Ultrafine Ultramax 400 "T-grain"

How do you know that Harman and Kodak and Fuji haven't done R & D that shows how they can adjust many of the characteristics (grain, speed, contrast, highlight retention, shadow contrast, midtone contrast, spectral sensitivity, etc.) by adjusting their formulae?
I doubt that the creation of their own films led them to a single formulation only.

MattKing said:

How do you know that Harman and Kodak and Fuji haven't done R & D that shows how they can adjust many of the characteristics (grain, speed, contrast, highlight retention, shadow contrast, midtone contrast, spectral sensitivity, etc.) by adjusting their formulae?
I doubt that the creation of their own films led them to a single formulation only.

Click to expand...

But none of that means designer grain. What you describe is surely how all regular emulsions come about.

Paul Verizzo said:

But none of that means designer grain. What you describe is surely how all regular emulsions come about.

Click to expand...

Same with T-grain (or flat grain, or whatever term the manufacturer uses) emulsions.
The companies that coat on contract have a whole bunch of combinations they have worked on when they developed their own films. They can use that already done work for others.

Matt. Why would Foma have developed a T-grain and then never made it except allegedly for some small company just in the US. And never market it under their own name. It makes ZERO business sense.

Foma may make more money from their sale to entities like Freestyle then they do from their own films.
Or they may make less.
Distribution and marketing problems are what killed Polaroid and a myriad of others.
And by the way, this is the description of one of Foma's films from their website:
FOMAPAN 200 Creative
is panchromatically sensitized, black and white negative film of the speed ISO 200/24°. It is the film of new generation, making full se of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains. The film features exellen resolving power and low granularity and is intended for use under normal or slightly unfavourable light conditions. Its wide exposure latitude allows exposures in the speed range from ISO 100/21° to 800/30° without change of development time. The film is available in roll film 120, sheet films, perforated 35 mm films including long length rolls.

MattKing said:

Foma may make more money from their sale to entities like Freestyle then they do from their own films.
Or they may make less.
Distribution and marketing problems are what killed Polaroid and a myriad of others.
And by the way, this is the description of one of Foma's films from their website:
FOMAPAN 200 Creative
is panchromatically sensitized, black and white negative film of the speed ISO 200/24°. It is the film of new generation, making full se of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains. The film features exellen resolving power and low granularity and is intended for use under normal or slightly unfavourable light conditions. Its wide exposure latitude allows exposures in the speed range from ISO 100/21° to 800/30° without change of development time. The film is available in roll film 120, sheet films, perforated 35 mm films including long length rolls.

Click to expand...

OK, I wasn't aware of that film, only the Fomapans. Of course, that still leaves the huge matters of speed difference and that PW claims that they were selling the film since 1989.

Oh, wait........I just looked up the data sheets. The RMS Granularity is 14, same as Kodak XX, and a .5 worse than their 100 ISO!!!!! TMY is 10, same as Plus-X. And the resolution is the same as the slower speed film. I don't get it. Why bother? And tabular grain? They must be squished golf balls.

Foma makes Fomapan 200 which has T-grain (or similar) technology. Wasn't the discontinued Fomapan 800 also a T-grain or hybrid of T-grain and traditional cubic grain?

Fomapan 200..don't knock it until you have tried it. It has a different look compared to Fomapan 100 or 400 and is more forgiving in development. The three Fomapan stocks are all quite different.

As for the Ultrafine T-grain film.....just because they say they've offered such a product since 1989 does not mean that they've offered the same product. The name could be applied to film supplied by any of the film manufacturers. Clearly in 1989 it had to be Kodak as nobody else was making T-grain B&W film. Since 1996 it could conceivably have been Ilford/Harman. Today it could be either of those or possibly Foma. The fact is, nobody knows.

So I'm most curious as to whether anyone has tried it recently and what the results are like.

