120 Fomapan 100 vs. Arista EDU 100

[Ohio Sean]

Hi, Guys,

I assume many of us have read where Foma and Arista are essentially the same films, I wonder what peoples' thoughts are as to whether there might be a difference in quality. I have used 120 Fomapan 100 with great success in the past but over the last 2 years all the stock I purchased labeled as Arista is giving me trouble. Post development I have small white spots everywhere with occasional blotchy patches in the lighter toned areas. I assume the blotchiness is everywhere but it is noticeable in skies, water, and the like. I also occasionally have experienced voids in the emulsion where it seems nothing was ever applied to the film during coating. Theses are small 1/4mm areas with a clump of emulsion at one end of the void. I'm asking because I've had good experience with Fomapan but I don't want to start buying film just to wind up with the same results. My question is: could the Arista badged stuff be seconds of what may have otherwise been Fomapan?

I have found technical instructions from Fomapan describing a process to remove the white spots by soaking the film in alcohol, but that's just not feasible. Also, just to cross all my "Ts"...no--I do not have these issues with any other film, and my question pertains solely to 120 format. I develop primarily with Xtol but occasionally HC110--regardless of developer I get the same results. Unfortunately I have several more rolls of this in the fridge!

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've used Ultra 100 and Ultra 400 as my primary B&W films for years; I've used HC-110, Parodinal, and replenished Xtol for the most part. I've never seen problems with them, but I've read about exactly these issues with Foma-branded 120 film. The tiny white spots are said to be specks of antihalation dye that didn't disperse correctly and are either on the base side or under the emulsion, so generally won't affect the image if they can be removed. Mottling on 120 is often a form of wrapper offset, which is made more noticeable when films have been subjected to high humidity or unsealed when still colder than room temperature after freezing/refrigeration.

 

[Auer]

I love Foma films, but man that QC can be all over the place.

For the most part, Foma 120 films are hit and miss in my cameras with Foma 200 in 120 being basically unusable for me.
No such issues in 35mm.

 

[Auer]

Also, I never had any issues With Foma Retropan 320 "soft" in 120. Forgot to mention that.
It's starting to become one of my fav films, especially for my older folders.



City Frame-144 by Eric Auer, on Flickr

 

[Paul Howell]

I use Foma 200 and 400, no issues. I do fairly long soak, 2 minutes then add 30 seconds to the standard times to make up for having water in the emulsion. I have used Artista, with the price difference of .50$ a roll I now buy the Foma version.

 

[Ohio Sean]

Paul--in your experience do you feel the Arista Film is identical to Fomapan? That's really my question. Is there a point to buying Fomapan or can I just expect more of the same? Maybe I just got a bunch of bad Arista labeled film. I LOVE Foma 100 when it's behaving and have had great luck in the past, but finding directions on removing imperfections from the company makes me wonder how QC is going in general.

 

[Wallendo]

My experience is that there is no difference between Foma and Arista EDU Ultra other than the box. They use the same backing paper (which does not specify a brand) in 120 and in 35mm, the film is loaded in cannisters to which a glue-on label is applied. If you are having trouble with a batch of Arista, the corresponding batch of Foma would likely have the same issues.

 

[albireo]

My question is: could the Arista badged stuff be seconds of what may have otherwise been Fomapan?

Yep, could be. Based on what people using Arista often report (not sure if this is always the case, but: blue rather than green anti-halation layer after pouring out developer, black rather than white backing paper) it could be that Arista is in fact old stock Foma. But again there is no official statement in support of this by the producer - just like there is no official statement by Foma that the two are actually the same product (happy to be proven wrong, of course).

As a further note, I'm currently on batch 021256-3 of Foma 100 in 120. Absolutely zero issues - quite beautiful stuff in fact. Which Arista batch are you using? Does the Arista batch numbering follow the Foma batch numbering scheme at all? One problematic Foma 100 120 batch I encountered was 021056-3 FWIW.

