Ultrafine Xtreme 400 and Rodinal

[What About Bob]

In my travels on the interwebs I am seeing that a few places have different times for developing Ultrafine Xtreme 400 with Adox Rodinal. One place gives a time of 12 minutes at 68F and another place gives 15-20 minutes at 68F. One site gives one recipe for this combination and the image looks really good. Someone mentioned not to bother with this combination because the grain was too much. On yet another site I am seeing some really beautiful portraiture results with this combination using 1:100 and using stand development but no times and agitation methods are given.

I am in the testing phase of a few brands of films. At this time I am not worried about spot-on results. I can always go back and shoot the same scenes all over again. This particular film I shot yesterday, late morning. The contrast was a little high but not too bad. Sunny 16 type of day with deep shadows in some places with highlights not too overbearing. Instead of 1/500 at F16 I went with 1/250 at F22 with my Rolleicord that I got on eBay. My very first TLR. Love it!

I had thought to go with maybe the 1:50 dilution of Rodinal, like I did with the 100 speed version of this film just to keep the tests consistent but as I am looking at these results on that site that showed the portraits I don’t really see the grain. I mean I kind of see it but it is really tight and fine.

Looking back at the 100 speed version of Ultrafine that I developed not long ago in Rodinal at 1:50, I can really see the grain through my peak 15X loupe. I am not abandoning the grain at all and it might look really good with some subject material. It did take me a little by surprise when I saw the grain. It was sort of like “in your face.”

Does anyone here shoot with this combination of film and developer? I am not seeing a processing table inside of the film box.. Has anyone used stand or semi-stand processing with this film?

 

[MarkCC]

I've shot a dozens of rolls of Ultrafine Xtreme 400 in 35mm format, but am just now starting to use it in 120. (Had a large stock of old 120 film that is finally used up.) With 35mm rolls of UFX400 I've had good luck stand processing in Rodinal 1+100. Just expose at box speed (iso 400), develop in Rodinal 1+100 at 20C for 1 hour. Agitate for the first 30 seconds or so, otherwise just let it stand still for the full hour. Ideally there should be 10ml of concentrate in the tank to avoid possible exhaustion of the developer, my tank maxes out at around 800 ml so I miss that target. So far it has worked OK, but I'm skimping. When stand processed grain is prominent but is fine and regular.

There are times for UFX400 Rodinal and UFX400 at 1+25 and 1+50 on the massive development chart.

Personally I go for HC110 Dil H, 10 min at 20C or D76 stock, 7 min at 20C.

FYI - Ultrafine has a chart of developing times here:

http://site.ultrafineonline.com/dev.chart.pdf

But it doesn't include Rodinal...

 

[Ariston]

I have been working through HC110 with UFX, and I find that it sort of matches the HP5+ times at 400, but the negatives come out a bit dense. So you might want to use whatever is called for when developing HP5+ in Rodinal, and dial it back a bit. However, it's weird because I am trying it at 3200 (using HP5+ times), and the negatives are super thin. So, I guess for lower speeds you have to develop a little less than the HP5 times, and for higher speeds a little more. It seems like that would translate across developers, but who knows.

Let us know what you find. I really like this film.

 

[What About Bob]

Thanks MarkCC and Ariston

@MarkCC: Last night I put the film through Rodinal 1:100 for an hour with agitation for the first full minute then three soft agitations every 10 minutes. I just now saw the responses here, but it looks like I was close to what you were recommending. I was so excited I wanted to get to developing, lol. Looks like I did a semi-stand process instead of a full stand.

The negatives look good. There appears to be nice range of tones and the highlights appear to have a softness to them. The grain is something that I am still not sure about. Looking through my loupe; there is a coarseness which could work for some things but maybe not for others. I will not know until I get to printing. I am waiting for the last few items so that I can get right to printing.

The Rodinal looked all right when I dumped it back into the graduate. A few days ago I put in some really old film from 20 years ago, that was in my camera along with a bulk loaded roll of the very same film exposed a few days ago and the Rodinal came out looking like grape kool-aid, lol.

