New Ultrafine "Plus" films

[darren_katin]

Came across this film a week or two ago, cant find a lick of information about it.

 

Anybody have any experience with this film? I called Photowarehouse a while back to ask about it, though I didnt

get much information they did mention that the film is *not* made in the US. When I asked about development times

they put me on hold for a while and just told me to use the same times as their regular Ultrafine black and white

films (which happens to correspond to Foma films development times).

 

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/newulplblfi.html

 

 

 

Heres a quote of the films description;

 

"New Ultrafine Plus films combine over a half century of cutting edge technology applied to the latest

state-of-the-art film base, to create a fine grain film that is destined to become an instant classic. Available

in 100 and 400 ISO, these emulsions are the finest on the market.We are introducing the 35mm and 120, with a full

line of sheet film to follow."

 

Any ideas? Experiences?

[jerry thirsty]

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/54456-new-ultrafine-plus-black-white-films.html

[todd_niccole]

Another repackaging of Kodak PLUS-X 125 and Tri-X?

[jim_appleyard]

"Another repackaging of Kodak PLUS-X 125 and Tri-X?"

 

I doubt it. If they were Kodak films, I would think Ultrafine would tell Darren that they *ARE* made in the US. It would increase sales if people assumed that they are rebadged Kodaks.

[rustys pics]

I called Ultrafine when the catalog came out with the new films. The guy told me they are "Made in Eastern Europe". I'm pretty sure they're FOMA films repackaged. Although they are good, they are not anywhere near as good as Kodak Tri-X & Plus-X.

[Mike Gammill]

It does sound like Foma. I've used the Fomapan 200 as well as the Freestyle version (Arista Ultra) and found it decent enough in D-76. Can't speak for the 100 or 400, though. The Paterson Acupan films were also Foma, I think.

[darren_katin]

Ive had a suspicion that the films come from Foma too, but the catalog shows two brands of Ultrafine film.

Ultrafine Black and White, and NEW Ultrafine PLUS Black and White films. Surely they cant be selling the same two

100 and 400 speed films under different names and prices? Can they?

 

Heres the regular Ultrafine;

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/ulbwfi.html

 

Heres the Plus Ultrafine;

http://www.ultrafineonline.com/newulplblfi.html

[rothelle]

These are Foma films. This site has been around a very long time ago. I use to order not only the film but some of the developer because it was cheap. I ended up going back to my fav Tri-X and Plus-X because you get what you pay for. Also Kodak is not about to repackage their films. Yes their is a lot of films out on the market but they are not as good as Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. End of story.

[andrew_kaiser2]

Actually, Kodak is re-branding their films currently under the "Arista Premium" label and there is wide speculation that Fuji will soon be doing so under the "Arista Legacy" label.

 

I really despise when people pull out the "you get what you pay for" when it comes to Foma films. I've been using Foma for a very long time now and find their offerings to be every bit as good as Kodak, Ilford and Fuji. The only downside is the lack of development data on the web and of course the crowd of people that always jump in and say "it's cheap therefore it sucks...". It does behave differently that is true, but once you get the hang of it, it produces absolutely lovely negatives. All it takes is a bit of experimentation which ALL films require when you first start using them.

 

So I guess what I'm trying to say is if this stuff in indeed Foma go for it. It's a great price. If you get the 100 speed stuff in 120, develop it in Rodinal, 1+50 for 7 mins and you will be quite pleased.

[jim_appleyard]

IMO, you do get what you pay for and Kodak, Fuji, Ilford and formerly Agfa have/had great quality control. You can coax a great image out of Foma, Efke or any other film, but are the films consistant roll after roll, year after year? I've never used Foma, so I can't judge, but I've used a fair amount of Efke and while I got some great negs, I also got a lot of defects: light leaks and emulsion defects. Efke is fun to play with, but I wouldn't shoot someone's wedding with it.

 

I've never had a single defect from the Big Three in 30 years of photography.

[frank.schifano]

Jim, I've gone through a few hundred feet of bulk Arista.EDU Ultra in the past year or so and so far no defects. Of course, all that film probably came from the same master rolls, so who knows what it's like batch to batch. The Foma papers I've used have varied a bit from one batch to the next, but only by very modest deviations ( ~ 1/3 stop) in speed. I use a step wedge, set my enlarger to the same head height, and use the same lens and exposure times for each test, so there's very little else that can cause the difference.