 

[MattKing]

It is quite likely that Foma does confectioning of the Arista badged product in a big batch, then switches to confectioning of Foma (or other third party?) badged product, then switches again to confectioning of other badged product, etc., etc.
And it is certainly possible (likely) that they make up emulsion quantities sufficient in size to fulfill those differently badged orders, one at a time.
And it is possible that they order backing paper in quantities sufficient to fill orders on hand, but not more (assuming the orders on hand are big enough).
So it is very possible that Foma badged product and Arista badged product with similar develop before dates could come from different coating times and use different batches of backing paper, all due to vagaries in the manufacturing schedules and supply chain.

 

[markjwyatt]

This is nt authoritative, but the admin of thje FOMA Film Group on Flickr says, "...Please keep the entries to the photo pool from Foma, this can include Kosmo Mono 100 which is of course repackaged Fomapan 100. Same goes for Lomography Lady and Earl Grey films, again repackaged Fomapan 400 and 100 respectively. As for Arista EDU Ultra, while made by Fomapan, aren't quite the same formulations and ther's a great group/community for them too."

https://www.flickr.com/groups/foma/

 

[pentaxuser]

This is nt authoritative, but the admin of thje FOMA Film Group on Flickr says, "...Please keep the entries to the photo pool from Foma, this can include Kosmo Mono 100 which is of course repackaged Fomapan 100. Same goes for Lomography Lady and Earl Grey films, again repackaged Fomapan 400 and 100 respectively. As for Arista EDU Ultra, while made by Fomapan, aren't quite the same formulations and ther's a great group/community for them too."

https://www.flickr.com/groups/foma/

Does the admin( one person or a group of people?) give any reasons why the formulations are slightly different. Matt has given us a theory but this would seem to suggest that while the coating periods are different does this explain why in the OP's case the different periods in time for coating and different backing paper always seem to favour Foma over Arista. You'd expect that over time the "vagaries" in the changes would even themselves out but this appears not to be the case.

It's a puzzle because Arista has been a problem for the last 2 years and in that time I'd have thought that the problems caused by the vagaries mentioned by Matt would have been visited on both Foma and Arista film so that unless the OP has had the bad luck to buy all his Arista film at the wrong time in each case then in that period a lot of others who bought Foma might have experienced the same kind of bad effects mentioned in the opening post

pentaxuser

 

[flavio81]

This is nt authoritative, but the admin of thje FOMA Film Group on Flickr says, "...Please keep the entries to the photo pool from Foma, this can include Kosmo Mono 100 which is of course repackaged Fomapan 100. Same goes for Lomography Lady and Earl Grey films, again repackaged Fomapan 400 and 100 respectively. As for Arista EDU Ultra, while made by Fomapan, aren't quite the same formulations and ther's a great group/community for them too."

https://www.flickr.com/groups/foma/

Ha, ha, ha...

Yet the datasheet for Foma 100 (or 400?) says the film markings will say "ULTRA"... (which is what Arista EDU Ultra film say on the edge markings...)

QED.

Typical community managers that don't know their product in depth...

 

[flavio81]

Does the admin( one person or a group of people?) give any reasons why the formulations are slightly different. Matt has given us a theory but this would seem to suggest that while the coating periods are different does this explain why in the OP's case the different periods in time for coating and different backing paper always seem to favour Foma over Arista. You'd expect that over time the "vagaries" in the changes would even themselves out but this appears not to be the case.

It's a puzzle because Arista has been a problem for the last 2 years and in that time I'd have thought that the problems caused by the vagaries mentioned by Matt would have been visited on both Foma and Arista film so that unless the OP has had the bad luck to buy all his Arista film at the wrong time in each case then in that period a lot of others who bought Foma might have experienced the same kind of bad effects mentioned in the opening post

pentaxuser

Yes, it's highly likely that Foma did the conversion for Arista using certain stock A, and now Foma sells rolls using a newer stock B.

Sounds possible.

And also sounds natural that Foma would like to distnace a bit from Arista, if it's made from some older stock.

 

[Ohio Sean]

Markjwyatt--wow! that's really interesting. I've never seen anyone actually say something like this from such a quasi-authoritative vantage point. While they're just a moderator for the Flickr page, I wonder if they have an in at Foma?