Thanks for the PDF link.

@Ariston: For the UFX 100 in Rodinal 1:50 I get around 13 minutes. For UFX 400 I get 7? To me the times should be flipped. One time I used 11:30 minutes for the UFX 100 because my temperature was 70 degrees. The negatives looked all right but I might try adding maybe an extra 5 to 10% to that time to bring up the contrast just a tad. The next UFX 400 roll will go through a regular, non-stand, development.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have notes for UFX 400, in 120 6X9 1:25 8 mint, 1:50 13 Mints in daylight tank, have not attempted stand development. I did a roll of 35mm in Rodinal, way too grainy for my task. D76 1:1 and DDX is quite nice. Current developer is MCM 100, stock 18 mints. BTW, UFX 100 is much different story, good tight grain, good tones.

 

[Toasty]

For Rodinal, I found 1:25 and 7 mins to be the best for me. I prefer HC-110 but Rodinal works as well.

 

[What About Bob]

@Paul: Thanks Paul. Is that MCM 100 anything like Pyrocat HD? I noticed it had Catechol in it. I did get some Pyrocat HD in Glycol when I ordered the Rodinal. I might give that developer a try. I have never used a Pyro based developer before.

 

[What About Bob]

@Toasty: Thanks for posting your work. Very nice. Definitely going to give that dilution a try.

 

[Cholentpot]

I've gone through 100 feet of UFX400 and developed everywhich way. Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand for an hour works great. I tested a roll where I shot all over the place, from 200 up to 3200 and results were fine. Film develops with a flat tonality but I don't mind, I contrast in post if need be.

400

800

1600

3200

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Wow, guys, these are great. @Cholentpot, are those all on one roll with one dev time? 400 looks flat still but 800-1600 look amazing!

@Toasty , those are lovely, are they with hc-110? What time and what speed did you rate the film?

 

[Paul Howell]

@Paul: Thanks Paul. Is that MCM 100 anything like Pyrocat HD? I noticed it had Catechol in it. I did get some Pyrocat HD in Glycol when I ordered the Rodinal. I might give that developer a try. I have never used a Pyro based developer before.

MCM 100 was first published in the 40s or 50s in England in Miniature Camera Magazine, I use the version from Photographer's Formulary which uses both Catchol and P-phenylendiamine, it is a not staining compensating developer, rather simi compensating. Has good tones and will not blow out highlight like Edwal 12. Grain is tight and sharp, I shoot UFE 400 at 320. Attached is a scan of a 8X10 print, printed grade 2 on Multitone, straight print.

 

[Cholentpot]

Wow, guys, these are great. @Cholentpot, are those all on one roll with one dev time? 400 looks flat still but 800-1600 look amazing!

@Toasty , those are lovely, are they with hc-110? What time and what speed did you rate the film?

Not all the same roll.

To be honest the 400 was my first time using the film so I hadn't got used to it yet.

The 800 was shot on an XA2. I was surprised that little camera can resolve this much sharpness.

 

[Ariston]

Has anyone developed UFX at 3200 in HC110? If so, what time did you use (I'm assuming room temp)? I did it at 9:30 and the negatives were really thin. I don't know if I should go ahead and bump it all the way up to 15:00, or split the difference at around 12:30...

I'm looking for dilution B times...

 

[Grim Tuesday]

Has anyone developed UFX at 3200 in HC110? If so, what time did you use (I'm assuming room temp)? I did it at 9:30 and the negatives were really thin. I don't know if I should go ahead and bump it all the way up to 15:00, or split the difference at around 12:30...

What dilution? I would use this as a sanity check for your times: http://120studio.com/film-dev/pushing-hp5.htm

 

[Ariston]

What dilution? I would use this as a sanity check for your times: http://120studio.com/film-dev/pushing-hp5.htm

Wow - that's basically doubling my time. I'm going to give it a try.

