Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,773   Posts: 1,516,593   Online: 1080
      
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 64
  1. #41
    John Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Southern Forest Region, Western Australia
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    521
    Blog Entries
    3
    Bottom line is

    Given the cost of the stuff I bought a 30mtr roll of the Xtreme 100, it is a bit soft with a fairly low D-max but is a good 100 asa and works well in replenished D76d made up in 1985 and prints well in my Leitz Focomats to 10x8', all I bother with for snaps - I have not tried it in either of my DeVeres - I may try extending the development when the light gets soft, but as my current snapshot camera is a Retina 119 with an uncoated lens I am not going to argue about its quality - One can make a lot of pix with this film and not worry about the cost

    On which subject, and being my own Devil's Advocate, the cost of petrol/diesel, model fees, accommodation, insurance, location hire and all the other things involved with making pictures, the difference in the cost of film should not be considered - Work out what you want a film to do and buy the very best quality fresh film you can get, for me it is Ilford Delta, but that is based as much on my knowing the emulsion as its inherent quality - I don't bother trying other emulsions once I am getting the results I require, apart from the Xtreme for snapshots, but that is a one off, perhaps

    I have been using Foma 100 10x8" film, but will return to Ilford Delta 100 once I have used the stock I have - I may even sell the 5 unopened boxes here for a very attractive price
    Last edited by John Austin; 03-23-2012 at 07:55 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling

  2. #42
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    978
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesun267 View Post
    Frame numbers etc. are Ilford.
    That is hard to tell. When AGFA Photo closed The rumor is that there their packaging equipment was sold, with one line travelling across the channel to Harman, and the other travelling across Germany to Maco. These are Computer controlled and so the Markings can be any arbitrary text, and the numbers will look identical for film packaged in any of the three locations. Current Ilford brand film has numbering that resembles the last of the AGFA brand stuff. I recall that Simon from Harman acknowledged that they were happy to make a lucky purchase of a fairly new Packaging line form the liquidators.

    Of course if the film is being bought as frame numbered bulk, it would also have those numbers.

    Kentmere 100 (aka Ilford Pan 100
    It is not clear that the Kentmere is the same as Ilford Pan. Simon indicated that it was a new formula, as they did not want to break their policy of not private labelling their own products. Ilford Pan 100 and 400 are special lines sold in "Certain Countries" where the "distribution conditions are not ideal" And are possibly sold at a different price than the Normal HP5+ FP4+ line. I have not tried the Ilford pan 100, but the Pan 400 does not have anywhere near the same development recommendations as the Kentmere 400. the roll I got from a dealer in asia does have a bit of resemblance to the HP5 of Old.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    354
    Just developed a bunch of the 120 Ultafine film, and found that I could see numbers and dots from the backing paper. This was on rolls that had been through different cameras and on different film backs so it wasn't on my end. Grain was giant and very obtrusive.

    I WON'T be buying anymore.
    * Just because your eyes are closed, doesn't mean the lights in the darkroom are off. *
    * When the film you put in the camera is worth more than the camera you put the film in... *
    * When I started using 8x10, it amazed me how many shots were close to the car. *

  4. #44

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Searust View Post
    Just developed a bunch of the 120 Ultafine film, and found that I could see numbers and dots from the backing paper. This was on rolls that had been through different cameras and on different film backs so it wasn't on my end. Grain was giant and very obtrusive.

    I WON'T be buying anymore.
    Yup, join the club! I only use it for testing camera's and that's all it's good for. I do like their bulk 35mm ISO 100 film and think it's first rate, but the 120 is absolute junk. They should give it away because it's not doing their reputation any good at all.

  5. #45
    Surrealistic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    The Show Me State
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    54
    I had bought from ultra fine but just found out my recent batch of 120 film has been fogged in some way that has migrated the film numbers and dots from the paper backing onto the film! When I called to complain an ignorant and rude support person told me too bad. They refuse to do anything about it. Dubious quality film and a rude support staff. Never again!

    Curt

  6. #46

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by Surrealistic View Post
    I had bought from ultra fine but just found out my recent batch of 120 film has been fogged in some way that has migrated the film numbers and dots from the paper backing onto the film! When I called to complain an ignorant and rude support person told me too bad. They refuse to do anything about it. Dubious quality film and a rude support staff. Never again!

