Ultrafine Finesse 100

Ilford, Foma, Kodak, Fuji, Ferrania, and a few other manufacturers make their own black and white stocks, all having a distinct look. Today there is a somewhat large variety of new, expired, and repurposed films available, but having a black and white stock you really know through and through is important. This is something that will not only help you take properly exposed pictures, but assist you in tricky moments. Knowing if you can push or pull, the latitude, and how it handles colors all play into any and all back and white stocks.

Toward the end of last year, when I was nearing the end of another bulk roll, I did some hunting for deals on 100ft black and white stocks. Kentmere 100 and Arista/Foma were my go to for years, shooting through 500 plus feet of the stuff. These stocks have risen in price in recent times, but are still well within an economical price range. However, during a sale, I took a chance on something a little different. I picked up a bulk roll of Finesse 100 and hoped for the best. For clarity, this is by no means sponsored by Ultrafine. Not much is written about this film, which made me apprehensive to even give it a try. I imagine others feel the same.

With not much to go on but a few snippets here and there online, I dove in trying to familiarize myself with the stock. Over the last four months, I have done a thorough test of Ultrafine Finesse 100; getting a feel for the film and really pushing it to the limits. Not only finding where it shines but where it struggles. These images are all shot, developed, and scanned myself. Here are the results.

The First Impression

HC-110 and Kentmere 100 were a golden combination for me, so I thought that would be a good baseline test. I went out and shot a quick test of a few images at the recommended 100 speed. On the Ultrafine website, they have a dilution B time of 6.5 minutes, and I went ahead and developed the roll as stated. The negatives looked good, but once scanned I hated the results.

Super contrast, heavy blacks, and an overall look I really did not like. Grays and mid-tones seemed to be lacking in my shots, with a bit too much grain for 100 speed film. Was it the camera, the film, my development, the subject? I was not sure and it was a not so promising first impression.

My HC-110 was getting low and around this time it was out of stock almost everywhere. People were price gouging the Kodak branded stuff, so I went to find some of the other generic alternatives like Legacy Pro. I needed to pick up a few more chemicals, and while browsing online I ran across another Kodak developer. I feel I know the ins and outs of HC-110 pretty well, and is my standard go to for most films, but heard the praises of Xtol recently and decided to give it a go.

Once again shooting at 100, I put a short roll through a camera I was testing. I chose to develop in stock Xtol and the Ultrafine website suggested a time of 6.5 minutes for it. Once developed I could already tell there was a difference looking at the negatives. This was the baseline I needed. Excellent rendering of the scene, mid tones and separation, with details in the highlights and shadows. Overall I was impressed on what a significant difference you could get out of this film using another developer.

The Exposure Latitude Tests

After a successful second try with Finesse 100, I decided to do a few controlled tests and see how the film handled alternative conditions. Pushing/pulling a film and compensating in development or exposure is possible for most film stocks, but a film’s latitude can be a completely different story. If a meter reading is slightly off, if the shutter speeds are fast or slow, even something as minute as a stepless shutter can make a difference in the final image. In my first test, I decided to set up a scene with a black background and a lamp pointing at the center to gauge how fast light falloff would be. The test was done on a Nikon N8008s with a Nikor AF 50mm f/1.8, developing in Xtol stock at 6.5 minutes (68 degrees Fahrenheit), and shot at an ISO of 100. The shutter speeds started at 1/125th and were adjusted to compensate. All images are scanned on an Epson V550 and unedited besides the occasional hair in the dark portions of an image.

I trust the meter on the N8008s and the initial image was underexposed a bit I would say. Looking at the overexposed photos, plus one to three stops look completely usable. You would most certainly be able to correct these in editing, but as you move higher up the scale, the film starts to blow out the highlights and blur significantly. Similarly, with the underexposed photos, the first three stops could be usable with editing, but quickly falls off after that. A good test, but not a complete one I felt. A real test would be outdoors in full sun.

In a local park, I have taken the same picture a hundred times when testing repaired cameras and lenses, and thought it would be the perfect candidate. I took the Nikon N8008s with a Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/3.5 with all other conditions the same as the previous indoor test. Waiting for a day without a cloud in the sky, I finally had my chance to do an accurate outdoor test. Light conditions remained the same during the test, and I had a bit of camera shake at the lower shutter speeds on the overexposed pictures.

A better looking test, and one that I was happy with. These results correlate perfectly with the indoor test. You can over and under expose about three stops before you start having significant exposure you would be hard pressed to correct. In my opinion, the film looks good at box speed but seems to perform better with slight overexposure. I would recommend to shoot it somewhere between 50 and 100 ISO.

The Push / Pull Tests

I was unimpressed by the initial indoor latitude test, but the outdoor one gave me more hope. Finesse 100 showed it had some flexibility, but struggled a bit with underexposure and handled overexposure well. However, pushing and pulling could be another story. Within the last tests, there was still usable detail within three stops and I decided to check how the film would render if extended that far. Pushing is heavily dependent on the developer, agitation, temperature, light, and well everything really. The more you push, the more accurate the exposure needs to be. I did these tests with a Ricoh FF-90, manually setting the ISO and choosing scenes with mixed lighting.

