Arista Edu Ultra 200

Ok what am I doing wrong. I've shot several 4X5 negs of this. This is my first attempt at this film. I started to develope them the other day. First off I think I under exposed them. I rated them at box speed, which I do with all my films. Now for the big problem. They are coming out way to contrasty. Almost no mid tone at all. I tryed three different developers. Beutler High deffinition, my favorite and usuall at 1:1:10 at 7.5 min. The others were Ansco 130 1:5 at 6-7 min. and Thorton 2 Bath at 4 min each. All just black and white. Temp at @ 68 deg.

First off, I would recommend shooting it at 1/2 box speed. That will help with your shadows and midtones. I've not used the Beutlers or the Thorton at all, and I've not used Ansco 130 for film, so I can't comment on those. I've had great success with the Arista.EDU Ultra 200 in Pyrocat HD. This combination has produced a negative with a nice long tonal scale for alt process printing, but not excessive contrast. Try exposing your film at 100, and 50, and developing for the same time/dilution/agitation combination you have been using and see which you like better.

that's odd. i've used this film (35mm) before and it always came out too thin and muddy.

This is a really great film in my opinion. I just love it. I use it in 35mm and love the tonality it has. It is quirky to tame but once you dial it in it's splendid. I actually rate mine at 160 and develop in Pyrocat HD using minimal agitation. I mix it at 1:1:150 and do a total of 15 min. Agitate for the first minute, and 2 inversions at 10min and 5 min (splitting total time into thirds) and it comes out a winner every time. It is actually Fomapan 200 and if you search groups in flickr under that name there is a wealth of info on it. Rodinal is my #2 choice for this as well (1:50).

Dear Leslie,

If the negatives have too much contrast you developed them too long. Try reducing the time and/or increasing the dilution.

Neal Wydra

This is a strange film which requires approx 2/3rds of the development times of any other film I've used recently.

Typically Tmax 100/400, APX100, FP4, HP5, Delta 100/400, EFKE, Fuji etc all require around 15 min in Pyrocat HD 1+1+100 to achieve the same contrast & tonality for my work. But when I first tried Fomapan 200 (same film as Arista Edu Ultra 200) I found like you that it was extremely contrasty. So I did some tests and found the ideal EI was 80 - 100 ISO with a dev time of only 10mins.

So give it an extra stop exposure and cut the development time and that should tame the contrast your getting. If you search APUG you'll find most people have similar experiences with this film.

Ian

i've used it with a few variants of thorntons two bath and always came out underexposed - even ei'ed at 25 ( the 100 iso stuff ) and still not happy with it in two bath. comes out nice in pyrocat hd though...

Fomapan 200 (aka Arista.EDU Ultra 200) is an ISO 200 film only in developers that provide at least some speed-increasing characteristics. I'm not familiar with the developers you mentioned, Leslie, but unless they're speed-increasing developers I'd try cutting the speed and, given your results, the development time.

FWIW, I shoot it in 35mm and MF at ISO 200 and develop it in Dead Link Removed I've not verified that it's really ISO 200 in DS-10, but I doubt if it's more than 1/3 stop off. I get very good results like this. For this film, DS-10 should be pretty similar to XTOL, so if you want an off-the-shelf developer, you could try that.

There are bombproof films (like Tri-X) and temperamental films--Fomapan 200 falls into the later category. I'm not sure it's even an EI 100 film in Pyrocat-HD (for normal printing). I'm going to shoot my next batch at EI 64 or 80 and shorten my development to see if it helps tame the contrast. I'm already developing for only 8 minutes, but it still seems a little contrasty. I think it's a decent film once you dial in the development, if you can put up with the soft emulsion and hellish reciprocity failure. I have gotten some great results, but it's a tricky little film.

After testing for printing on a normal contrast grade paper, I, too, came up with a speed of about 80. I don't remember my development times in Pyrocat PC, but they were relatively short. As most everyone else has said, if there's too much contrast, expose more and develop less.
juan

I too have found that dev times are usually much less than recommended.
I finally settled on using EI 100 and cutting dev time by at least 30%.
Last time around I used Microdol X 1+3 for 6 mins at 24C.
It is hot down here so I just develop at whatever the temp is in my kitchen and adjust time accordingly.

srs5694 said:

FWIW, I shoot it in 35mm and MF at ISO 200 and develop it in Dead Link Removed I've not verified that it's really ISO 200 in DS-10, but I doubt if it's more than 1/3 stop off. I get very good results like this. For this film, DS-10 should be pretty similar to XTOL, so if you want an off-the-shelf developer, you could try that.

