120 Fomapan 100 vs. Arista EDU 100

[Paul Howell]

Foma at one time made a T800 as well, been off the market for quite a while. I seem to recall that Kodak pressured Foma to remain T200 to Creative calming that T was a protected trade mark.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, Kodak still holds the T-grain flag. But once the cat was out of the bag, certain copycat workarounds were inevitagble. Ilford Delta 100 is analogous, but not exactly the same thing. All that I was implying is that Foma/Classic/Arista 200, variously labeled, is neither a true 200 speed film nor at all similar to either speed of TMax. Even TMax 400 has higher acutance and finer grain. Foma 200 does offer an extremely long exposure scale, a straight line even longer than that of TMax, digging way down into the shadows. But it's lack of development flexibility plus abominable long exposure characteristics spoiled its appeal to many of us. Super fine grain is a non-issue with large format photography anyway, especially 8x10, which is the format I tried it in twice.

 

[flavio81]

But it's lack of development flexibility plus abominable long exposure characteristics spoiled its appeal to many of us. .

What do you mean with "lack of development flexibility"? I see people using it with success with as diverse developers such as Xtol (ascorbate), Rodinal, and the classic D76 (methol-hydroquinone) and variants.

Super fine grain is a non-issue with large format photography anyway, especially 8x10, which is the format I tried it in twice.

Yes, I agree. Moreover it seems that the younger generation prefers grain to be very visible, since it's a way to prove the image was done on film...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sure, it's amenable to all kinds of different developers, but has none of the wide range of gamma potential which was prized by former users of Super-XX and even, somewhat less, of Bergger (Lotus) 200. The Foma product was first marketed here under the Classic 200 label, and it was anything but a replication of those classic 200 films which contact printers in particular prized; they cursed the stuff. I recall what the late Michael Smith once said to me about it, which I can't even repeat here. He stockpiled as much real Super XX as he could.

And I loved what Bergger 200 did for my 8x10 enlargements, though I didn't like it in anything smaller than 8x10 film format due to the graininess. You also have to remember that real deal old Super XX was a true thick emulsion film, and talk about development flexibility! - even water bath. Foma "200" is a thin emulsion film, but so are all the others today. HP5 + still has a bit thicker emulsion than average these days.

I have no ideological problem with visible grain. I just don't generally like it in my own large or medium format work. When it comes to my alter-ego 35mm work, which I print small and poetically instead, I often do like the distinct presence of grain. And of course, I love the traditional look of gritty old Tri-X when it was in the hands of the great photojournalists and documentarians of yore; I'm just not one of them. I admire all kinds of genres that I don't personally engage in.

 

[Agulliver]

Can you trademark a single letter? I know you cannot in the UK or EU but perhaps in the USA.

Foma stopped the T800 because they could no longer get hold of certain chemicals needed to manufacture it. Fomapan 100 and 400 are certainly fairly traditional cubic grain films. Fomapan 200 is possibly something of a hybrid but does contain tabular grain.

I've used Fomapan 100 and Arista 100 in bulk rolls, and find no practical difference. With 120 film, it is interesting that both are signed "Ultra" but maybe Foma just don't care to alter the edge markings between runs, or use half a run for Arista? Curious about the Flickr situation where it was acknowledged that Kosmo and Lomography films are exactly the same, and claimed that Arista are not.

With Fomapan 200 I haven't tried much 120 yet. I like it in 135 and tend to buy 50 foot rolls as it's not a "go to" but a secondary choice I like to have. Oddly I find the 50 foot roll almost as wide in diameter as the 100 foot, and seems to drag in my Lloyds and Watson type loaders. Anyone else had this?

 

[albireo]

Before this interesting thread was derailed by the usual Foma bashers, a few interesting points were being made regarding the original question posted by OP, which by the way had nothing whatsoever to do with Tmax 100 and whether Foma 200 is grainy or not (hint: it's close to grainless already in 120 when exposed and developed strictly according to the manufacturer's recommendations, in my own experience of 50/100 120 rolls per year).