[QUOTE="Agulliver, post: 2165486, member:
As for the Ultrafine T-grain film.....just because they say they've offered such a product since 1989 does not mean that they've offered the same product. The name could be applied to film supplied by any of the film manufacturers. Clearly in 1989 it had to be Kodak as nobody else was making T-grain B&W film. Since 1996 it could conceivably have been Ilford/Harman. Today it could be either of those or possibly Foma. The fact is, nobody knows.[/QUOTE]

You are correct about what I edited down to above. UF could have used the Ultramax name for T-Max stock - Freestyle was respooling it, but with the proper film name on it - back when. OTOH, they have had I believe three UF "surnames" depending on film origin. Ultrafine, Ultrafine Plus, Ultrafine Extreme. So the company tends to change the name with origin so as to not have developing time and characteristic confusions, I would guess.

Per Foma's own sheets, the RMS granularity is WORSE than the 100 speed film, albeit so small a difference as to not matter. And getting close to Tri-X. Why bother if this is T-grain?

The bottom line is that my question is still unanswered and we don't know what it is. Most of the questions asked have already been answered previously. Going around in circles.

At this point, it just a good photo detective mystery! And nothing wrong with that!

Paul Verizzo said:

[QUOTE="Agulliver, post: 2165486, member:
As for the Ultrafine T-grain film.....just because they say they've offered such a product since 1989 does not mean that they've offered the same product. The name could be applied to film supplied by any of the film manufacturers. Clearly in 1989 it had to be Kodak as nobody else was making T-grain B&W film. Since 1996 it could conceivably have been Ilford/Harman. Today it could be either of those or possibly Foma. The fact is, nobody knows.

Click to expand...

You are correct about what I edited down to above. UF could have used the Ultramax name for T-Max stock - Freestyle was respooling it, but with the proper film name on it - back when. OTOH, they have had I believe three UF "surnames" depending on film origin. Ultrafine, Ultrafine Plus, Ultrafine Extreme.QUOTE]

Exactly - this you mentioned is in parts exactly my point. What is the interist of a film consumer?
There are generally a lot of issues like : characteristics of a film, a (relative small pricing) but film consumers are confident to spent higher pricing if the products characteristics are very special and very good!
You do need stuff wich is to your intention of photography (so some still have a need of sheed films ) a.s.o.
But the basis of all of this is : " YOU AS A PHOTOGRAPHER HAVE THE FUNDAMENTAL NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU ARE BUYING!"
I remember a list of all avaible Agfa bw films for example (20 years ago) within this list a real big sum of "derivate" films (costom made films) was inclueded - to some Agfa bw you had to add up to
seven 7!...films from all kind of companies with different names. So the situation we notice isn't new!
But there is a BIG diference : within the past it was "quite" clear that a bw 100 ASA Form brand :
"Photo Porst" was AgfaPan !!!! Because this company was just a big dealer (like B&H - today)
and every child today is knowing that B&H is NO film manufacturer!
It is a business model for all the years - not to state the origion ! It is within the contracts that a rebrand company isn't allowed to state! But during the past you have been informed about!
It was a kind of "opened secret" and it was quite clear (every dealer was knowing what is inside)!
And if you have asked a dealer for example :" is this the Agfapan " you were told :" Yes of course it is but pssstt..." At the same time you were able to read this issue in different photo magazines!

What is soo new today - oh there is a lot about new : You can not be sure what you are buying!
It is A REAL SECRET TODAY - this have very strange reasons (from my point)!
You can buy a lot of discontinued, expired and all kind of forgotten stuff! Meanwile it is not in that mass avaible you were offered years ago - all is sold!
So that are differences and there is one NEW reason of such mysterious secret!
They sold stuff what wasn't able for being marketed during the good old days!
In the past it was scratch wich has to be wasted - today you can buy it!
In parts that is an option if the pricing is atractive - but meanwhile they sell
exklusive highly expensive stuff and some of you feel confortable about this ?

To make sure this statement isn't in concern of your example here Paul - it is not in concern of Arista and others of good rebrand names! But there are players within this marked I would name
G H O U L S.... is this precise enough ?