In the first test, I pushed the film two stops (to ISO 400) and developed in Xtol stock for 15 minutes. These images are all edited, but I did very little adjustment besides removing dust. I was floored at how well this worked, the detail in the brick shows how fine of grain you can get out of this film. Perfect exposure by the Ricoh, but as the pavement moves to shadow at the bottom of the image, you start having light fall off quickly. The same would apply to ISO 200, perfectly usable results and on par with a native 400 speed film.

For the second test I pushed the film three stops (to ISO 800) and had more mixed results. The developing was once again Xtol stock, but for 30 minutes this time. Issues with mixed lighting was very apparent and aggressive at 800. Flat and bright lighting was necessary, having most of the images come out darker than I would have liked. My recommendation would be that the film can be pushed three stops acceptably but expose for the shadows at 800 and above. I tried at 1600 and got muddy and indistinguishable results with Xtol, but it could possibly be done with more testing. Stand developing in HC-110 might help, but I’m not sure you would have much detail to work with.

Pulling is something I do frequently with expired film and occasionally with fresh film. Seeing the results that the film didn’t mind overexposure, I did a test on the fringes of what I thought would be usable. I shot a similar picture to the last, wanting to see if I could render more detail on the grasses. You can pull a film seemingly forever, but you should try to have a reasonable length for development.

A denser negative than at 100, but perfectly usable. The film handles overexposure quite well. The overall stop difference in the usable image must be close to four or five. You can see that the highlights are blown out a bit and the shadows have great detail. Overexposure was similar to the underexposure test, three stops seems to be the limit for a decent looking image. The difference is you are able to scan through all six stops in the latitude test, but it would rarely happen that you would pull this film past three stops anyway. My recommendation is that you can pull Finesse 100 three stops to ISO 12.

The Color Chart Test

Another test I wanted to do was to make sure this film was having a panchromatic response and that the color was being represented distinctly. I found a color checking chart online and printed it, making sure the colors were reproducing well enough. I took one picture of it in even natural light, one in indoor tungsten balanced light, and a color image taken with Kodak 5242 color corrected to what the chart looks like in person.

A way to tell if a film is orthochromatic vs panchromatic is to pay attention to the reds. On the deep red colored square, the natural light is dark and similar to the green square next to it, but in the indoor light, the red is lighter and more distinguished from the green square next to it. What does this mean? If the film was orthochromatic, the reds would render the same as black no matter inside or outside. With most black and white films, the rule of thumb is that there will be a significant separation of blues. If the indoor light is blue in temperature, it will give you more of a separation of all colors and make blues darker. That is exactly what happened here. I have seen a handful of tests online of other black and white films, using other color checkers, and nothing quite matched what I was looking at here. What films got close were primarily Efke 25 and Shanghai GP3, but the rendering of red was the main difference I was seeing. What stock this is is still up in the air, but for the price and quality, I’m happy to leave it be.

The Reciprocity Test

These are straight scans with no edits. Shot while adjusting the aperture to make longer shutter speeds. I started the test at 1/4th of a second, down to 30 seconds with only slight changes between shots. Comparing the first and last shot there is more of a difference, one that led to a thinner looking negative. I would say that it is about a stop underexposed at 30 seconds. This is a tricky test however because when you calculate reciprocity failure, it is not linear. I would recommend that past a second to add a stop of exposure, and after a minute, add two and then start exponentially adding every two or three.

The Verdict

There are other black and white films, with similar but not ‘exact’ responses to colors, that are listed at 100 but are recommended by the community to shoot at 80 or 50. An ISO of 100 is good, but in my tests, 50 seemed to fair a bit better for the shadows. I still need to work with Finesse 100 a fair bit to really know it well, and I want to try a few additional developers with it. D96 is on the short list right now, and caffenol is another I would like to see.

In summary, the film is comparable to Shanghai GP3 but with less grain I would say. The latitude is around two to three stops, and once past that, overexposure blurs out and underexposure falls off dramatically. You can push and pull the film comfortably three stops, but after that you start having scanning issues and loss of detail. The film is panchromatic with decent color separation and the reciprocity is on par with most Ilford and Kodak films. The film has no color to water in a pre wash, and dries beautifully flat regardless of the relative humidity. There are no edge markings and I encountered no quality issues or inconsistencies with the film.

Given the right conditions, Finesse 100 can really shine. I was especially impressed at how well it was pushed to 400 with few issues. The 100 speed version at the moment is slightly less than the available 400 speed. I heard that they have a very different look, and in the future, I plan to see how the 400 speed version fairs. Without a doubt, I will be buying more of this stock in the future. It’s affordable, consistent quality, and produced some exceptional results. I would certainly recommend it, and I hope you found these tests useful.