Topic: Ultrafine brand 120 (comes in "xtreme" and "plus"

[Erik]

Hi folks! Has anyone had experience with these very reasonably priced films? Amazon's customers seem to like xtreme and the one user of Plus isn't as happy.
http://www.amazon.com/Ultrafine-Xtreme-Black---White-Format/dp/B004KUBY2O/
http://www.amazon.com/Ultrafine-Plus-Black-White-Format/dp/B007X6V4KY/

[LT]

I haven't used it ... But I can't believe the 2nd reviewer of the Xtreme film said, ' Pretty good for noise on 30 second exposures'. Brilliant - film has grain, not noise! Love it.

[Francois]

' Pretty good for noise on 30 second exposures'. Brilliant - film has grain, not noise! Love it.

Well that's a first... there's only one thing I can't figure out after reading this comment: is it a digital film or an analog sensor?

[terryj42]

I bought 10 rolls of the Xtreme a few weeks ago but have only shot/processed one roll so far.  The negs seemed a little high in contrast (which I like; definitely a far cry from the expired Tri-X I've been using on my 35mm cameras) and the film dried nicely flat for scanning. 

I've been thinking about getting a bulk roll of their 35mm since B&H is taking an awfully long time getting bulk Kentmere 400 back in stock.

[Nigel]

Isn't weird how these films pop up. I must admit to being fascinated by these obscure films, I assume this is a repackaged version of something else?

[Nigel]

This from a poster on the Rangefinder forum, so it seems it could well be lucky film under another name.

I've bought a few 100'ft rolls of Ultrafine 100 and 400. The film base is very thin, the only other film I've used with such a thin base is Lucky film. I've also called Ultrafine warehouse and asked where the film was manufactured, "The Orient" was their final answer.

The film is interesting, like it or not its very grainy. What stood out most was the lack of an anti-halation layer. Either it was very weak or non existent. The shots from that film had a very noticeable glow with highlights.

[Erik]

If it is rebranded Lucky, that's good, because Lucky now charges as much as real film for its hipster appeal.

All things told, ultrafine seems like a good match for my Holga -- I'm considering it for a first-ever dip into the world of caffenolC - especially after having just paid 7$ US for one roll of triX at my local shop.

Leon, perhaps the "noise" comment was regarding his "digital prints" ha ha ha.

[LEAFotography]

If it is rebranded Lucky, that's good, because Lucky now charges as much as real film for its hipster appeal.

All things told, ultrafine seems like a good match for my Holga -- I'm considering it for a first-ever dip into the world of caffenolC - especially after having just paid 7$ US for one roll of triX at my local shop.

Leon, perhaps the "noise" comment was regarding his "digital prints" ha ha ha.

Yep, it sounds like it's worth a try!

Anyone have any tips for attempting to either minimize potential halation (e.g. would a polarizing filter help?) or even working with halation (e.g. sun through dew laden grass)?

[Erik]

All things told, ultrafine seems like a good match for my Holga -- I'm considering it for a first-ever dip into the world of caffenolC - especially after having just paid 7$ US for one roll of triX at my local shop.

Hmm... just realizing in response to myself, that you can still get good ol' reliable Arista Edu for US $3.30 a roll at Freestyle. It's gone up in price over the last few years, but I guess it's still a better deal, if that's the goal...

[Nigel]

Hmm... just realizing in response to myself, that you can still get good ol' reliable Arista Edu for US $3.30 a roll at Freestyle. It's gone up in price over the last few years, but I guess it's still a better deal, if that's the goal...

Erik, Arista Edu is widely thought to be Foma stock which is likely to have much better quality standards than Lucky, I'd certainly go that way if I were you.

[Francois]

Anyone have any tips for attempting to either minimize potential halation (e.g. would a polarizing filter help?) or even working with halation (e.g. sun through dew laden grass)?

You can't minimize halation by adding stuff in front of the lens. Halation is something that happens within the film base itself.
To minimize it, you're pretty much stuck having to shoot low contrast scenes.
Somehow, I don't think you choose a film like that to minimize its flaws. It's like the people who shoot 1600 ISO film and put it through a fine grain developer. Personally, if the film is grainy, let there be grain. If the film does halos around highlights, let it make halos around bright objects.

[Rich815]

I'd stay away from the 100, based on the Amazon negative review the film does not come with an exoneration date!

[LEAFotography]

Thanks Francois!

I go with working with its qualities then. I've just got my first Lucky 100 35mm back, for scanning soon. I should get some more ideas for what's worth pursuing from those images too hopefully.

I really like that phrase 'let there be grain'

[mcduff]

' Pretty good for noise on 30 second exposures'. Brilliant - film has grain, not noise! Love it.

Maybe he means it is nice and quiet ;-p