rollei Infrared 400 came in a plastic box. The box is about the same size as the UltraFine box, but the box itself has some small differences.

I have loaded my Finesse into a loader and it felt like the film came on a reel, not a core. I am waiting for a new loader to arrive before loading my Rollei.

I did shoot a roll of Finesse over the weekend, and hope to develop it in the next day or two.

Looking forward to a report!

 

[RJM Pictures]

Not an attorney, but Photo Wearhouse did not list Ultrafine Xtreme as distributed leading me think it was made to order, the new stuff is rebranded?

Not sure if it is rebranded or just completely different altogether

 

[pbromaghin]

Did anybody notice that the ID-11 development time is the same as HP5+?

 

[Horatio]

Not sure if it is rebranded or just completely different altogether

Have you processed your test roll yet?

 

[RJM Pictures]

Ok guys here are my initial results:

We shot 2 rolls in 2 different cameras. Both rolls were developed in the same tank in Kodak HC110 Dilution B for 7 min 35 sec.

On the Sears KS-2 we used an orange filter. On the Nikon F4 no filter was used.
I did not edit any of the photos.

No sharpening or contrast was added so hopefully this is a true and proper representation of the film's tonality and grain.

Sears KS-2 Roll: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sd3xvbset5v8xwa/AABB1XZlHxmZsa6HfgZ2rqUUa?dl=0

Nikon F4 Roll: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/yw9xkypxby7906j/AAAqu5rgQ2tIQMm8iRtnmsT7a?dl=0

 

[RJM Pictures]

Have you processed your test roll yet?

yes. results above

 

[Horatio]

yes. results above

Well done, and thanks! From what I can tell the grain is similar to what I've gotten with HP5 in Rodinal. Are you satisfied with the results?

 

[PFGS]

Well done, and thanks! From what I can tell the grain is similar to what I've gotten with HP5 in Rodinal. Are you satisfied with the results?

All things considered vis-a-vis evaluating grain from scans, it looks like an improvement on UFX400

 

[RJM Pictures]

Well done, and thanks! From what I can tell the grain is similar to what I've gotten with HP5 in Rodinal. Are you satisfied with the results?

It's not as sharp as I would have liked but that could be added in post. The contrast also seems a bit low but his can also be corrected in post. I will rate it at 800 for the next roll and see how the contrast is affected. I'll also over expose a roll by 1 stop to see how much the grain is affected.

Ultimately I think it is a very good stock for the price!

 

[relistan]

That sure looks like Ilford Pan 400. Notably the whites without quite enough anti-halation. I know, I know they don't rebadge Ilford products. But that's what it looks like to me.

 

[Paul Howell]

They may sell for rebranding emulsion not in current production.

 

[relistan]

yes. results above

Thnk you for posting!

 

[Donald Qualls]

That sure looks like Ilford Pan 400. Notably the whites without quite enough anti-halation. I know, I know they don't rebadge Ilford products. But that's what it looks like to me.

Ilford doesn't rebrand Ilford name products, but they've notably failed to go on record about rebranding Kentmere -- which is what's sold in the US as Ilford Pan 100 and Pan 400. There's been speculation earlier that the Extreme products are Kentmere; I'm pretty confident the Extreme 100 is not Fomapan (I've shot a lot of Fompan, and this is quite different).

 

[relistan]

Ilford doesn't rebrand Ilford name products, but they've notably failed to go on record about rebranding Kentmere -- which is what's sold in the US as Ilford Pan 100 and Pan 400. There's been speculation earlier that the Extreme products are Kentmere; I'm pretty confident the Extreme 100 is not Fomapan (I've shot a lot of Fompan, and this is quite different).

They definitely rebrand Kentmere. But no, Kentmere is not the same as Ilford Pan. Extreme is Kentmere AFAIK, but this is not Extreme.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

They definitely rebrand Kentmere. But no, Kentmere is not the same as Ilford Pan. Extreme is Kentmere AFAIK, but this is not Extreme.

