Ultrafine Xtreme Black & White Film ISO 400

dourbalistar said:
Thank you for the kind words, Shab! I really like this film a lot, but I'm afraid it might be discontinued. It has been out of stock for quite a while now... 🙁
Click to expand...


Maybe I'm wrong, but is UFE400 the same as Kentmere400? I ask because Kentmere400 is on stock in Europe. Maybe they aren't the same film?


I think Kentmere400 doens't have an ultra fine grain... it has an strong one, but...
 
Shab said:
Maybe I'm wrong, but is UFE400 the same as Kentmere400? I ask because Kentmere400 is on stock in Europe. Maybe they aren't the same film?

I think Kentmere400 doens't have an ultra fine grain... it has an strong one, but...
Click to expand...

I've also read a lot of rumors that Ultrafine eXtreme 400 might be the same as Kentmere Pan 400. Once I finish this bulk roll of Ultrafine, I have a bulk roll of Kentmere 400 that I plan to load next. So I guess I'll find out for myself how similar they are!

I've seen some very nice images of yours using Kentmere 400, so I hope I'll get some good results too, even if they are not exactly the same. 🙂
 
Nikon FM2n, AI Nikkor 50mm f/1.8S, Ultrafine eXtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes. Three individual black and white frames shot through Tiffen #25 Red, #58 Green, and #47 Blue filters, respectively, then combined using GIMP to create a trichrome color image.


2020.10.13 Roll #261-05344-positive-trichrome.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
 
dourbalistar said:
I've also read a lot of rumors that Ultrafine eXtreme 400 might be the same as Kentmere Pan 400. Once I finish this bulk roll of Ultrafine, I have a bulk roll of Kentmere 400 that I plan to load next. So I guess I'll find out for myself how similar they are!

I've seen some very nice images of yours using Kentmere 400, so I hope I'll get some good results too, even if they are not exactly the same. 🙂
Click to expand...

Hi dourbalistar!

I have been looking for developing times and are differents, so, they aren't the same. I'm sorry.

I hope you will find another solution!
 
Shab said:
Hi dourbalistar!

I have been looking for developing times and are differents, so, they aren't the same. I'm sorry.

I hope you will find another solution!
Click to expand...

Even if they are not exactly the same, Kentmere 400 might be a viable alternative. This review makes some side-by-side comparisons, and the differences between the examples posted are not huge:
https://stephend.photo/kentmere-400-vs-ultrafine-extreme-400-10172019

We might never know for sure who makes Ultrafine eXtreme 400, but this article has some interesting research:
https://digitalfilmnerd.com/2018/01/07/ultrafine-xtreme-400-is-it-ilford/

So all in all, I'm optimistic, but I'll test for myself to see. 🙂
 
Shab said:
Hi dourbalistar!

I have been looking for developing times and are differents, so, they aren't the same. I'm sorry.

I hope you will find another solution!
Click to expand...

Each reseller will give slightly different times, doesn't mean much.
APX400 new, current RPX400, Fotoimpex CHM 400 and much likely Ultrafine Xtreme 400 seem to be either derivates of or exactly the same as Kentmere 400.
Mirko Böddecker, CEO of Adox / Fotoimpex even clearly states this for their CHM 400.

Having shot Kentmere, RPX and APX as my main b&w stock, yes, they all behave pretty much the same. Grain really depends with them on the developer and development, in xtol they show a tight and fine grain for example. Definitely not really more then HP5 or TriX.
 
Filzkoeter said:
Each reseller will give slightly different times, doesn't mean much.
APX400 new, current RPX400, Fotoimpex CHM 400 and much likely Ultrafine Xtreme 400 seem to be either derivates of or exactly the same as Kentmere 400.
Mirko Böddecker, CEO of Adox / Fotoimpex even clearly states this for their CHM 400.

Having shot Kentmere, RPX and APX as my main b&w stock, yes, they all behave pretty much the same. Grain really depends with them on the developer and development, in xtol they show a tight and fine grain for example. Definitely not really more then HP5 or TriX.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
The minor differences some may see are most probably just

a) slight variances in developing parameters temperature, time and agitation (if your temperature is more than +/- 0.5 °Celsius away from your normal you will already see a different result with different density and contrast)

b) simple batch-to-batch variation, as the Kentmeres and its repackaged siblings are lower cost films, which do have bigger production tolerances than the more expensive and higher quality Ilford films.

Cheers, Jan
 
Filzkoeter said:
Each reseller will give slightly different times, doesn't mean much.
APX400 new, current RPX400, Fotoimpex CHM 400 and much likely Ultrafine Xtreme 400 seem to be either derivates of or exactly the same as Kentmere 400.
Mirko Böddecker, CEO of Adox / Fotoimpex even clearly states this for their CHM 400.

Having shot Kentmere, RPX and APX as my main b&w stock, yes, they all behave pretty much the same. Grain really depends with them on the developer and development, in xtol they show a tight and fine grain for example. Definitely not really more then HP5 or TriX.
Click to expand...

HHPhoto said:
Exactly.
The minor differences some may see are most probably just

a) slight variances in developing parameters temperature, time and agitation (if your temperature is more than +/- 0.5 °Celsius away from your normal you will already see a different result with different density and contrast)

b) simple batch-to-batch variation, as the Kentmeres and its repackaged siblings are lower cost films, which do have bigger production tolerances than the more expensive and higher quality Ilford films.