So back to Foma 100 vs Arista 100 and whether the circulating rolls are from identical material or whether, rather, Arista might be cut from older Foma stock or from Foma seconds.

Does anyone have access to a large scale supplier which stocks both Arista 100 and Foma 100 and has decent turnaround? Would it be possible to know if any of the following is happening (perhaps a good way of doing this would be via random sampling through a few separate orders of paired rolls):

1. Both boxes show a batch number, and this is the same for Arista 100 and Foma 100
2. Arista 100 has a batch number in the same format as Foma's - though it refers to older Foma batches
3. Arista 100 does not have a batch number engraved on the box or anywhere else
4. Arista 100 has a batch number in a different format than Foma.

So then: if (1.) is true, this would suggest it's likely that currently circulating products are identical. (2.) Circulating Arista 100 is older Foma stock (3. or 4.) we are none the wiser.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Can you trademark a single letter?

No, not in the US, either. What you can do, however, is threaten a costly court battle from a (then) deep-pockets giant that will sink a relatively small company, even if they win (assuming they can even stay in the fight that long). It's the American way: big bully steals the small, weak kid's lunch money. There's a good reason almost all trademark actions are settled out of court: because if it goes to trial, only the lawyers win.

 

[Donald Qualls]

a large scale supplier which stocks both Arista 100 and Foma 100

B&H would surely fit this description -- I fairly recently found them selling fresh (date was about 20 months out when I got the box) .EDU Ultra 100 in 35mm bulk roll for a couple dollars less than brand owner Freestyle -- and just enough to get free shipping, meaning I saved almost 20% over getting it from the people who import it.

They sell all the Foma 120 stocks, AFAIK, as well as the matching .EDU Ultra films, and they certainly turn over significant volume.

 

[Auer]

About Foma and stop baths..I seem to recall that the deal was not to use Citric Acid but rather Acetic.

I had no issues using Acetic with Foma 120 films.

 

[Donald Qualls]

From my recollection, one should avoid acid stop bath with any carbonate alkali developer (Dektol, Caffenol, etc.) because gas produced inside the emulsion can cause pinholes, and it doesn't matter what acid you use -- and this is more of a problem the softer the gelatin is. Generally all films other than Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have "softer" gelatin.

 

[flavio81]

Foma at one time made a T800 as well, been off the market for quite a while. I seem to recall that Kodak pressured Foma to remain T200 to Creative calming that T was a protected trade mark.

Some people believe "Retropan 320" is T800 in disguise... and i'm starting to suspect that...

 

[flavio81]

Before this interesting thread was derailed by the usual Foma bashers, a few interesting points were being made regarding the original question posted by OP, which by the way had nothing whatsoever to do with Tmax 100 and whether Foma 200 is grainy or not (hint: it's close to grainless already in 120 when exposed and developed strictly according to the manufacturer's recommendations, in my own experience of 50/100 120 rolls per year).

Have you experienced the problem where thin black lines (when looking at a positive) appear through the image? Which is what many 120 Fomapan 200 users report.

 

[flavio81]

From my recollection, one should avoid acid stop bath with any carbonate alkali developer (Dektol, Caffenol, etc.) because gas produced inside the emulsion can cause pinholes, and it doesn't matter what acid you use -- and this is more of a problem the softer the gelatin is. Generally all films other than Kodak, Fuji, and Ilford have "softer" gelatin.

Hi Donald, i'm asking for your knowledge here -- i thought most developers were alkaline. D76 is pH 8.3-8.8 (there doesn't seem to be an agreement). This is mildly alkaline. Would this be ok?

Foma has this "Universal" developer, a PQ developer containing a lot of sodium carbonate (it also serves as a paper developer). Yet the little box includes development time for Fomapan 100, 200, and 400.