 

[Paul Howell]

I have shot Foma 100, 200 and 400 under what believe to be various brand names over 20 years. There was a switch fom the blue base which was only used on 120, Arista had the same blue base. When Foma changed to clear base Arita changed as well. In practical terms I have never noticed any difference between the versions. As mentioned I do give a longer pre soak, use a diluted stop bath or use running water for stop, after photoflow I hang it to dry. I'm just lucky that I have not had any QC issues. If there are any differences between the Foma branded emulsions and what they package for 3rd party, I have never noticed a difference that a made a difference in the final print. The same augment comes with Ultrafine, who makes it, and if made by Harmon is the the exact same film as Kentmere? I've shot both, cannot tell the difference between them.

 

[pentaxuser]

Yet the datasheet for Foma 100 (or 400?) says the film markings will say "ULTRA"... (which is what Arista EDU Ultra film say on the edge markings...)

View attachment 288097

QED.

Typical community managers that don't know their product in depth...

Yes I must admit this was my feeling. It looks like the admin had either a lack of knowledge or a hidden agenda in declaring the two films to be "slightly different" ( whatever that means)

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Same thing. Based on certain problems characteristic of the 200 speed product, it appears that in cases the initial large volume cut from a master roll gets Arista private labeled for Freestyle, which allows Foma to at least break even on the batch, then the remainder is boxed under the official Foma label at a higher profit margin. Makes sense. Why I suggest this hypothesis is that a few times it appears the Arista lot was cut prematurely, before the emulsion had sufficiently aged or cured, so was more crack-prone than the subsequent Foma cut. There are some old threads discussing that probability.

But go back far enough, and there were other sources for Arista. For example, at one time, the product filling their nominal 100 speed niche was exactly Ilford FP4, no difference at all. Now, Foma seems to be the only primary source for all three nominal speeds of Arista pan film (100,200,400).

 

[Donald Qualls]

But go back far enough, and there were other sources for Arista. For example, at one time, the product filling their nominal 100 speed niche was exactly Ilford FP4, no difference at all. Now, Foma seems to be the only primary source for all three nominal speeds of Arista pan film (100,200,400).

There have been different Arista products, certainly. I still have some Arista .EDU sheet film that was Fortepan (all the .EDU without Ultra was from Forte), as well as those batches of Arista films from Ilford (before their restructure, when they stopped allowing rebadging of their primary products). There might even have been some Efke films that got confectioned as Arista something or other. As far as I'm aware, however, since it first appeared in the early 2000s, .EDU Ultra has always been Fomapan (the Ultra was presumably added to distinguish from the previous .EDU product made by Forte).

I've never used the 200 in either the Foma label or .EDU Ultra, but I've always been happy with my results from the100 and 400, in 35mm, 120, and sheet sizes.

 

[flavio81]

I still have some Arista .EDU sheet film that was Fortepan (all the .EDU without Ultra was from Forte)

Interesting...

So, an "Hungarian" + "Ultra" = "Czech".

 

[Donald Qualls]

So, an "Hungarian" + "Ultra" = "Czech".

More like "Oh, heck, our supplier is going to fold -- where can we get good film, cheap? And how can we make sure users can distinguish them, since they'll have different processing?"

IIRC, Forte (.EDU) had a little more grain than same speed Foma (.EDU Ultra), and even softer emulsion (though not as soft as Efke). Foma's updated their production since then, though, and it seems their reputation for soft emulsion, at least, is no longer as well deserved.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I have used 120 Fomapan 100 with great success in the past but over the last 2 years all the stock I purchased labeled as Arista is giving me trouble. Post development I have small white spots everywhere with occasional blotchy patches in the lighter toned areas.

I started a thread similar to this one a while back based on my frustrations with the Arista line in 120 format. I *adore* ARISTA EDU ULTRA 200, but could rarely find a corner of my negatives that didn't have hundreds of oddly shaped (Harry Potter-like scar) scratches. Based on comments from other users who also experienced this problem but somehow only in the 200 ASA line (always 120...keep in mind) I took the plunge and purchased a few 100 speed rolls...and now instead of the Harry-Potter scratches I have countless white dots like you've explained above. It's frustrating.

