I shoot a fair amount of Foma 100. I used to shoot the Arista EDU Ultra brand, but now that there is little difference in price, I shoot the Foma branded product. I can afford other films, and right now am shooting bulk rolls of TX400 and TMax 100.
For important images, I would shoot Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji products. On the other hand, I like the grain and spectral response of Foma 100. I find it a fun film to shoot.
If Jennifer Aniston knocks on my door wearing a skimpy bikini, I would grab my F4 and Provia 100F. For routine photo walks, I am much more likely to grab an older camera and Foma. Sometimes the Foma "errors" change the feel of the images. I personally find it gives a nostalgic look not seen with more modern films.
I suspect any difference between Foma and Arista is due to variation between batches. With all the cost savings in Foma's manufacturing process (No DX coding, generic backing paper, etc.), it seems unlikely they would make up special formulation batches for Arista, especially since the Foma brand has never been a big deal in the US.
For important images, I would shoot Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji products. On the other hand, I like the grain and spectral response of Foma 100. I find it a fun film to shoot.
If Jennifer Aniston knocks on my door wearing a skimpy bikini, I would grab my F4 and Provia 100F. For routine photo walks, I am much more likely to grab an older camera and Foma. Sometimes the Foma "errors" change the feel of the images. I personally find it gives a nostalgic look not seen with more modern films.
I suspect any difference between Foma and Arista is due to variation between batches. With all the cost savings in Foma's manufacturing process (No DX coding, generic backing paper, etc.), it seems unlikely they would make up special formulation batches for Arista, especially since the Foma brand has never been a big deal in the US.
