Ultrafine Plus 100 120 film -- Garbage

[newcan1]

I have a large supply of 120 size Ultrafine Plus 100 film. I can be used only for experimental purposes because (a) the grain is very clumpy, and (b) the appearance of frame numbers on the negatives rather ruins the pictures. I am surprised they even made this garbage available for sale. I am usually a fan of, and a loyal customer of, Ultrafine, but this is a big disappointment.

Following my thread here on removing base fog from paper using rehalogenating bleach, I wonder if the same technique could be used to treat this film? I think I'll give it a try on a roll or two. It's probably a little less time vs cost effective as the film has to be unrolled and treated and re-rolled in total darkness. But I have 200 rolls of this stuff, so I have to do something!

 

[fotch]

Have you tried contacting them & asking them to take it back?

 

[AgX]

It is even hard to imagine what went wrong to expose the numbers into the frame area.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

What's the expiration date?

 

[newcan1]

The expiration was probably around 212, I have had it too long to ask them to take it back. I think both the grain "clogging" and the frame numbers are a function of the film having become chemically fogged by the backing paper.

 

[gone]

You're right, the film is garbage and the grain is awful. I had exactly the same problems. Lots of frame numbers and all sorts of odd looking things on the film. In my case, I did call the manufacturer. After I explained my problems to the woman who answered the phone, she went to hunt for the man in charge, and I was left hanging on the line for 20 minutes. He never did come to the phone. Probably because he was getting lots of these calls. I will never buy film from them again.

On a positive note, this experience led me to try Arista EDU Ultra 100 from Freestyle, and it is really a high quality film at a super price. I also can't say enough good things about Freestyle's excellent customer service. So in a way, it all worked out, as long as I conveniently forget about the lost time, the lost shots, and the lost money. Below is one of the better frames on the roll. All the others were useless due to fogging and frame numbers that were superimposed on the negs (along w/ the dots, strange grain, etc).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

You get what you pay for. If you want quality backed up by a reputable company then stick with film from a first tier manufacturer like Kodak or Ilford. If we don't support these companies then they will go out of business and we will be left only with crap.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'm pretty sure this is Shanghai GP100 film. Actually a very good film but does not last long after expiration. If the numbers are showing thru on the negs its history.

 

[removedacct1]

There are many reports on the WWW that describe this very problem. Its the reason I decided never to try it and stick with Ilford and Kodak emulsions. When I can buy HP5 for $4.09 why bother with cheaper stuff of dubious quality?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup. I've never had quality control issues with Kodak and Ilford.

 

[newcan1]

You're right, the film is garbage and the grain is awful.

View attachment 104117

I actually think that the clumpiness...that shows in the picture you posted...is not actually grain, but the texture of the backing paper. I think the whole backing paper reacts with the film.

It's not enough to say "you get what you pay for". I have used tons of inexpensive film without problems. This stuff should not have been sold. As you mention, Arista EDU is outstanding at a similar price.

I'm going to take a couple of rolls and put through a rehal bleach, reroll, and see what happens. I bet the "grain" and the frame numbers disappear. The only question then is whether I can treat sufficient rolls sufficiently quickly to make it worthwhile.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'm going to take a couple of rolls and put through a rehal bleach, reroll, and see what happens. I bet the "grain" and the frame numbers disappear. The only question then is whether I can treat sufficient rolls sufficiently quickly to make it worthwhile.

I bet not as the frame numbers are in essence at this point imprinted into the film from the backing paper already even before you expose the roll. But please let us know.

 

[ic-racer]

The expiration was probably around 212,

You are wasting our time complaining about poor results with expired film. Seriously??

 

[pentaxuser]

You are wasting our time complaining about poor results with expired film. Seriously??

To be fair the OP has a point in that had he bought Ilford, Fuji or Kodak with the same expiry date he'd still have usable film. I don't know when he bought the film but buying 200 rolls which are not one of the top quality brands and apparently not using any until over two years after the expiry date for years might be seen to be asking for trouble.

pentaxuser

 

[JW PHOTO]

I feel his pain, but not anymore. I won't touch the stuff unless they give it away and pay shipping too. Yes, it's the same as the old Shanghai film. The new Shanghai GP3 film from exp. date 2016 on seems very, very good.Now, if you're talking about their Xtreme brand of film then that's a whole different ballgame. The Xtreme 100 is a good as anything and not the same as the Ultra junk. My only real bitch is that they are selling this stuff and know perfectly well it shouldn't be sold or it should only be sold with the defects listed for the buyer to see. This is a very bad business practice, but I guess some companies just don't give a shlt and only see $$$$ ! They are only hurting themselves by not disclosing the flaws and selling the film cheaper for practice rolls only. I know many folks here got burnt by them and will not buy from them at all now. I'll buy their Xtreme brand, but that's it for me. John W

 

[JW PHOTO]

To be fair the OP has a point in that had he bought Ilford, Fuji or Kodak with the same expiry date he'd still have usable film. I don't know when he bought the film but buying 200 rolls which are not one of the top quality brands and apparently not using any until over two years after the expiry date for years might be seen to be asking for trouble.

