Arista EDU 400 ultra trial

[kevin klein]

Having purchased a box of this 4x5 film I went out and made two exposures today and just finished developing them in HC-110 dilution B, 6 min. the image on first sheet looked very thin, for the next sheet I randomly added an extra amount of developer (about triple the concentration) and got an excellent negative with good density and contrast. For a cheap film it's not bad.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Having purchased a box of this 4x5 film I went out and made two exposures today and just finished developing them in HC-110 dilution B, 6 min. the image on first sheet looked very thin, for the next sheet I randomly added an extra amount of developer (about triple the concentration) and got an excellent negative with good density and contrast. For a cheap film it's not bad.

Arista.EDU Ultra 400 is Fomapan 400.

 

[grat]

It's certainly better than the horror stories I've read about it. The emulsion isn't bulletproof, and should be handled with care, but the negatives I've scratched were all the result of clumsiness-- stabbed one with a fingernail, dropped another on the floor while it was still damp-- so it's held up better than reputed.

The anti-halation layer seems to have been made by Joker Chemicals-- it's a truly shocking shade of dark green, almost "Florescent British Racing Green". I actually pre-wash my film to get most of it out before I develop.

If I had one real complaint, it's that it is not a slow speed film. It's not so much reciprocity failure as reciprocity total collapse. If I recall, at 1 second it's 1.5x, at 10 seconds it's 6x, and 100 seconds is 10x.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If I had one real complaint, it's that it is not a slow speed film. It's not so much reciprocity failure as reciprocity total collapse. If I recall, at 1 second it's 1.5x, at 10 seconds it's 6x, and 100 seconds is 10x.

Yep. Not good for pinhole cameras. I've had exposures that metered at 13-15 seconds come out to around four minutes after reciprocity calculation. Foma 100 (aka .EDU Ultra 100) is the same -- I shot a pinhole image of my desk, in a lit room, and the calculator said that at f/150 it needed four HOURS -- it was bedtime by then, so I turned out the light and went to bed, and closed the shutter about an hour after I got up the next morning.

 

[Pioneer]

I use the AEU/Fomapan films a lot in most of the formats I shoot but not pinhole.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I use the AEU/Fomapan films a lot in most of the formats I shoot but not pinhole.

Yep. I won't do it again in the future. I loaded that pinhole camera as soon as I had it unwrapped, and .EDU Ultra 100 was what I had handy, and I didn't even think about it. For future use, I'll probably buy some Acros II, FP4+, or Pan F (to keep bright sun exposures manageable with the primitive shutter). All of those have better reciprocity than anything Fomapan.

 

[koraks]

Foma 400 is OK in 4x5". Nothing special, but it's cheap and cheerful, if you will. Good choice if you need a stop faster than eg FP4+ and you're on a budget. You have to like its characteristic curve; it's a rather pronounced S curve.

 

[albireo]

Foma 400 is OK in 4x5". Nothing special, but it's cheap and cheerful, if you will.

Goes to show how tastes differ, I suppose. I find it special, in 120. But that's just me: I find Tri-X overrated, for instance, and Acros nothing to write home about. Foma 400 requires care during processing, but it's for me one of the most interesting 120 B&W stocks out there. Glad we have so much variety!

 

[Paul Howell]

I bought a box and like it, but will be moving back to Foma 200, I found that in MCM 100 I need to shoot 400 at 250 while I can shoot 200 at 200, contrast is about the same. I use a water bath for stop, no issues with pinholes, use hangers, no scratches. Not sure how long Foma has been using this emulsion, in 35mm reminds me of 70s TriX.

 

[Pioneer]

Foma 400 is OK in 4x5". Nothing special, but it's cheap and cheerful, if you will. Good choice if you need a stop faster than eg FP4+ and you're on a budget. You have to like its characteristic curve; it's a rather pronounced S curve.

I find AEU/Fomapan 400 in D-23 to be quite special. It has a very old time look with a nice range of tones.

Of course that isn't something that everyone likes. That combo does not necessarily build a lot of contrast unless you boost the temperature. If you like contrast you are better off developing with D76 or Rodinal.