 

[What About Bob]

@Cholentpot : UFX film is really a capable film. I am getting to like it very much. Great stuff.

@Paul Howell: That is a beautiful image.

@Ariston. The Massive Development Chart shows a time of 10 minutes for 120 film and 9 minutes for 35mm film at ISO 1600 for HC-110 (Dilution B). When you say really thin, I am thinking thin like when moving the negative at an angle to the light that you start to see a positive version of the image. If that is the case I would say that around 15 minutes might be a decent starting ballpark time for ISO 3200.

Updated: Wow this film can be pushed that high. I am now interested on how this works out for you.

 

[Ariston]

@Cholentpot : UFX film is really a capable film. I am getting to like it very much. Great stuff.

@Paul Howell: That is a beautiful image.

@Ariston. The Massive Development Chart shows a time of 10 minutes for 120 film and 9 minutes for 35mm film at ISO 1600 for HC-110 (Dilution B). When you say really thin, I am thinking thin like when moving the negative at an angle to the light that you start to see a positive version of the image. If that is the case I would say that around 15 minutes might be a decent starting ballpark time for ISO 3200.

Updated: Wow this film can be pushed that high. I am now interested on how this works out for you.

It is almost that thin... and looking back at my notes, that is with Dil A! I am going to try the 19 minutes is Dil B right now and report back later.

 

[Toasty]

@Toasty , those are lovely, are they with hc-110? What time and what speed did you rate the film?

Thanks! Those were all taken at box speed btw and developed with Rodinal (first one from a 7artisans 35mm f2, then Nikkor 50 1.8, Olympus XA and the last two were from a Planar ZM w/light yellow filter).

I shot one or two rolls at box with HC-110, I did five minutes and they seemed a bit thin so maybe 6 would be better. I mostly shot it at 1600 and liked the results.

EI 1600, HC-110B. Ten minute development, agitate 30 seconds then five seconds every two minutes to help tame the highlights.

 

[Ariston]

I just shot and developed some UFX (@3200) in HC110B at 19 minutes, and that is going to be my go-to time for that speed. I agitate for the first full minute, then ten seconds per minute. This allows me to use the same dilution for different speeds, which is what I wanted to accomplish. Here is a snapshot of my lazy dog I took to try the time (no grain reduction, excuse the dust). The highlights on the floor are recoverable, I just didn't do anything with this scan:

 

[pentaxuser]

Not all the same roll.

To be honest the 400 was my first time using the film so I hadn't got used to it yet.

The 800 was shot on an XA2. I was surprised that little camera can resolve this much sharpness.

So just to make sure I am clear as to what you did. You shot four films at 400; 800; 1600 and 3200 but developed all for the same time at 1 hour semi-stand?
If I have got this right then as the time was the same at semi-stand for 1 hour it would appear to square the famous circle so to speak of being able to use a 400 film at box and 3 speeds beyond and still produce negatives that give at least acceptable pictures(400 and 3200) in 2 cases and in 2 other cases(800 and 1600) good prints.

Do I take it that these pictures are reversed scans of your negs? Would such pictures from your negs have been capable of making similar prints in an enlarger?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Cholentpot]

I shot a roll at 400-3200 and developed semi-stand 1:100 for an hour. I flipped at 30 min. The scans all came out more than acceptable.

The photos I posted are from all over the place. I'm not sure which developers I used other than the 3200 which is from a roll which I shoot from 400-3200.

I've made some excellent prints off of UFX developed in stand rodinal at 800 and beyond. They're not posted because they are personal photos.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for the clarification Cholentpot.

pentaxuser

 

[CMoore]

I've shot a dozens of rolls of Ultrafine Xtreme 400 in 35mm format, ..

So how are you liking it.?
Does it seem like a "Quality" product.?

I am using HP5 and FP4 and like both films.
But i thought i might try some Ultrafine, a box of 20... 36 Exp at ASA-400.
FWIW..... i use Ilfotec HC.
Thank You