[justin_monroe]

foma films are excellent and IMO capable of the highest quality results. I've seen people post results done on

fomapan 100, 200 and 400 equal to anything kodak,fuji or ilford makes. the whole "you get what you pay for" thing

is nonsense, film is film. I don't believe in "bad film", technology these days is just to good for that to

exist, it's ALL good stuff.

[jim_appleyard]

Justin, are you using Foma (or other "low cost" films) yourself, or simply looking on the web? It's pretty easy to make any image look on a computer screen.

 

Yes, you can get a good image out of just about any film out there, but there's more to it; consistancy of emulsions, film flatness, the quality of the paper backing around 120 rolls, etc.

 

Forte 100 gives me a nice image, but the curl is enough to drive you to drink Dektol.

 

My Forte 400 has so many pieces of the emulsion missing, I wont use it. You, or anyone else, is welcome to what's left..

 

I love Efke 25. It really sings in Pyrocat HD. However, I had lots of emulsion defects in the brick I bought and the paper backing doesn't block light from reaching the film.

 

These films remind me of a "car that starts everyday and gets me where I want to go". Perhaps, but this car is in such a need of a tune-up that it gets 6 MPG!

[justin_monroe]

hello jim!

 

I'm not currently using foma, or any so-called "second tier" manufacturers film, it isn't because their film

"sucks", it''s just not the easiest to obtain, unless you mail order. and yes, I've used foma and efke films, in

both medium format and 35mm, I prefer the foma. from foma I've never had any factory defects or QC issues of any

kind, maybe i'm just lucky; although in all fareness, I buy the "arista edu.ultra" version and maybe it's

packaged and inspected better, idk. i agree that any photographer worth his/her beans can get a good or even

great image out of any film, of course that's true, all films these days are better than ever. it just irks me

when people revert to the "film suxxors" arguments, IMHO saying a film is bad is just nonsense, although you and

other people's experiences/opinions may vary.

 

thanks for the response:)

[lex_jenkins]

Justin, you appear to be attributing to Jim Appleyard something he didn't actually write. Andrew Kaiser's was the first comment to use the "s" word.

 

Let's please keep discussions on track in the b&w forums.

[justin_monroe]

hey lex, i read alot of your posts, years old and new:)

 

indeed I probably did make it out as if he said that, I was just talking about some peoples attitudes, that's all, not that anyone actually said that, I think that andrew kaiser meant it the same way..

 

thanks for the response:)

[darren_katin]

Well I think we're a lot closer to figuring out this film. I called photowarehouse again today to ask about development times, I asked if they could tell me any vague information on the origin on the films and the person on the phone said it comes from the "Orient"

 

My guess is Lucky since they are the only producers Ive found to make both a 100 and 400 speed film.

 

And it is positively not Foma because this is the PLUS films! Id like to reiterate the difference between PLUS and REGULAR. The regular Ultrafine film which I also asked about is the Foma since they said it comes from "Eastern Europe".

[lex_jenkins]

The "Orient", hmm? That could mean almost anything, depending on your source's knowledge of history and geography. It could even mean the Middle East or Indian continent. Especially if the source is aware that "Asian" is now the preferred term for what Westerners regard as the Far East.

 

Does your source know whether it arrived via rail express from Istanbul?

 

But, as usual, I digress...

[darren_katin]

Lex,

 

Unfortunately I was not able to get anymore information from the Photowarehouse representative. The "Orient" is

the only morsel of information I have at the moment. And you bring up a very good point that the "Orient" is a

very big place indeed!

 

My curiosity got the best of me a few weeks ago and I ended up ordering both the 400'ft and 100'ft rolls. Ive

shot and developed some of the 400 speed so far. My darkroom/bathroom is out of commission at the moment which

has slowed my experimentation with this film. I have a roll scanned and one more waiting to be scanned,

Ive posed the results here;

 

 

My first impressions of this film is its thickness, or lack of, more accurately. This film is very very thin, it

feels like it has the thickness of 120 backing paper. Its generally a decent film from my very few experiences,

though I have to go through a few more rolls to get a better feel of this film.

 

I think this film will become the mainstay of Ultrafine, I checked the site recently and they are discontinuing

the "Regular" Ultrafine films.

[gayle_gustavson]

<p>I have some ultrafine plus 100 ISO and was wondering if it can be processed like C-41 film? I would appreciate it if someone could explain this for me... i'm new to photography (:</p>