In reality I think the problem that everyone claims turned them away from AEU/Fomapan is quality control, not the image quality. I have also had some QC problems in the past but over the past few years the negative quality has been good. The emulsion does seem a bit soft so you may run into scratches occasionally if you aren't careful with the film during development but that is really the only downside I can point out.

 

[Bormental]

Having developed 4 rolls of Foma 400 this weekend compelled me to jump in. I have been "film hopping" all winter and Foma films look and feel very different from everything else, as if they're built with different technology somehow. When I go through my film photo feed, I cannot always tell a Kodak photo apart from Ilford's (especially on the web) but Foma is always unmistakably Foma. I am fairly liberal with post-processing so I end up with similar output curve for all emulsions, but Fomapan signature look shines through all my edits.

It may not be the look everyone loves, but if that's not the definition of "something special" I do not know what is.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Arista EDU 400 Ultra is great film. I develop it in HC-110 B or Rodinol. It has an old fashion look I like better than Acros and Tmax. However, reciprocity failure is dismal.

 

[pentaxuser]

Arista EDU 400 Ultra is great film. I develop it in HC-110 B or Rodinol. It has an old fashion look I like better than Acros and Tmax. However, reciprocity failure is dismal.

In HC 110 dilution B did you find the same as the OP Kevin Klein who found it very thin until he altered it to what sounds like 1+10 dilution given he added enough extra developer for abut a three time concentration given that dilution B is 1+31?

Thanks

pentaxuser

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

In HC 110 dilution B did you find the same as the OP Kevin Klein who found it very thin until he altered it to what sounds like 1+10 dilution given he added enough extra developer for abut a three time concentration given that dilution B is 1+31?

Thanks

pentaxuser

My personal time for HC-110 B is 8 1/2 minutes. Constant for the first minute and 10 secs for every minute thereafter. Yes B is 1:31 dilution. I need more contrast because I print on a diffusion head.

 

[jay moussy]

My personal time for HC-110 B is 8 1/2 minutes. Constant for the first minute and 10 secs for every minute thereafter. Yes B is 1:31 dilution. I need more contrast because I print on a diffusion head.

and Rodinal..?
(my first Rodinal dev should happen tomorrow..!)

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't processed Ultra 400 in Parodinal (homebrewed Rodinal work-alike) in several years, but I used to process it in Parodinal 1:50, 16:30 with agitation only five inversions every third minute. The combination of high dilution and reduced agitation gave some compensating effect, bringing up the toe without overdeveloping the mid-tones.

 

[pentaxuser]

My personal time for HC-110 B is 8 1/2 minutes. Constant for the first minute and 10 secs for every minute thereafter. Yes B is 1:31 dilution. I need more contrast because I print on a diffusion head.

Thanks As a matter of interest where is the official time for what is Arista EDU/ Foma 400 and is this the OP's time. If so it sounds as if the time is seriously short - 6 mins as opposed to your time of 8.5 is quite a difference of 40%?

pentaxuser

 

[Donald Qualls]

Thanks As a matter of interest where is the official time for what is Arista EDU/ Foma 400 and is this the OP's time. If so it sounds as if the time is seriously short - 6 mins as opposed to your time of 8.5 is quite a difference of 40%?

pentaxuser

@Mainecoonmaniac did say he needs higher contrast for a diffusion enlarger -- and given Ultra/Fomapan 400 is said to be an actual ISO 160 film, it's 1 1/3 stop push to get to EI 400 anyway.

Freestyle has the paper insert from the film as a PDF -- looks like they recommend 6:30 for .EDU Ultra 400 in HC-110 B.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

and Rodinal..?
(my first Rodinal dev should happen tomorrow..!)

I haven't processed Arista EDU 400 in Rodinal. But Dev Chart says 11 mins @ 68° 1:50 dilution. From my experience, it's always a starting point. I usually add 15-20% more time because the highlights need a little more density because I usually want my negs to print on grade 2 on a diffusion enlarger.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I haven't processed Arista EDU 400 in Rodinal. But Dev Chart says 11 mins @ 68° 1:50 dilution. From my experience, it's always a starting point. I usually add 15-20% more time because the highlights need a little more density because I usually want my negs to print on grade 2 on a diffusion enlarger.

