Ultrafine Ultramax 400 "T-grain"

[Paul Verizzo]

It's cheap for a reason. It's some anonymous movie duplication film stock, very thin base, suffers tremendously from light piping, grain is comparable to what you'd expect from a 200 or 400 speed film although TMY2 will be somewhat less grainy. Quite pronounced toe too. Don't get me wrong, I like it for the occasional project, but it's unfit for general purpose use IMO.

And you know this how? And the alleged T-grains? Since 1989? How does that fit?

The best shot we have, hey, it's just for fun now, is to make sense of the DX numbers.

 

[koraks]

And you know this how?

I was talking about polypan F; see my quote.

 

[Agulliver]

Why are we discussing PolyPan and Kodak Ultramax in this thread?

I thought this thread was about the Ultrafine T-grain 400ISO film, about which I previously asked and nobody seems to know.

At this juncture...rather than speculate who makes it....has anyone used it and can you share the results? Have you tried pushing or pulling it?

 

[trendland]

Trendline, the general response to your recent postings is, no, no, and no. Some of your thoughts have already been discussed. The seller very specifically says "T-grain." http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ult400.html

Aha ....yes I was in the same side before you just linked but I overlooked this picture :

....yes the 100feed rol is marked as "T-Grain Film".... hmm?

It is no Delta400 it is no Tmax400 but it is possible military stuff from the beginning of Tgrains
but USAF did not consume the films completely - what ever it is definitifly VERY old stuff - be sure about!

with regards

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I was talking about polypan F; see my quote.

No, you never said that. And as already noted, nothing to do with the question at hand. And Kodak never, to the best of my knowledge, put names on their professional movie stocks, just those four digit numbers.

 

[trendland]

Still available fresh in the USA.

realy ? Well AgX that is new for me - wonder about !
Tgrain is such a special thing of course. The same time Tgrain started some competitors tryed
to jump onto the departed train - no matter if they had a ticket!
But technology is never standing still - so it may be a concern of determination!
Tgrain is a kind of "Advertising message" the T-grain in reality has not that mathematic precise
triangle one could imagine. It is indeed flat - but that is relative!
It is in concern of that micro size : Like a difference between the Rockies in Canada (for normal grain) and some big hils in Ohio = the comparison to Tgrain (gues you have also respectable mountains in Ohio) !
So every grain from a flat characteristic can be Tgrain - but in normal case it isn't possible without a Tgrain designed Film! Otherwise manufacturers would sell Tgrain developer to make a Delta400 from Hp5.

with regards

 

[trendland]

I was talking about polypan F; see my quote.

It's cheap for a reason. It's some anonymous movie duplication film stock, very thin base, suffers tremendously from light piping, grain is comparable to what you'd expect from a 200 or 400 speed film although TMY2 will be somewhat less grainy. Quite pronounced toe too. Don't get me wrong, I like it for the occasional project, but it's unfit for general purpose use IMO.

That may be right : For general purpose a Ilford Fp4 is a classic one or a APX100 or others!
For results from highest quality Tmax fillms are no bad choise indeed (beside others)!
I gave the example with Polipan just for an alternate of cheapest stuff from unknown origin!
But see : randomphoto.blogspot.com/2013/03/playing-with-polipan-f.html

So it is allways a concern of individual workflow : more from development with bw than from
photography = Of course avaible light for example is prefered to high speed films [not possible
to push ISO25 so high] - on the other side : candlelight on ISO25 can look superior (tripod)
So Polypan is usable - the basis is PanF (I have still the illusion - not tryed out up to now)
A reformulation of Pan F because it is definitifly a movie film (152,5m).
with regards

 

[trendland]

Why are we discussing PolyPan and Kodak Ultramax in this thread?

I thought this thread was about the Ultrafine T-grain 400ISO film, about which I previously asked and nobody seems to know.

At this juncture...rather than speculate who makes it....has anyone used it and can you share the results? Have you tried pushing or pulling it?

Polypan was just a good hint in regard of a very cheap film from characteristics
I find : use worthy - and that is not the case with most of "phantasy films made from oldest stuff" the difference to "phantasy films" made from actual todays production is following :
They are use worthy of course - they are expensive - they can have good characteristics - but you can not know - because manufacturers make profit from making a secret of origin! In some cases regarding the last two years I personally would also not state from where the film is - therefore it is a good thing to find out !