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Filzkoeter and Jan! UFX400 may be low cost, but I don't think it's low quality. What boggles my mind is how cheaply Photo Warehouse used to sell it. You used to be able to get a bulk roll for $39.95 USD. It's now listed at $49.95, but out of stock. I'll admit I first tried it based on price alone, but really came to enjoy the results from the film. If it comes back in stock, I would happily pay more for it.
 
dourbalistar said:
Thanks for the input Filzkoeter and Jan! UFX400 may be low cost, but I don't think it's low quality. What boggles my mind is how cheaply Photo Warehouse used to sell it. You used to be able to get a bulk roll for $39.95 USD. It's now listed at $49.95, but out of stock. I'll admit I first tried it based on price alone, but really came to enjoy the results from the film. If it comes back in stock, I would happily pay more for it.
Click to expand...

I roll the current APX400 from bulk, which you can get in Germany as low as 50€ for 30,5m. Only Foma in bulk is cheaper, but Foma and I don't play along very well 😉
Those films are made by Harman Technology/Ilford, they care about their quality and consistency, even for those cheaper films. Souping it in replenished xtol, which works suprisingly well even for lower volume shooting.
There's nothing low quality about those films and your results in this thread show it 😎

I found this video on youtube by this one guy who tested K400 against tri-x on a print, comparing curves, spectral response, tonality and grain: https://youtu.be/jIiTR2-3qu8
Showing how similar they can be. If all those cheaper Harman made films are K400 or close derivates of, this should hold true for all of them.
 
dourbalistar said:
Leica M5, Canon 50mm f/1.5 LTM, Ultrafine eXtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.


2020.10.06 Roll #259-05413-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Lovely Eucalyptus, shame they are in California.

dourbalistar, it seems extremely likely that eXtreme 400 is/was Kentmere 400, so although you won’t get it for $39.95 for a 100’ roll anymore, you should be able to get it.

Marty
 
Filzkoeter said:
There's nothing low quality about those films and your results in this thread show it 😎
Click to expand...

Kentmere 100 and 400 and all of its numerous repackaged versions under other names are certainly not low quality in absolute terms.
But as I have shot a lot of them in different conditions, I can definitely say that they are lower quality in comparison to its Ilford brothers FP4+ and HP5+.
The visibly worse AHU of the Kentmeres is one characteristic of this lower relative quality, and in comparison to K 100 FP4+ has a bit finer grain and higher resolution, too.
You get what you pay for.

Cheers, Jan
 
Filzkoeter said:
I roll the current APX400 from bulk, which you can get in Germany as low as 50€ for 30,5m. Only Foma in bulk is cheaper, but Foma and I don't play along very well 😉

Those films are made by Harman Technology/Ilford, they care about their quality and consistency, even for those cheaper films. Souping it in replenished xtol, which works suprisingly well even for lower volume shooting. There's nothing low quality about those films and your results in this thread show it 😎

I found this video on youtube by this one guy who tested K400 against tri-x on a print, comparing curves, spectral response, tonality and grain: https://youtu.be/jIiTR2-3qu8
Showing how similar they can be. If all those cheaper Harman made films are K400 or close derivates of, this should hold true for all of them.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Filzkoeter. That video you shared is very interesting! Here in the US, Kentmere 400 seems to be the cheapest and most readily available, compared to APX 400 and RPX 400.

Freakscene said:
Lovely Eucalyptus, shame they are in California.

dourbalistar, it seems extremely likely that eXtreme 400 is/was Kentmere 400, so although you won’t get it for $39.95 for a 100’ roll anymore, you should be able to get it.

Marty
Click to expand...

Yeah, the eucalyptus trees here in California are somewhat controversial, as some consider them to be an invasive species. They are beautiful trees, though. As for UFX 400, I have a few more bulk rolls in the freezer, but I have a roll of Kentmere 400 on my desk that I plan to spool down next. 🙂

HHPhoto said:
Kentmere 100 and 400 and all of its numerous repackaged versions under other names are certainly not low quality in absolute terms.
But as I have shot a lot of them in different conditions, I can definitely say that they are lower quality in comparison to its Ilford brothers FP4+ and HP5+.
The visibly worse AHU of the Kentmeres is one characteristic of this lower relative quality, and in comparison to K 100 FP4+ has a bit finer grain and higher resolution, too.
You get what you pay for.

Cheers, Jan
Click to expand...

This is a personal preference, but in most cases I actually don't mind the lack of AHU. In scenes with non-extreme contrast, I find that the lack of AHU gives highlights a light but pleasing glow. That said, I can see how that kind of halation might not be desirable. The nice thing about B&W is the wide variety of choice, and you can play to each film's strengths and weaknesses depending on your preference. 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Thread viewers

Number of users viewing the thread: 1

Similar threads

FotohuisR
FomaOrtho in 135-36 and 120 roll film
Replies
5
Views
361
FotohuisR
FotohuisR
ChrisPlatt
ISO 400 BW negative film recommendation?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
Andrew Sowerby
Andrew Sowerby
T
Need advice for pull processing of Ultrafine Xtreme 400
Replies
1
Views
648
Uncle Fester
Uncle Fester
analoged
Kodak Tri X 35mm price drop
Replies
16
Views
2K
Mcary
M
kshapero
Ultrafine eXtreme Black & White Film ISO 400 or Arista EDU Ultra 400 ISO
Replies
5
Views
754
kshapero
kshapero
Back
Top Bottom