I think you are correct about Extreme being Kentmere emulsion wise, but I believe they use a different base.

 

[kiemchacsu]

budget film is my concern also.
i believe it will help the film community to grow again.
currently i have been a happy user of ultrafine xtreme, but shifted a bit to arista ultra since the 400 ultrafine xtreme version is out of stock everywhere

 

[RJM Pictures]

Some quick snaps at the end of my Halloween shoot last night.

Ultrafine Finesse 400 devved in Kodak HC-110 dilution B. I used a Canon 500N with the flash popped up. Point and shoot style. Lol

 

[Wallendo]

I developed my first roll last night and have scanned a few images. I will try to post images or links this evening if I have the time.

My initial impressions:
The film comes on a gray base similar to that used by Harmon and Foma. There is no color change when developer is emptied (no antihalation dyes are removed). There are absolutely no markings of any sort on the rebates (UltraFine Xtreme has the name printed on the rebate).
I developed in XTOL stock for 7m 30s at 69 degrees (room temperature). My initial images show more contrast than Kentmere, HP5+, or UltraFine Xtreme. The negatives appear somewhat dense, but it should be noted that the images I have scanned were shot with a Leica IIIc from 1949 at 1/1000s so I suspect a little overexposure was built in. Despite that, the images scanned well. Grain was pleasant but not obtrusive. I also found the images quite sharp. I actually prefer this film to Kentmere, HP5+, and UltraFine Xtreme.
My initial impression is that this doesn't look like any Harman film I have shot (I have never shot Ilford Pan, however), but that could just be due to differences in exposure or development. Since Harman was shut down for several months due to COVID, it would surprise me if they had time to make a small batch of film for UltraFine Online so it is likely they sourced this film from somewhere else (warehoused film or a different supplier).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Rebranded 35mm Foma has no edge markings, and 35mm Foma doesn't color the developer or pre-wash (that's 120 and sheet film only). Normal time in Xtol stock for Foma 400 is 7:00, so an extra 0:30 would give a (very) slight increase in contrast.

 

[pentaxuser]

When we say Ilford doesn't re-brand Ilford products is this a recent statement by Ilford or the one attributed to the Harman of the Simon Galley era. Has in fact Ilford since re-affirmed this "no rebranding of Ilford products" position since Pemberstone took over ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

I think I recall that Ilford has more recently stated that, but does that apply to older emulsions like 100 and 400. Second what if a small change in the emulsion is made, so a very close relative of a current Ilford product? We may never know, I use to try and figure it out, at this point I take each offering as a stand alone and try and figure out how to get the best negative I can.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, also worthy of note is that Ilford has loads of spare coating capacity; their production facility was sized for the heyday of film and was new or nearly new when digital started taking over the professional market. Downsizing has been one of their great challenges (and one they've apparently met fairly well). It wouldn't be at all far fetched for Ilford to coat film for another seller on the basis of "here's the emulsion we want, but the folks who made it closed up shop -- we'll buy two master rolls up front, and another from time to time as needed."

 

[MattKing]

When we say Ilford doesn't re-brand Ilford products is this a recent statement by Ilford or the one attributed to the Harman of the Simon Galley era. Has in fact Ilford since re-affirmed this "no rebranding of Ilford products" position since Pemberstone took over ?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Neil at Harman Tech Service confirmed the following to me in June of 2019:
" our policy remains that ILFORD films are not in anyone else's brand but our own."

 

[pentaxuser]

Neil at Harman Tech Service confirmed the following to me in June of 2019:
" our policy remains that ILFORD films are not in anyone else's brand but our own."

Thanks Matt That settles it for me in terms of Ilford films and hopefully this clarifies Paul Howell's concern that this may not apply to older emulsions such as 100 and 400 which I take him to mean Ilford Pan 100 and 400

pentaxuser