Click to expand...

XTOL is a good choice, and my developer of choice for this film. It is very fast to develop, and the contrast will run away is developed for too long. I've been using XTOL 1+1 with this film for, if I remember correctly, 5 1/2 to 6 minutes at 75F, 8 to 8 1/2 at 68F. Works like a champ. I've got to get at some times for higher dilutions. Maybe I can coax a little more out of the shadows that way.

I dont think this film is temperamental as such, only that the box speed confuses people (it relates to speed in a speed increasing dev, such as microphen and even then is optimistic) and it develops bloody fast. I find I get 125 from FX-39 which gives about the same speed as Xtol 1+1. I might try 100 in very contrasty light. My negs look remarkably normal apart from the blue base, although I have not printed any since being away. Mid tones aplenty on the negs.

Just shot from another batch (just came thru from B&H) and they all have parallel scratches about 2 and 3mm from the top and tiny little miniscule scratches here and there in clusters. Also have dirty 'large black grains' randomly scattered. I tend to crop the very top off many 6x7 so the top scratches are not the end of the world but the occassional pin hole and surface abrasions are a pain in the ass. Here ends my flirtation with Foma 200. Shame is that the negs look wonderful. Rated at 100 in Xtol 1+1 this time the negs are consistently very good in terms of shadown detail and and well held highlights. My times were 5.5 mins 23 degs C and for me the negs are at the thinner end of what I can print on my very very soft 10x8 colour head so prob about right for the average user (and I see close to Frank's). I am going to increase dev time by 10% next time as what prints for most people at G2.5 or so is about G4 for me! I need the density. I found 100 about smack on as the EI this time round. Huge loss in bite compared to FX-39 though. Negs look to have a very unique tonality once again and I know I have some keepers. I am hoping that some of the marks don't really show if I dont enlarge too much.

Oh, I also have some with bizarre uneveness (when adjacent frames are perfect) and two with very evident bands. one is a very dark vertical band ruining the frame entirely and the other is very light (also ruining it).

..And is it not much cheaper than Kodak, Ilford, Fuji. More expensive if you have to shoot everything with two frames! I have 30 rolls of it and will use it where I can shoot many dupes of each image, such as for landscapes etc.

I think one or two marks came from the wet film snapping into a curl and the sharp end hitting wet, soft emulsion. I am having to uses weights to stop the stuff rolling itself up during drying (120).

Just put some thru Xtol 1+2, with a 40% increase in time over 1+1. Look good for me (I wanted more density than the last 1+1 batch), which perhaps means that for this film, 1+2 requires about 30% over Xtol 1+1 to keep development comparable at 1+2 (about typical according to the charts, but I have seen factors ranging from 15% to 40+% extra and I cannot understand why different films would differ in response to dev concentration) . As I say, I wanted quite dense high values and got them (8.25 mins, 22.5 degs C). This is for a super soft colour head mind you....

I flirted with it, but curl and defects sent me running back to Tri-X.

Mike

very true. looks like there is all sorts of rubbish in the emulsion. I am sure most can be spotted out as they tend to show as black speckles, but I can see that if anything looks really good from these negs it going to be a lot of extra work to make the finished print flawless. My Xtol 1+2 negs show slightly more crisp grain than the 1+1 (noticeable under the loupe) and they look wonderful....but....

Grain looks slightly finer than TriX but not much. Delta 400 is finer, but I was looking for olde worlde character! Such a shame. If they sorted the QC and put it on a decent base it would be a real winner.

Tom Stanworth said:

I dont think this film is temperamental as such, only that the box speed confuses people (it relates to speed in a speed increasing dev, such as microphen and even then is optimistic) and it develops bloody fast. I find I get 125 from FX-39 which gives about the same speed as Xtol 1+1. I might try 100 in very contrasty light. My negs look remarkably normal apart from the blue base, although I have not printed any since being away. Mid tones aplenty on the negs.

Click to expand...

ISO testing requires a specific developer which not so oddly is very similar to D-76. There are many other criteria such as developing no sooner than X after exposure and no later than Y.

Presuming that Foma is honest, there is no microphen involved. It would have to be rated as an EI in that case.

I'm having difficulty understanding how an ISO 200 film winds up being the same or slower than its 100 speed sibling. And the latter is very easy to live with, no less.

