Ultrafine Xtreme Black & White Film ISO 400

This may not be the best example, but it is some Ultrafine Extreme 400 35mm shot this month.

I exposed it at box speed a couple of weeks ago in the Leica III using my trusty Elmar 50. It is developed in Rodinal 1+25 for 7 minutes and 30 seconds at 68F. It was agitated continuously for the 1st minute then 4 agitations per minute after.

Obscura-against-Butte.jpg


I have not used it a lot and am still not totally happy with the results. Either the Rodinal is creating too much grain in the film or the scanner is creating too much noise when I scan. However this will probably improve once I discover the right exposure/development/scanning process to get the best out of this film.

Exposure/development and scanning issues aside, the biggest problem with this film is scratches. The emulsion, or perhaps the film base, seems very sensitive and no matter which camera I have tried so far I am getting serious scratching. It could also be coming from the developing reel I am using so I' try changing that next time I use it. If you use it you will want to be very gentle.
 
The Ultrafine Xtreme 400 data sheet says development time for HC-110 Dilution B is 5 minutes @ 68°.
5 minutes doesn't give much room for error so I'd probably opt for Dilution H. Has anyone tried this?

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
The Ultrafine Xtreme 400 data sheet says development time for HC-110 Dilution B is 5 minutes @ 68°.
5 minutes doesn't give much room for error so I'd probably opt for Dilution H. Has anyone tried this?

Chris
Click to expand...

I have a roll in my Spottie right now. As soon as I finish it I'll give some dilution H a try.
 
If anybody is looking to stock up, Photo Warehouse is having a Black Friday/Cyber Monday holiday promo:

Ends MONDAY the 26th @ 12 PM (PST) Midnight
10% OFF EVERYTHING IN THE STORE
Enter Coupon Code TENOFF at checkout

Not a huge discount, but not nothing either.
 
I just developed a roll using HC-110 dilution h. Since I use continual agitation I reduced the 10 minute development to 8.5 minutes at 20C. The negatives seem to look OK but I'll scan and post a few once things dry.
Curious that the Massive Development chart doesn't show this time for UFX400?
 
Ultrafine Xtreme 400 - HC-110 Dilution H

Ultrafine Xtreme 400 - HC-110 Dilution H

Exposed at box speed using Pentax Spotmatic ES II and Takumar 24mm/3.5 lens.

Developed in HC-110 1+63 (Dilution H) for 8 minutes and 30 seconds at 20C. Used continuous agitation in Jobo tank. (The development time was reduced 15% from 10 minutes to account for the continuous agitation.) (Photo Warehouse recommends 5 minutes using dilution B.)

These examples were scanned with Plustek Optic-Film 7600i using Silverfast software. Used USM and SRDX dust reduction. Reduced to web size using Photoshop with some very minor cropping and a bit of additional dust spotting.
UFX-Interior-Hi-Contrast.jpg


UFX-Interior-Lo-Contrast.jpg


UFX-Landscape.jpg


Observations - Emulsion seems to be more susceptible to scratching compared to other films currently used such as Fomapan 400 and Ilford HP5+.

The film curls lengthwise quite substantially making it difficult to place in scanning holder but I doubt that this is caused by the developer.

Conclusion - I was actually pretty happy with the results using HC-110 and feel that this is a very good option for anyone working with Ultrafine Extreme 400. Resolution was good considering that the Takumar 24mm f3.5 lens used for these examples is not considered an extremely sharp lens.
 
The scans of the 35mm negatives look a little grainy. Were they exposed at EI 400?
If so I'd probably overexpose and underdevelop a little; it might yield an improvement.

I see neither Ultrafine nor Digitaltruth publish a time for Xtreme 400 in HC110 Dilution H.
Either it is not recommended or (more likely) a little experimentation will be required.

Chris
 
ChrisPlatt said:
The scans of the 35mm negatives look a little grainy. Were they exposed at EI 400?
If so I'd probably overexpose and underdevelop a little; it might yield an improvement.

I see neither Ultrafine nor Digitaltruth publish a time for Xtreme 400 in HC110 Dilution H.
Either it is not recommended or (more likely) a little experimentation will be required.

Chris
Click to expand...

As noted, the film was exposed at box speed (ISO 400).

I'm not sure about the grain that everyone seems to notice in my scans. I think that the grain may be coming from the scanner more than the film itself. I don't mind a little grain so it normally doesn't bother me. If it is too bad I run it through DeNoiz but with this type of work I rarely do that.

I usually scan all my 35mm film on my Optic Film 7600i but I will try re-scanning these negatives on my Epson V500 to see if there is any difference between the grain that shows up on the scans. I already know that the detail I get from 35mm negatives scanned on the little Plustek scanner is better then what I get from the Epson.

Once I get my darkroom set up again I will try printing a few of these as well to see how much (or how little) grain the prints themselves show.

However, I will certainly try some Ultrafine Xtreme 400 at EI 200 and under develop a bit. Perhaps 20% less time then the 10 minutes which would be recommended for dilution H.

EDIT - This may not happen for a couple days as I have domestic duties that are taking priority right now.
 
Perhaps it's my way of metering/shooting/developing, but I think this film is not particularly well suited for high contrast, backlit scenes like this one. Anybody else find this to be the case?

Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 90mm f/2.8 LS, Ultrafine Xtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.


2018.09.01 Roll #178-02813-Pano-positive.jpg by dourbalistar, on Flickr
 
Leica M-A; 90/2.8 Elmarit; Ultrafine Xtreme 400; EI-200; lo contrast lighting. Develop in HC-110 1+63; Continuous agitation for 8.5m. Scan with Plustek OpticFilm 7600i. Resized for web in Photoshop CS6. Contrast adjustment by black point selection. No noise control, no sharpening.
UFXEI200-Angel-and-Globe.jpg


UFXEI200-Flowers.jpg


UFXEI200-Santa.jpg
 
Yes I agree with you. I cannot get the grains down though. Sometimes I feel the anti-halation is not enough.
8' 1:31 HC110 68F. Rollei 35S.
dourbalistar said:
Perhaps it's my way of metering/shooting/developing, but I think this film is not particularly well suited for high contrast, backlit scenes like this one. Anybody else find this to be the case?
Pentax 6x7, S-M-C Takumar 6x7 90mm f/2.8 LS, Ultrafine Xtreme 400, developed in LegacyPro L110 at 1:31 for 5.5 minutes.
Click to expand...

47822478181_ea01a6257b_b.jpg


47822478191_b099efa777_b.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

FotohuisR
FomaOrtho in 135-36 and 120 roll film
Replies
5
Views
362
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
651
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
757
kshapero
kshapero
Back
Top Bottom