I also bought a few 400 speed rolls...maybe those will have metal shavings in the base that will slice your fingers in the changing bag, or perhaps subtle traces of the words "Paul is Dead" from wrapper offset.

So, off to Adorama to buy a few more rolls....maybe this time....

 

[flavio81]

I started a thread similar to this one a while back based on my frustrations with the Arista line in 120 format. I *adore* ARISTA EDU ULTRA 200, but could rarely find a corner of my negatives that didn't have hundreds of oddly shaped (Harry Potter-like scar) scratches. Based on comments from other users who also experienced this problem but somehow only in the 200 ASA line (always 120...keep in mind) I took the plunge and purchased a few 100 speed rolls...and now instead of the Harry-Potter scratches I have countless white dots like you've explained above. It's frustrating.

I also bought a few 400 speed rolls...maybe those will have metal shavings in the base that will slice your fingers in the changing bag, or perhaps subtle traces of the words "Paul is Dead" from wrapper offset.

So, off to Adorama to buy a few more rolls....maybe this time....

There is at least one thread about the issues of Fomapan 200 in 120 format.

But, in short: Since everything points out this is a T-grain emulsion, it seems that T-grain emulsions are prone to be fragile (unless you're Kodak or Fuji and know how to make them resilient). Photo Engineer (Ron), RIP, told us once the T-grain emulsions could be susceptible to breaking under mechanical stress. It seems this is what happens with Fomapan 200 in 120, perhaps in certain cameras where the film has to make sharp turns. The 100 and 400 films have no such issues. Fomapan 200 in 35mm apparently has no such isuse.

Regarding the dots, have you tried using water instead of a stop bath? This is what is often recommended. I think this is even an official recommendation: don't use an acid stop bath.

 

[DREW WILEY]

These are not T-grain emulsions, and don't behave anything like Kodak TMax or Ilford Delta 100, and frankly, are grainy as hell by comparison. The coating process itself seems primitive in comparison to Kodak and Ilford standards. Yes, if you compare Foma 200 to good ole 200 classics like Super-XX or Bergger, 200, the grain of Foma is much finer. But then, it's not even remotely close to the same real world exposure speed, much less development gamma flexibility.
And the quality control issues of cracks and emulsion zits occurred in the flat sheet film versions of Foma/Arista 200 too, where no turns at all are involved. I haven't heard of or encountered the same issues with the 100 and 400 speed products;
but they did seem rather lackluster in comparison to actual TMax equivalents. You get what you pay for. But none of us can afford everything we'd like to have.

 

[flavio81]

These are not T-grain emulsions,

Fomapan 200 has "T-grains"... Not the 100 or 400 fomapans, only the 200.
Closeup of Fomapan 200:

There they are, the T grains. Let me introduce you to the T grains: Drew Wiley, T-grains. T-grains, meet Drew Wiley.

They had a collaboration with Fuji. It used to be called "Fomapan T200", it seems that wasn't very creative of them, so then they renamed it to "Creative 200".

Source of the image: https://www.flickr.com/groups/86738082@N00/discuss/72157600068522209/

These are not T-grain emulsions, and don't behave anything like Kodak TMax or Ilford Delta 100, and frankly, are grainy as hell by comparison

Why should they behave equally? Panatomic-X, Fomapan 100, and HP5 are all cubic emulsion and don't behave the same, at all. The character of the film doesn't just depend on the tshape of the grain, it depends on many more things like which sensitisers were used, what is the antihalation technology, how many layers there are and how thick are they, etc.

As for the grain, according to the Foma datasheets, which are very detailed, Foma 200 is just slightly grainier (RMS granularity) than 100, while having twice the speed (circa ISO 160-125 compared to ca. ISO 80-64).

Sounds like some technology was used to increase speed without a grain penalty...

 

[Dusty Negative]

Regarding the dots, have you tried using water instead of a stop bath? This is what is often recommended. I think this is even an official recommendation: don't use an acid stop bath.

Yep. Through a fluke (general confusion when I started learning film photography) I never use a stop bath...just water.

Now, one thing I *haven't* tried is an extended pre-wash. I typically only fill/pour 2 tanks in fairly quick succession. I'll load the other roll of 100 and try 4-5 rounds of pre-wash.