EDIT: Misread your post. Now I understand the problem is with the stop bath. Thanks.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It's not the alkalinity of the developer -- all organic developers must be alkaline to work, with the sole (AFAIK) exception of amidol. The alkali used varies, however; D-76 uses borax, D-23 uses only the sodium sulfite that also acts as preservative and grain softener, Rodinal and its derivatives use sodium or potassium hydroxide. Of that lot, only carbonates and bicarbonates produce volumes of carbon dioxide when they neutralize with an acid.

Carbonate developers work fine on Foma films -- I've used Caffenol, for instance, and Dektol at least once -- but where you get (this kind of) pinholes is if you follow a carbonate or bicarbonate developer with an acid stop bath.

 

[flavio81]

It's not the alkalinity of the developer -- all organic developers must be alkaline to work, with the sole (AFAIK) exception of amidol. The alkali used varies, however; D-76 uses borax, D-23 uses only the sodium sulfite that also acts as preservative and grain softener, Rodinal and its derivatives use sodium or potassium hydroxide. Of that lot, only carbonates and bicarbonates produce volumes of carbon dioxide when they neutralize with an acid.

Carbonate developers work fine on Foma films -- I've used Caffenol, for instance, and Dektol at least once -- but where you get (this kind of) pinholes is if you follow a carbonate or bicarbonate developer with an acid stop bath.

Thanks for this explanation!

 

[Agulliver]

Some people believe "Retropan 320" is T800 in disguise... and i'm starting to suspect that...

Having used both I suggest these people are wrong.

As I recall the "logic" was that a poster believed Foma don't have the resources to develop a new product so must have used an old stash of T800 they had lying around and rated it at 320 because T800 was "really" 640. They confidently predicted that supplies of Retropan 320 would run out fast because it was not new production but stashed away in a fridge they'd forgotten about.

Years on, Retropan 320 is still with us.

Foma didn't stop making T800 because of the name, they could always have renamed it if Kodak put pressure on them (which seems plausible). They reformulated all their films around the same time due to difficulty sourcing some "ingredients" and one of those ingredients....and could no longer make T800. A shame. I liked it. But it bears zero relation to Retropan 320 save that both are B&W films.

 

[flavio81]

Having used both I suggest these people are wrong.

As I recall the "logic" was that a poster believed Foma don't have the resources to develop a new product so must have used an old stash of T800 they had lying around and rated it at 320 because T800 was "really" 640. .

Any high-iso (i.e. "800") film, when pulled, will give low contrast, that is soft contrast with soft gradations. Even more if you ask people to use a special developer that no doubt will contribute to that. That's one of the reasons to suspect there is some relationship between R320 and T800. If T800 was intended to be used at 800, whatever the real ISO was, then definitely will be low in contrast at EI 320.

The other reason might be the grain size, it looks somewhat similar.

Maybe they're not the EXACT same film but I suspect a strong relationship there...

They confidently predicted that supplies of Retropan 320 would run out fast because it was not new production but stashed away in a fridge they'd forgotten about.
Years on, Retropan 320 is still with us.

But this is meaningless. Do you know the size of master rolls? They're huge, and Retropan320 (unlike Foma 100/400) isn't a high demand product but a specialist film. A few master rolls and you have years. Case in point: Agfa Aviphot stuff -- they aren't manufactured anymore (AFAIK), yet there's enough stock to keep selling and selling.

Foma didn't stop making T800 because of the name, they could always have renamed it if Kodak put pressure on them (which seems plausible). They reformulated all their films around the same time due to difficulty sourcing some "ingredients" and one of those ingredients....and could no longer make T800.

But here I don't think things are black-and-white (pun unintended):

- Given the suspected base speed and grain, i would definitely suspect the formulas for T800 and R320 share similarities. I.e. same sensitizers, or most of the same sensitizers, etc.
- Marketing reasons. Probably T800 wasn't in big demand, probably sold worse than the competition (Delta 3200, TMZ, Neopan 1600) and/or didn't give the margin they wanted.