pentaxuser

The first batch I ever bought from them was junk when I got it. I only bought 5 rolls to try, but that ended up being test rolls for cameras I later acquired. I contacted them and they offered to make good, but I was done trying that junk and at least didn't get burnt for 200 rolls. So they knew it was junk and still kept selling it. Sad, sad, sad! John W

 

[destroya]

the regular 100 120 film is shi*. the extreme is a real good film. stay away from the cheaper 100 film

 

[Roger Cole]

I feel his pain, but not anymore. I won't touch the stuff unless they give it away and pay shipping too. Yes, it's the same as the old Shanghai film. The new Shanghai GP3 film from exp. date 2016 on seems very, very good.Now, if you're talking about their Xtreme brand of film then that's a whole different ballgame. The Xtreme 100 is a good as anything and not the same as the Ultra junk. My only real bitch is that they are selling this stuff and know perfectly well it shouldn't be sold or it should only be sold with the defects listed for the buyer to see. This is a very bad business practice, but I guess some companies just don't give a shlt and only see $$$$ ! They are only hurting themselves by not disclosing the flaws and selling the film cheaper for practice rolls only. I know many folks here got burnt by them and will not buy from them at all now. I'll buy their Xtreme brand, but that's it for me. John W

I bought some slightly expired "but tested and working perfectly" Elitechrome 400 from them. It was completely useless - well maybe not completely, as I can imagine creatively using huge grain and pastel color but for normal purposes I'd want the film for, useless.

Never again. And they might have other stuff that's fine but I'll never find out because they'll never get another penny from me.

I bought ten rolls. I think I have eight after trying two. I'm going to try cross processing them some day.

 

[Roger Cole]

The expiration was probably around 212, I have had it too long to ask them to take it back. I think both the grain "clogging" and the frame numbers are a function of the film having become chemically fogged by the backing paper.

Wow, with the film 1,803 years expired I'm amazed you got anything at all!

 

[AgX]

It is even hard to imagine what went wrong to expose the numbers into the frame area.

Oops, I was thinking of 35mm stock and those exposed numbers. Not being able to read...
Yes, those numbers transfered from the backing paper makes much more sense.

 

[madgardener]

Maybe it's just that I'm lucky, but when I have bought film from them it's been ok. Not perfect mind you, but I usually look for bargains because my budget is tight, which usually means expired film. But overall I've been happy with my purchases. I do agree with their customer service being lousy, when I ask a question, I get one or two work responses and they immediately try to hang up.

 

[JW PHOTO]

Maybe it's just that I'm lucky, but when I have bought film from them it's been ok. Not perfect mind you, but I usually look for bargains because my budget is tight, which usually means expired film. But overall I've been happy with my purchases. I do agree with their customer service being lousy, when I ask a question, I get one or two work responses and they immediately try to hang up.

Unfortunately, it depends entirely on which of their films you buy. Find a good one, buy it. Find a bad one, your screwed. Like Roger says above, he will not deal with them anymore period. Many feel the way he does and that can't be good for their business. It's one thing to sell something and not know it's bad, but it's another thing to sell something you know is bad and let everybody believe it's good. Almost a case of fraud or at the least a case of misrepresentation. Like I said, sad, sad, sad. John W

 

[madgardener]

Unfortunately, it depends entirely on which of their films you buy. Find a good one, buy it. Find a bad one, your screwed. Like Roger says above, he will not deal with them anymore period. Many feel the way he does and that can't be good for their business. It's one thing to sell something and not know it's bad, but it's another thing to sell something you know is bad and let everybody believe it's good. Almost a case of fraud or at the least a case of misrepresentation. Like I said, sad, sad, sad. John W

I do agree with you on that. When I do buy their film, it's usually Fuji and I know I am getting expired film. For the record though, the last time I bought film from them was a little over a year ago, I have been using so little color film these days, I just go to Walmart and get the 4 pack pretty cheap. For my B/W, I usually go the Freestyle .edu ultra.

 

[pentaxuser]

Wow, with the film 1,803 years expired I'm amazed you got anything at all!

They sold most of that 212 batch of film to Roman soldiers who wanted to send shots of Hadrian's Wall on Ilford postcard paper back to their folks in sunny Italy.

Of course Ilford were very small then but every week it despatched a man called Simon with a horse and cart from Cheshire to sell to the Romans. Woad toning was another popular line He eventually persuaded the Romans to switch to HP5+ which could withstand the extreme climate and the rest is history

pentaxuser

 

[JW PHOTO]

I do agree with you on that. When I do buy their film, it's usually Fuji and I know I am getting expired film. For the record though, the last time I bought film from them was a little over a year ago, I have been using so little color film these days, I just go to Walmart and get the 4 pack pretty cheap. For my B/W, I usually go the Freestyle .edu ultra.

If you shoot any 120 B&W then try there Ultrafine Xtreme film. I've used the 35mm bulk 100' and it's very nice too. It's a good price and a very good film, but don't buy the plain Ultra stuff. John W