Ultramax 400 was just a little joke in concern Paul asked within the introduction of bis thread!
He asked how a manufacturer come to this name (Ultrafine Ultramax 400) - without that
"Ultrafine" the manufacturer could have payed a real high sum to Kodak (could be forced to pay)
That was a joke Agulliver - you did not unterstand?

with regards

PS : It is definitifly no Kodak Ultramax 400 inside Ultrafine Ultramax 400....folks...!
PPS : But generaly everything is possible today!

 

[trendland]

No, you never said that. And as already noted, nothing to do with the question at hand. And Kodak never, to the best of my knowledge, put names on their professional movie stocks, just those four digit numbers.

That is correct Paul : 7361,7276,5233 a.s.o.

with regards

PS : in some cases a form of describtion is added : panchromatic, reversal bw print a.s.o.
With the exeption to ,"PLUS-X" ..."TRIX-X" of course but to bw films it is correct (No Special Name)

 

[AgX]

realy ? Well AgX that is new for me - wonder about !

People erroneously think with T-grain only at consumer films.

 

[trendland]

People erroneously think with T-grain only at consumer films.

Why did Agfa not market this film to photographers in 2007 ?
A pretty name have could been Agfa SuperpanTX (R) ... T for Tgrain X for special ....and the R could stand for Registered Trademark!

with regards

 

[AgX]

Agfa seemingly felt no big urge to redesign their b&W consumer films (never change a winning horse) after their most innovative Agfapan Vario XL economical being not as succesful as they wished.
Instead they put their effort in consumer colour films and their countless non-consumer films.

 

[trendland]

....hmm indeed Vario XL was no realy big deal - if I remember right it was later than Ilford XP1!
But what about the Tmax Agfa you mentioned (avaible in the US) ?

with regards

 

[AgX]

No! Both films were introduced the same day,

Seemingly as the Agfa film was cancelled after some years, in hindsight peope believe erroneously it was a copy.
To the contrary: Agfa most efficiently exploited the basic concept yielded by employing chromogenic film at B&W.

 

[trendland]

No! Both films were introduced the same day,

Seemingly as the Agfa film was cancelled after some years, in hindsight peope believe erroneously it was a copy.
To the contrary: Agfa most efficiently exploited the basic concept yielded by employing chromogenic film at B&W.

Last one of this chromogenic films (Konika?) can't remember jet - I gave for commercial lab development came back with prints of piggy pink color - lab was unable to understand!
(No newtral setting from filters)!
But this films was made (later) for confortable workflow FOR Labs (printing onto c41 paper)!
with regards

 

[AgX]

But this films was made (later) for confortable workflow FOR Labs (printing onto c41 paper)!
with regards

As you say, there were different concepts behind these chromogenic films. The latter rather ommitting the inherent benefits of the technology.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

People erroneously think with T-grain only at consumer films.

OK, yes, to the unenlightened. As I've mentioned T grains have made there way into many color negative films, including Kodak professional movie films for many years. I've no idea about slide films.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

As we wander in the conversational desert hundreds of kilometers from my original posting question.......

 

[trendland]

As we wander in the conversational desert hundreds of kilometers from my original posting question.......

Paul - what you stated last is not realy "untrue"! ....sorry...
So coming back to your question :

........so where is the difference oft this two films?????

The first one is from Harman/Ilford like I stated in your other thread - pls. remember!
Others have same sugestion including yourself - obviously!
It has to be a Kentmere derivate film!
So one might " speculate" Photo warehouse made contracts with Ilford!
Then we should ask: is it the same contract with Ilford - Photo warehouse made again?
THEN IT SHOULD BE DELTA400 - if it wouuld be such easy! From my point it can't be!
Generally (Ilford would never give their "best horse" away for cheap pricing )- they are not silly!
The fact that it possible was done in the past has had other reasons (overproduction)!
Is that the possible reason again : overproduced Delta400 ? From my point : never - because Ilford
would have the possibility to smaler their expensive pricing with Delta then!
From the same reason the could make exact this deal with photo warehouse - they hold expensive
pricing with Delta and let photo warehouse some films for cheap offerings. (The all times mechanism with brand - named films)....hmm?
I can not belive that Ifords bestseller have problems at this moment!
But who cares about what one can belive? You stated the characteristics are not like any
Tgrain you remember - is your workflow suddenly such bad that you have "destroyed" the films
characteristics via development??? That we all also "can not belive" - right ?!
BTW : is there a mark onto the package or the cassetes : Made in Europe ?
But I won't think - it isn't Fujis "Presto" (discontinued 2013).....hmm!
KodakTmax400 isn't avaible for brand manufatured films (be sure about 100%) - Kodak could need any money today - more than ever before - but to the same side : They are no ideots