Enter a marketing stroke of czech genius: Sell a "soft" film that is intended for a "retro" look. Give it a cool name -- "Retropan". Now you have invented a niche that doesn't exist -- NOBODY is selling such a film in the market. And you already know how to make it -- you already had an ISO 640 film recipe -- reuse it, partly or fully, whatever makes sense to the factory.

Market it as "T800" and people will compare it to Delta 3200/TMZ and say "this sucks! don't use it!". Market it as "retropan" for that "retro look" and people will approach it in a different way, perhaps even rave about it. Marketing. The reason Rollei sells the same Aviphot film under two or three different names...

Sadly there are no photomicrophotographies of the grain; but i've seen yesterday a pic of R320 intentionally pushed to give tons of grain, and it looked identical to the grain I got once when I pushed TMAX 400 to 1600 in a bad way (overcooking it.). Only a powerful microscope will tell -- i woulndn't be too surprised if the "RETRO" thing contained T-grains...

 

[MattKing]

No, not in the US, either. What you can do, however, is threaten a costly court battle from a (then) deep-pockets giant that will sink a relatively small company, even if they win (assuming they can even stay in the fight that long). It's the American way: big bully steals the small, weak kid's lunch money. There's a good reason almost all trademark actions are settled out of court: because if it goes to trial, only the lawyers win.

Well you may not be able to trademark a single letter, that doesn't mean you can't maintain a passing-off action.
Otherwise there would have been an Olympus M series.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well you may not be able to trademark a single letter, that doesn't mean you can't maintain a passing-off action.
Otherwise there would have been an Olympus M series.

Olympus themselves very likely wanted to avoid "consumer confusion" -- just "M-1" coming up in conversation when the OM-1 was in development would surely have said "Leica" to many photographers. Further, "M-1" is amenable to trademark, as long as the marketing makes it clear you're not selling a rifle or other military hardware. But with Olympus and Leitz pursuing very different markets to begin with, there was nothing to be gained by trying to push the boundary.

 

[Henning Serger]

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/

As for Kosmo being Fomapan 100, and Lomography Earl Grey and Lady Grey also being the Fomapan films of the equivalent film speed: Yes, all correct, as tested by lots of different very experienced photographers.
And concerning the comment of the group admin:
Arista EDU Ultra is also Fomapan, but it is definitely possible that he (or someone else) had tested both in direct comparison and got a bit different results. But that is not because they have principally different emulsions, but it could be due to the fact that the batch-to-batch variations at Foma can be quite significant. For both film and paper. The production technology Foma is using is on a much lower technology level compared to Ilford, Kodak, Fujifilm, Agfa, InovisCoat, ADOX.
Big film distributors have the highest reclamation / customer complaint rates with Foma, compared to the other big(ger) film and paper manufacturers.
I know from professional master printers that they first do tests of Foma paper batches before they order bigger quantities. And then they order bigger quantaties from the same batch only when the batch works as intended for them.
Just recently I talked to the chief chemist of a bigger photo chemistry manufacturer: They of course do tests for QC when they have produced a new chemistry batch. They develop films in the new batch and do their sensitometric tests.
So that is quite a lot of film testing and film material consumption over the year, producing costs. So the idea was to reduce these costs by using Fomapan film for QC tests. It was not possible: Because the variation in density already on one (!!!) film (not even batches) was so big that it does not work at all for proper QC tests.

We have to look at Foma in a realistic way. Otherwise dissappointment is unavoidable. Foma fills a certain niche in the market. They are (mostly) cheaper than the competition.
But you get what you pay for. For the lower price you just have to made compromises in quality. Period.
If you can accept that - fine. Then Foma is right for you.
If not, you will be more satiesfied with products from the competition.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

For one thing, Arista is the house brand of Freestyle Photographic in Los Angeles, their own label. So where do you think you'd find the most inventory of it? B&H themselves would have to secure it from THEM.

