A lot of people seem to think they are the same, but I'm not sure if it has been confirmed. And those who actually know (i.e. Photo Warehouse) can't or won't say, at least not on a public photo forum. In any case, I used Ultrafine eXtreme 400 for a few years and really grew to love the film, not just for the bargain price. When it became unavailable, I switched to Kentmere 400 based on said rumors. I'm using the same developing times, with the same developer, in the same (internally consistent) workflow. You can compare for yourself, there's a thread here on the forum called Ultrafine Xtreme Black & White Film ISO 400, with many image samples in 135 and 120 format.Q: Is Ultrafine XTreme 400 really same as Kentmere Pan 400??
I got 10 rolls of cheap films UFX400 from Taobao/China (US$4/roll). I test shot a roll and developed it in DD-X (1+9) and got something as attached below (no post editing to sharpen or reduce "noise"). While the grains are bigger than 400TX, I reckon it is still very useable. I read somewhere that UFX400 is actually a repacked version of Ilford Kentmere 400. I check the MDC developing timings for both films and they are indeed similar. Can anyone familiar with these two films comment if they are really the same? (I intend to buy the remaining rolls from the Taobao seller if I know it is Kentmere 400 in disguise. ) TIA.
Leica M6/35mm Summaron f2.8. Ultrafine XTreme 400 film in DD-X (1+9). Coolscan 5000 scanned.
I used to do chemical analyses to show what was what, but this costs and no one is paying anymore. Carefully controlled sensitometry is probably the next best comparison.
@dourbalistar Thanks for the insights. That's what I need to know.
Moms will be moms 🙂 Great image.Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Kentmere Pan 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
2023.04.09 Roll #327-07980-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Thank you, @wlewisiii! Meanwhile, dad over here is just taking photos. 😅