    Curt
    That's why I said in a different thread that they should come clean and sell this junk at a very big discount just to get rid of it. This is the kind of thing that really pisses me of with certain companies. They know this stuff is junk and they expect you to buy it and be happy. They should advertise it as "Just for testing only"! At this rate I'd have to say, "Junk film from a Junk Company". Pass the word since that's the only way you'll get jerks like this to straighten up and fly right. JohnW

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    872
    Here's my results from Ultrafine 100 in 120 format. Never again. I stick w/ Kodak and Ilford now. If you like circles, dots, and even film numbers on your images, this is your film. As for customer support, I called them on this. A very pleasant woman answered the phone, and said she was going to get someone who knew more than she did about the film to answer my questions. That was a couple of months ago. I'm still waiting.

    By the by, Freestyle has Tri-X in 24 exp (35mm) for just $3.99, and the 36 exp is only $4.39 a roll after an instant rebate. We're all going to be kicking ourselves if we pass this one up.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Ultrafine.jpg  
    Last edited by momus; 11-17-2013 at 10:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    Here's my results from Ultrafine 100 in 120 format. Never again. I stick w/ Kodak and Ilford now. If you like circles, dots, and even film numbers on your images, this is your film. As for customer support, I called them on this. A very pleasant woman answered the phone, and said she was going to get someone who knew more than she did about the film to answer my questions. That was a couple of months ago. I'm still waiting.

    By the by, Freestyle has Tri-X in 24 exp (35mm) for just $3.99, and the 36 exp is only $4.39 a roll after an instant rebate. We're all going to be kicking ourselves if we pass this one up.
    My results were pretty much like yours and upon close inspection with a loupe I noticed a pattern that reminds me of fungi growth in the emulsion itself. Like I said, "JUNK"!

  9. #49

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,837
    Well having read what the majority has to say about this film especially the recent posts then I find it difficult to accept that some would have me believe that Harman is behind this film. This is a company that at great risk to the directors' own financial future, decided on a management buy-out of the defunct Ilford so a death wish for themselves and the end of the company would hardly be high on their list of objectives. The QC that impresses all who go on the tours ( now on tour 4) is hardly a pretence.

    Simon Galley,the other directors and other employees I and others have seen and spoken to on the tours never seemed to show any death wish or desire to go out of business, given that it pays their mortgages etc by employing a "devil may care/ cavalier" approach to their products or those produced at Mobberley and its hard earned reputation for quality.

    Based on all I have seen and heard at Mobberley and from other APUGers, Harman and this film's defects would seem to have nothing in common.

    I submit that a "Not Guilty" verdict on Harman's involvement is the only one that can be reached

    pentaxuser

  10. #50

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lake, Michigan
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    427
    Quote Originally Posted by pentaxuser View Post
    Well having read what the majority has to say about this film especially the recent posts then I find it difficult to accept that some would have me believe that Harman is behind this film. This is a company that at great risk to the directors' own financial future, decided on a management buy-out of the defunct Ilford so a death wish for themselves and the end of the company would hardly be high on their list of objectives. The QC that impresses all who go on the tours ( now on tour 4) is hardly a pretence.

    Simon Galley,the other directors and other employees I and others have seen and spoken to on the tours never seemed to show any death wish or desire to go out of business, given that it pays their mortgages etc by employing a "devil may care/ cavalier" approach to their products or those produced at Mobberley and its hard earned reputation for quality.

    Based on all I have seen and heard at Mobberley and from other APUGers, Harman and this film's defects would seem to have nothing in common.

    I submit that a "Not Guilty" verdict on Harman's involvement is the only one that can be reached

    pentaxuser
    I couldn't agree more! From seeing the "fungi" pattern with a loupe I'd say it comes from a place where the was high humidity and poor storage. Like, maybe the Orient? I'd guess China, but could be wrong. I don't believe Harman/Ilford would even give this stuff away for fear of liking this junk film with their good name. I really don't have a problem with PhotoWarehouse selling this film, but I do have a problem with them selling a defective product as one that has "NO" defects. That to me is fraud. JohnW

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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