As far as T-grain is involved, just mimicking something doesn't mean it performs identically, or is the exactly the same thing at all. It might be similar in certain respects; but Kodak beat everyone to the punch with their own specific version, to which alone their patented nomenclature rightfully applies. Hundreds of places right around this area know how to make ice cream; but that doesn't mean all the flavors are the same. And Fenton's Ice Cream shop can't set up a sign which states "31 Flavors" like Baskin-Robbins does. Even if they could, the flavors and specific ingredients would differ somewhat anyway.

And as far as that "Foma basher" comment goes, sounds more like someone trying to bash those who were victims of substandard product, which isn't our fault ! I welcome such a one to go back to where I was hauling an 8x10 camera and big wooden Ries tripod up a steep mountainside to almost 11,000 feet for sake of a mere two seconds of cloud alignment over a high pinnacle, and then end up with zitty craters on the film! Willing to take that challenge and then start your juvenile name-calling afterwards? I doubt it. And that wasn't the first incident. I had visible flaws on nearly 50% of the film from that particular box.

 

[Paul Howell]

I shoot Foma as my day to day walk around film, the local zoo, Desert Botanical Garden, old town Scottsdale, a few day trips, I also have Ultrafine Finesse 100 and 400 for same reason. When traveling or shooting something that is a one off that I will never shoot again, Tmax 400 and 100. Expect 4X5, too expensive, shoot HP5 and Foma 400, but if I was going out of the country to shoot 4X5 I would take Tmax 400.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Good strategy, Paul. It's certainly fun to shoot with different films, and even to experiment with new ones. But when you can't afford to lose the content, or can't realistically repeat the same scene again, that's a whole different story.

 

[Pioneer]

I like Foma/AEU film and I use a LOT of it. The price is definitely right and as long as I'm careful I get my money's worth. Along with AEU400 I use TMX100, HP5+ and D3200. I have to save my pennies to put in any orders for Ilford or Kodak because they are usually large bulk buys and can run into lots of money. That really isn't anything new, I have always done this. My Ilford purchases are almost always done at the time of their ULF Film Sale.

I typically buy bulk rolls of AEU400 35mm film 10 rolls at a time. I also buy fairly large lots of AEU400 in 120 roll film as well. With both 35mm and 120 I shoot two or three rolls right away. If I see any problems I immediately contact Freestyle and request that they exchange with a different batch #. So far I have only had to do this once but they did do it.

Like Paul, if I am going somewhere that I wouldn't be likely to return to anytime soon I use something besides AEU film. On a recent trip to the Snake Mountains during a friend's elk hunt I used Fuji C200 color film and Kodak Plus X 125. I haven't finished printing everything but I am pretty happy with the negatives. Additionally I don't usually leave rolls of AEU lying around but develop them right away. That way I know pretty quickly if there is going to be a problem.

To be fair though, my recent 10 bulk rolls of AEU400 (which all came from the same batch) have not seen any problems in the last three years. Ninety five percent of my development is done with D-23 or Parodinal using a dilute vinegar solution as a stop bath and Photo Formulary TF-5 to fix.

I have used Arista EDU Ultra in large format in the past but the great majority is purchased during Ilford's annual ULF sale. I made a huge bulk purchase of HP5+ 4x5 and 11x14 that I am still using up.

My favorite large format is 8x10 because I love the view in that large 8x10 ground glass. In this format I am currently shooting paper negatives using Arista Premium Ultra VC RC. So far I haven't had any problems with this paper and by now I doubt that I will. I bought eight 250 sheet boxes of this a few years ago and haven't used it up yet. It take awhile to shoot that many paper negatives. D72 is my developer for this paper and it works well.

 

[Paul Howell]

Good strategy, Paul. It's certainly fun to shoot with different films, and even to experiment with new ones. But when you can't afford to lose the content, or can't realistically repeat the same scene again, that's a whole different story.

I agree, in my case I walk at the Zoo and Botinical Garden 3 to 4 times a week, having a walk around film works for me, then there is always Tmax.