If it is a real Tgrain Film : It must be Delta 400 - but it isn't a Tgrain - right?
You may have a last prove Paul : Shot one Tmax400 and one Delta400 and develope in exact same direction - with your films you still have shot from photo warehouse - will it more grainy indeed
the film has a massive defect (expiration more than 5- 8 years ago for example + bad storage) or it isn't a Tgrain film !
But from my point AS stated before : Then it could be ans film! I have no idea what it could be then!

with regards

PS : I would change to TMY2 - or I would buy a cheapest film = normal photography : there is business AS usual / photography were you need realy good results = best films!
But that is your personal decision! I often shot bw "in addition" when I am shooting in color!
Therefore I personally don't need bw films from highest price = a normal APX100 will do this job!
But if it goes about bw shooting exclusevly I also need a best film!

 

[Vaughn]

And you never thought you'd find something as good as something else? I guess you didn't live through the Arista 100 and 400 films a few years back. Absolutely, positively Plus-X and Tri-X. It was certainly possible that the UF UM was Kodak. Or, Delta.

When I was using Arista100 it was Ilford.

Edited: Whoops, my mistake -- it was Arista B&W Film ISO 125 that I used in 8x10 sheets (Ilford). Something sounded wrong with my answer and so I dug out an old 8x10 film box. The box has some 10+ year old (sometime between '03 and '06) exposed x-ray film of my boys in the backyard...according to what I wrote on the box. Hmmmmmmmm....

 

[Paul Verizzo]

When I was using Arista100 it was Ilford.

Edited: Whoops, my mistake -- it was Arista B&W Film ISO 125 that I used in 8x10 sheets (Ilford). Something sounded wrong with my answer and so I dug out an old 8x10 film box. The box has some 10+ year old (sometime between '03 and '06) exposed x-ray film of my boys in the backyard...according to what I wrote on the box. Hmmmmmmmm....

Arista did use Ilford films, "Made in England" right on the cartridge (can't speak to sheet film) and my insider contact confirms that. The Arista PREMIUM, which came later, got confirmed as Kodak.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have shopped at Freestyle for the past 40 years and Photo Warehouse Ultrafine for maybe 25 to 30 years. Over the decades both have used many different re branded films as house films. Foma, Forte, various Chinese bands and Harmon. Freestyle had been good at listing the country or origin while Ultrafine has to my knowledge has never listed a county of origin on their house films. At one time Freestyle offered re-branded Kodak, Ilford, Fuji. Currently Foma seems to be their house brand. In the 70s Freestyle offered re branded GAF films at a very good price.

Ultrafine has also bought orphaned rolls or end rolls which they cut and load such as Kodak black and white movie or duplicating film. Their Tmax film, I have guessed may a limited production run made to order by Foma as development times do not match either Kodak Tmax 400 or Delta 400.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

The definitive answer is in the DX numbers. The database I found has no info on the number, and if I reverse search by film name, here is what it comes up with (bottom of page): http://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase/rechfilm.php?name=ultramax

No, Trendland, it is most certainly not Delta 400 by any stretch of the imagination. I already pointed out that Ilford created the Delta line about 5 or 6 years after T-Max and before this Ultrafine introduction date, if they are to be believed.

Paul, why would Foma make a custom T-grain and not have it in their own product line? Photo Warehouse is not a huge operation by film production standards.

 

[MattKing]

Paul, why would Foma make a custom T-grain and not have it in their own product line?

Because they, like Harman, may make as much or more from their business making films for others as they do with their own lines.
There are, for example, no distribution or marketing costs associated with designing and manufacturing film for others.
All they need to do is make sure that the film is different from their own products.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Because they, like Harman, may make as much or more from their business making films for others as they do with their own lines.
There are, for example, no distribution or marketing costs associated with designing and manufacturing film for others.
All they need to do is make sure that the film is different from their own products.

Matt, I understand that. But designer grains are not just a recipe variation. It would be a major endeavor; look, after 34 years only two companies in the entire world, so far as we know, make designer grains. And they are, arguably, the two biggest ones.

The amount PW could sell in their dreams would not justify the R&D and new lines needed to make a custom designer grain film.