And they are (in parts) easy to identify : New Company, phantasy names, high pricing!

What is the problem - everybody buys to own riscs there....hmm?

The problem is that this money (what is spent for buying scratch) isn't avaible for companies
from real reputation! And the further concern is that reputated players imitate such business
models they were shown - because YOU can make lots of money if YOU are willing!
What is not sayed that Ilford or Kodak or Foma sell scratch! But there is an impact to others!

within regards

PS : Where is the problem for rebrand companies to inform " inoficial" about origion?
So today YOU can tell them what is inside their canisters but they will deny it!
What leads to the next problem : In parts they realy don't know because they sell films from
different origion! That makes it very complicate : Is the film YOU bought a year ago (often YOU have tested and it was fine) is this film still the same ?¿??

SOMETIMES IT IS NOT AND THEN YOU HAVE A FILM WITH SAME NAME AND HIGHER PRICE BUT INSIDE IS AN OTHER FILM.....DAMNED!

I contacted the guy that has that DX code site. I gave him the DX number, some observations thus far on this thread. This is what he said:

"I have no information on this film... But DX number 715730 is strange, last number is for film length, 0 is for rares films with 72 exposures but it should be 4 for 36.

If the film is very thin, it could be a surveillance film, like Kodak WL surveillance, a cheap discontinued T-grain film. Tabular technology was used a lot by Kodak for color films, but for B&W I only know T-max and this WL Surveillance (and some films for radiography, still in production by Carestream). And, of course, Ilford Delta and Neopan.

Regards,
Nicolas."

So I guess it will remain a mystery.

The rolls I have shot are not thin. I am coming to the conclusion is that it's Foma Creative 200, as a sort of T gained film it can be shot at 400 without loss of shadow detail, not a true push. Ultafine list development of T400 in Tmax developer at 8mint, while the massive development chart list Foma Creative at 400 at 7.5. Or it is very old Foma T800 that Ulafine has re-branded to improve shadow detail. Tmax and Delta 3200 are best at ISO 1200 to 1600, shot at 3200 are really a push. As Foma T800 was only on the market for short time and that what 15 or so years ago I swing back to Creative 200.

Paul Howell said:

The rolls I have shot are not thin. I am coming to the conclusion is that it's Foma Creative 200, as a sort of T gained film it can be shot at 400 without loss of shadow detail, not a true push. Ultafine list development of T400 in Tmax developer at 8mint, while the massive development chart list Foma Creative at 400 at 7.5. Or it is very old Foma T800 that Ulafine has re-branded to improve shadow detail. Tmax and Delta 3200 are best at ISO 1200 to 1600, shot at 3200 are really a push. As Foma T800 was only on the market for short time and that what 15 or so years ago I swing back to Creative 200.

Click to expand...

Your analysis is as good as anything at this point. If Foma 200, granularity is suck city.

I've got 4.5 rolls to shoot, it was worth a few bucks to see what this is.

But if someone is expecting Delta or TM, forget it.

Foma 200 generally achieves about 125 to 160; 400 without shadow detail loss is highly unlikely even in Foma's reference developer.

I shoot Foma 200 at box speed, and develop in ID11 stock for 5:30 and get great results. Honestly if you think it's horrible from the data sheet but haven't actually tried it......however I wouldn't feel good pushing it to 400. Despite Foma saying it's films can be over and under exposed by a full two stops with no change in development times it is well known that things go wrong if you under expose or try to push process Fomapan. In that regard, it's not as good as the offerings from Ilford and Kodak. Ass Koraks says, there are lots of people who prefer to shave half a stop off the Foma films - though I find I don't need to.