WARNING!

Arista .EDU was their old rebranded Forte. Arista .EDU Ultra was and is their rebranded Fomapan. Different films, different true speeds, different reciprocity departure curves, different developing times, different density/exposure curves.

 

[Bormental]

Does anyone else have the "white dots" problem with Foma films? I keep having this issue with every single roll, despite switching to mostly distilled water-based process (even the final rinse). If this is dust, it gets inside the emulsion somehow, because the specks do not move / disappear when I use a blower or an anti-static brush.

 

[koraks]

No, but I think there was a recent thread on LFPF with people having similar issues. Not to be confused with the known emulsion issues if foma 200 in 120 fomat (those show up as black in the positive). But I haven't seen this with the foma film I've used. Don't know what causes it either.

 

[albireo]

I only shoot Foma film in medium format so my findings below are limited to this format.

1. Foma 100 - yes, I have once stumbled on a batch with a lot of white specks. Strangely though, it was only that particular batch. The other Foma 100 I've shot (and I've been shooting Foma rolls almost exclusively for the past 3 years or so, at the rate of 5/6 rolls/month) have been flawless. I would always recommend contacting Foma in case of issues. They're super responsive. This is the answer I got when I emailed them about the 'white specks' on my Foma 100 rolls:

Thank you for all your sent details.

Let us respond to you that the appeared tiny spots are residues of not decolorized anti-halo layer used by our 120 films (not used by 135 films). Considering your mentioned LOT/emulsion number (021056-3) we have to admit that in this formula we used more hardened anti-halo layer and that´s why decolorizing is not so easy. From this reason we are ready to replace to you 10 pcs of FOMAPAN 100 120 from another emulsion number with our standard anti-halo layer. Please, specify your delivery address and phone number.

If you may decide to use also other films from the same emulsion number, we advise you to follow this procedure of processing:

1) Exposed films put inside of the spiral´s developing tank.
2) Pour distilled water or water without minerals into this developing tank and keep the films in this solution for 20-30 minutes. Occasional inversion is convenient. This solution, cca 600 ml, is possible to use in maximum for 2 rolls.
3) Immediately after pouring the water out you can fill the tank by developing working solution keeping standard conditions of developing.
4) After developing we recommend to stop process just by water bath, best running filtered water, in minimum for the time of 30 seconds in water´s temperature 12-18° C. Using FOMACITRO in this case is not convenient, because this stop bath is acidic and there are needed alkaline baths to dissolve the hardened anti-halo layer well.
5) Standard fixing.
6) Wash the strips of the negatives in running water for 20-30 minutes (according to higher or lower temperature).
7) Standard drying including wetting agent (FOTONAL).

After this procedure the anti-halo layer should dissolve properly. Anyway, you can check the negatives yourselves and in case of presence of some residues we recommend you to repeat keeping in alkaline developing solution for half an hour as specified above.

We are sorry for made inconveniences to you & Hope you will achieve to save your processed negatives.

Looking forward to receiving your contacts to arrange our replacement.

Top-notch service. I got the replacement rolls after a week. No spots.

2. Foma 200. This has another problem, namely delicate emulsion. If one is not _extremely_ careful when processing, tiny hairline dark scratches can appear in homogeneous areas of the sky, for instance. I've solved this problem by slowing down all aspects of my processing with Foma 200. No pre-bath, slower inversions, slower agitation with my tank's stick and NO shaking during final rinse, which must flow slowly over the film. ABSOLUTELY no squegee. This is an awesome film when treated with extreme care.

3. Foma 400. This is the most consistent. Never had any problems. In Xtol, or better Fomadon Excel, it's probably my favourite of the three.

 

[Bormental]

I would always recommend contacting Foma in case of issues. They're super responsive.

That's nice to know, and thanks for sharing their response!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

WARNING!

Arista .EDU was their old rebranded Forte. Arista .EDU Ultra was and is their rebranded Fomapan. Different films, different true speeds, different reciprocity departure curves, different developing times, different density/exposure curves.

Thanks for the information! Are the notch codes any different with sheet film?