Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,933   Posts: 1,522,235   Online: 1036
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 40
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,054
    Sorry Roger, I can't find anything in my notes about ripening Diafine, but I know I saw that somewhere... perhaps a new thread on this subject instead of stealing this one.

  2. #22
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,767
    Quote Originally Posted by J.Marks View Post
    As has been said before stick to the real film, Ilford , Kodak, Fuji. I made the mistake one time and tried a "cheap" film. TOTAL disaster.
    Foma isn't bad - not great, but I've had no problems with it. The Freestyle rebranded stuff is a decent bargain. Efke was good film with poor QC. I know Foma had some problems at one time but seems to have gotten their act together as far as QC. The film isn't Kodak or Ilford but it's not bad.

    I agree though - for important stuff right now it's Kodak or Ilford. I play around with Foma and I'm looking forward to getting some of the new Adox "like Efke with QC" film in 4x5. That could be cool. It has a different look.

    EDIT: NP Jim, just wondering as I've used Diafine off and on since the late 70s and never saw a need, or really any change in it until it starts to fade.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    I had the exact same problem with the film - I contacted them and was told there was no problem. hmmm
    Unfortunately I was in the US on holiday from Australia and bought 15 rolls only to discover the issue!!!
    Shanghai GP3 120 has the same issue in a certain lot number.
    I've had Lucky film with the same issue.
    You'd think I would've learned... eventually i did.
    I really like Ilford now...

  4. #24
    desertrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    185
    Images
    10
    As has been mentioned above, the Ultrafine Plus 120 ISO 100 is good for testing old cameras and lenses. I also use it for testing developers and fixers for activity before using them if they haven't been used for a while. I've been able to keep the number bleed through from the backing paper to a minimum by keeping the red window covered except when advancing the film. The emulsion defects are really a shame, because the film has great tonality. I wouldn't use the film for anything important, either.
    Happiness is a load of bulk chemicals, a handful of recipes, a brick of film and a box of paper. - desertrat

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by desertrat View Post
    I've been able to keep the number bleed through from the backing paper to a minimum by keeping the red window covered except when advancing the film.
    I was using a Mamiya 6 and Pentax 645N - neither have the red window - So my issue was with the emulsion and/or the backing paper.

  6. #26
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Images
    4
    I have used some of the Ultrafine Extreme 400 in 120 and 35mm and had decent luck with it but by your explanation this appears to be a different film.

    I do agree with the general consensus, if you cannot repeat the pictures then it is best to use a known quality film. For me that is almost always something from Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, but I have also had very good experiences with Fomapan films.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by mkillmer View Post
    I had the exact same problem with the film
    I was referring to Ultrafine Plus B/W Film ISO 100 120.

  8. #28
    destroya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    san jose
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    257
    just shot a roll of the xtreme 400 in 120. it is a much better film than the plus version. it is a film i will shoot again.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    137
    I've had this problem with the Lomography Lady Grey film. It's rebranded Tmax 400 and I thought I was getting a bargain. When I complained they did the decent thing and refunded me for the 12 rolls that I had purchased based on one bad roll but I was still annoyed.

    I continued to use it until recently as it only appeared to be the first frame or so that was affected but my last roll had the dots and frame numbers throughout the whole film. I was gutted as there were some nice shots on there that won't be repeatable.

    This was shot with a Mamiya C330 so I can't blame the red window.

    I guess I'll just get some kodak or ilford and save this for testing.

  10. #30
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    972
    For my birthday I was given a pro-pack of it so I can practice using my Bronica GS-1. It won't matter too much as I will be experimenting to get the hang of the camera - though I hope to get some good results. I was also given a pro-pack of Acros, which I will use for important photos.
    Truzi

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin