Arista 200..................puzzled, but not shocked!

[JW PHOTO]

I received my 10 rolls of Arista 200 120 film from Freestyle Friday and ran it through a 3.5f Rollei I just got. I wanted to test the camera and the film since I had used neither before. The camera went off without a hitch, but the film seems to be a little different. I used FX37 a developer that I have used and liked with TMY2 and it also wasn't bad for Arista 100. With TMY2 and even TMX 100 I get very close to box speed and could actually use box speed with no problem, but I do like a little more shadow detail and run them at 1/3 to 1/2 stop less ISO. FX37 seems to give good speed, but with this Arista 200 I can see I'm closer to ISO 100 or ISO 125 at the most. I just hung the negatives to dry and will check them on the densitometer tomorrow evening, but my eyes say around ISO 100 even with FX37. Two things I do like about it is the pretty emerald green water/developer on the dump and that it doesn't seem to curl as bad as what some folks had claimed. I got 9 more rolls to get this dialed in and will save my final judgment when they are gone. Even if I can only get and EI of 100 I'd still be happy if its image quality is up to snuff. If not, then it's Acros or Delta. I like FP4+ and TMX100, but prefer Delta and Acros myself. Can't argue about the price that's for sure! Is anybody getting close to box speed with Arista 200? JohnW

 

[Roger Cole]

It's Foma. I've not used the 200 (yet, I have an unopened box of the 4x5 sheet film) which is said to be rather different than the 100 and 400 but the latter two emulsions seem to be rated by most people at about half box speed. I rate the 400 at 200.

 

[JW PHOTO]

It's Foma. I've not used the 200 (yet, I have an unopened box of the 4x5 sheet film) which is said to be rather different than the 100 and 400 but the latter two emulsions seem to be rated by most people at about half box speed. I rate the 400 at 200.

Roger,
I had to down-rate the Arista 100 also. I did know it was Foma, but had heard/read that the ISO 200 was a different animal compared to the 100 and 400 Foma films. From what I see and what I saw coming out of the tank it is definitely not the same as Foma 100. I do like the Arista 100, but the emulsion side of the film seems pretty soft to me. I will know more tomorrow. JohnW

 

[Fixcinater]

I have this in 35mm. I rate at half, and grain still seems quite large compared to even old Tri-X and TMax 400.

 

[JW PHOTO]

I have this in 35mm. I rate at half, and grain still seems quite large compared to even old Tri-X and TMax 400.

I agree on the grain part. At least it is in FX37, but FX37 isn't a solvent type developer anyway. I did check the negative with a loupe this morning and grain is there, but the pattern does seem tight and not clumped up. At least I now have what I need for FX37 in the way of ISO rating and my development time of 6 min/21C in a dil. of 1:5 seemed to be close to spot-on. Now, I'm going to try one of my favorite developers, Perceptol 1:3, with it and see what I have for speed and grain. If I can get close to ISO 100 and have image quality like Perceptol usually gives me, I'll stick with that. I did a search on developers for Foma 200 and it sure seems like Rodinal or one of it's clones is the number one favorite. I have some Rodinal (ancient) and might just try that after I have the Perceptol dialed in. I do think this looks like a very good film for the money, but the proof is in the printing and I won't know that for a while. JohnW

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I like the pictures I've gotten from Foma 200. It doesn't give the sharpest results, resolution is pretty low, grain is pretty big, but what's not to like about that?! Its tonality (by far the most important factor of a film) is just wonderful. I've used it with replenished Xtol and gotten really wonderful prints from it.

Just don't expect to rate it at 200, more like EI 125 or so, and don't be surprised if you run into quality issues. Foma does a really nice job with their films, but they have had some problems over the last few years (particularly 120 film), which should not be ignored when choosing a film.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've use Fomapan 100 & 200 and find both have good fine grain processed in Pyrocat HD. The emulsion is slightly softer than Ilford & Kodak films but nothing like as soft as the EFKE emulsions. It's important to keep tight control of the temperatures of the complete process cycle this makes a big difference to finally quality.

Ian

 

[JW PHOTO]

I like the pictures I've gotten from Foma 200. It doesn't give the sharpest results, resolution is pretty low, grain is pretty big, but what's not to like about that?! Its tonality (by far the most important factor of a film) is just wonderful. I've used it with replenished Xtol and gotten really wonderful prints from it.

Just don't expect to rate it at 200, more like EI 125 or so, and don't be surprised if you run into quality issues. Foma does a really nice job with their films, but they have had some problems over the last few years (particularly 120 film), which should not be ignored when choosing a film.

Thomas,
On my EI test roll I ran a few frames of general scenic shots metered at ISO 100 and the tonality of those negatives look very nice. I probably won't print or scan them since they have no value, but the negatives do look nice. Now that I know the Rollei 3.5f functions properly I'll load another roll for the Perceptol 1:3 run, but this time I'll take a few more meaningful shots to scan. Also, I'm not complaining about the grain I saw from using FX37 as it seemed to be "crisp" and not clumped up at all. I don't have any Xtol on hand at the moment, but from my experience with it I would say it should work nicely with this film. JohnW

 

[JW PHOTO]

I've use Fomapan 100 & 200 and find both have good fine grain processed in Pyrocat HD. The emulsion is slightly softer than Ilford & Kodak films but nothing like as soft as the EFKE emulsions. It's important to keep tight control of the temperatures of the complete process cycle this makes a big difference to finally quality.

Ian

Ian,
I have Pyrocat-HD and the MC version made up and will eventually try the MC version, but wanted to try Perceptol and FX37 for a starter since I already know that Pyrocat-MC well more likely fit the film like a glove. JohnW

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Thomas,
On my EI test roll I ran a few frames of general scenic shots metered at ISO 100 and the tonality of those negatives look very nice. I probably won't print or scan them since they have no value, but the negatives do look nice. Now that I know the Rollei 3.5f functions properly I'll load another roll for the Perceptol 1:3 run, but this time I'll take a few more meaningful shots to scan. Also, I'm not complaining about the grain I saw from using FX37 as it seemed to be "crisp" and not clumped up at all. I don't have any Xtol on hand at the moment, but from my experience with it I would say it should work nicely with this film. JohnW

FX-37 is beautiful, for sure. I ended up with some mixed stock solution thanks to a friend a while back, and really enjoyed the grain. Beautiful stuff. I'm too lazy to use home mixed developers, though, and end up depending on commercially packaged developers. Currently it's all about using my five year old batch of replenished Xtol. It's what I'm used to and it works really well with all films I throw at it. I remember using Foma with Pyrocat-MC, which was a great combination as Ian suggests. Superb print quality.

Have fun experimenting.