I shoot Foma 200 in 120 and 4X5 and in the past 35mm. I have pushed it to 400 and 800, it will holds it's shadows at 400 if development is extended, at the time I was using MCM 100 and Rodinal. Years ago I did try Ultrafine T400 and developed in DDX with good results, saying that I totally agree that if Foma and 200 and Ultrafine are the same film it is no match for Tmax 100 and 400. In terms of price, I would go with Freestyle housed branded Foma 200, shoot at 200 and consider 400 a 1/2 push. One advantage of Freestyle's house brand it is available in 35mm, 120 and 4X5, the 4X5 is much less than Tmax or Delta 400, Tmax 400 in 10 sheet pack is 2.99 a sheet, Arista 200 comes out to 1.30 a sheet. I shoot 6X9 and 4X5 so any issues with grain or for matter resolution don't matter as much.

MattKing said:

Foma may make more money from their sale to entities like Freestyle then they do from their own films.
Or they may make less.
Distribution and marketing problems are what killed Polaroid and a myriad of others.
And by the way, this is the description of one of Foma's films from their website:
FOMAPAN 200 Creative
is panchromatically sensitized, black and white negative film of the speed ISO 200/24°. It is the film of new generation, making full se of outstanding properties of hexagonal core/shell tabular silver halide grains. The film features exellen resolving power and low granularity and is intended for use under normal or slightly unfavourable light conditions. Its wide exposure latitude allows exposures in the speed range from ISO 100/21° to 800/30° without change of development time. The film is available in roll film 120, sheet films, perforated 35 mm films including long length rolls.

Click to expand...

Matt - that is a nice describtion - but it is from Foma? So is it Tgrain? Or is it not?

with regards

PS : It is NOT - THERE WE HAVE IT AGAIN....!

Paul Howell said:

I shoot Foma 200 in 120 and 4X5 and in the past 35mm. I have pushed it to 400 and 800, it will holds it's shadows at 400 if development is extended, at the time I was using MCM 100 and Rodinal. Years ago I did try Ultrafine T400 and developed in DDX with good results, saying that I totally agree that if Foma and 200 and Ultrafine are the same film it is no match for Tmax 100 and 400. In terms of price, I would go with Freestyle housed branded Foma 200, shoot at 200 and consider 400 a 1/2 push. One advantage of Freestyle's house brand it is available in 35mm, 120 and 4X5, the 4X5 is much less than Tmax or Delta 400, Tmax 400 in 10 sheet pack is 2.99 a sheet, Arista 200 comes out to 1.30 a sheet. I shoot 6X9 and 4X5 so any issues with grain or for matter resolution don't matter as much.

Click to expand...

I will not state it is a bad film - but it is no Tgrain! What is it? A film with "flat cristals" aha - and what dies this mean? Why is "flat cristal" NOT the same as Tgrain?
It is a so called mix - aha a mix ? And from what is that mix? Possible from Tgrain and Roma
flat cristals technology? What should this determination call to us?

I wonder and wonder.....a.s.o - so folks it is a film wich combines cubic grain from traditional
technology with modern flat crystal technology - that sounds indeed extra nice!
We also may consider : This film isn't able to reach the quality the OP expected from a so called
Tgrain film.......if it is this Foma film? I can't say but it is the besteht hint up to now!

with regards

PS : A manufacturer who would bring out a New film - that would be soo great (not to bring out New names all the Yeats into play)
In Addition I would like to see a manufacturer who proudly presents a

"REFORMULATED FILM" and if he would describe its characteristic like following :

"This film has real smal grain so it is a film from the class of finest grain films" that would be nice
and such film could speak for itself from its characteristics !

But that is too much what I would wish?????

MattKing said:

FOMAPAN 200 Creative
Its wide exposure latitude allows exposures in the speed range from ISO 100/21° to 800/30° without change of development time. .

Click to expand...

This is one stop over and two stops under so that's a range of three stops without any change in development time. This seems a very wide range for no change in development time. It may be that the same development time can cover three stops "after a fashion" but I'd have thought that some change in time might improve the outcome.

If this is the case then stating there there is no need for a change in time over three stops does smack of marketing at the expense of information on best practice which is a pity for users and ultimately for the company if it results in customers examining "everything Foma" with scepticism

pentaxuser