Tom Stanworth said:

Grain looks slightly finer than TriX but not much. Delta 400 is finer, but I was looking for olde worlde character! Such a shame. If they sorted the QC and put it on a decent base it would be a real winner.

Click to expand...

Foma 200 is RSMG 14, Tri-X is 17, so yes you are correct.

There's has always been a lot of conjecture "out there" that this is a non-standard grain film in the lines of TMX or Delta films. Maybe it's Foma's attempt.

I've got a box of this sitting on my shelf. I'm very excited to read the positive results people have had with it. I'm trying it out this weekend, can't wait. I hear Rodinal is supposed to be a good match.

- Thomas

Paul Verizzo said:

ISO testing requires a specific developer which not so oddly is very similar to D-76. There are many other criteria such as developing no sooner than X after exposure and no later than Y.

Presuming that Foma is honest, there is no microphen involved. It would have to be rated as an EI in that case.

I'm having difficulty understanding how an ISO 200 film winds up being the same or slower than its 100 speed sibling. And the latter is very easy to live with, no less.

Click to expand...

I think for the reason you mention. Roger Hicks mentioned that Foma admit that it is a 200 film only in Microphen! Roger finds he can get about 160 out of it in DDX which would be about right as I find DDX about 1/3 stop or so faster than Xtol, which in turn is about 1/3-1/2 faster than D76. Acc to Roger H, Foma is honest about the use of Microphen in the speed rating. I first used it years ago as Acupan 200 when I rated it at 200 and got horribly underexposed negs. At 100-125 it behaves very predictably and I am fairly confident that people who say it is very temperamental in exposure and development are having underexposure problems in the main. If I was using D76 I would use an EI of about 100, so people using Pyrocat and using EIs of 80 sound about in line with my findings and others. It is odd that they have Foma 100 which is of about the same speed! Quite a different look I believe and with an RMS of 14, so larger? or was it 13....for the 100

Tom Stanworth said:

I think for the reason you mention. Roger Hicks mentioned that Foma admit that it is a 200 film only in Microphen! Roger finds he can get about 160 out of it in DDX which would be about right as I find DDX about 1/3 stop or so faster than Xtol, which in turn is about 1/3-1/2 faster than D76. Acc to Roger H, Foma is honest about the use of Microphen in the speed rating. I first used it years ago as Acupan 200 when I rated it at 200 and got horribly underexposed negs. At 100-125 it behaves very predictably and I am fairly confident that people who say it is very temperamental in exposure and development are having underexposure problems in the main. If I was using D76 I would use an EI of about 100, so people using Pyrocat and using EIs of 80 sound about in line with my findings and others. It is odd that they have Foma 100 which is of about the same speed! Quite a different look I believe and with an RMS of 14, so larger? or was it 13....for the 100

Click to expand...

Wow, thanks for that info. Whodathunk?

I don't have the RMSG for the Foma 100 right in front of me, bujt I think it is 13.5. You were essentially correct. Foma "200" being 14 but weird in its chemistry is a non-starter. I almost bought a long roll, glad I didn't.

Paul Verizzo said:

ISO testing requires a specific developer which not so oddly is very similar to D-76. There are many other criteria such as developing no sooner than X after exposure and no later than Y.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that this used to be true, but isn't true any longer; manufacturers can now use whatever developer they like in specifying their films' ISO speeds. Foma used a speed-increasing developer for their Fomapan 200 film. That said, I don't have any references for this, and I don't recall the source, so take it with a grain of salt.

srs5694 said:

My understanding is that this used to be true, but isn't true any longer; manufacturers can now use whatever developer they like in specifying their films' ISO speeds. Foma used a speed-increasing developer for their Fomapan 200 film. That said, I don't have any references for this, and I don't recall the source, so take it with a grain of salt.

Click to expand...

As the guy on Laugh-In would say, "Verrrrrry interesting!"

You might be right, but it is sure dishonest. Or I would say most likely, not a change in the standard, but companies doing what they want.

I think Fuji does some fudging (Fudging Fuji?) on their B&W films. I can't recall all that I discovered, but things like using a microdol type developer to get a low RMSG on Acros, and then a phenidone to rate the ISO. They also don't divulge that Neopan 1600 is really 800 (???). To say more accurately, they do divlulge it in one place in tiny print, but the call the film ISO 1600 instead of EI 1600 which I believe both Kodak and Fuji do with their high speed offerings.

I love the tonality of this film. It works best for me at an ei of around 100. I think it is Foma 200 and that it was also rebranded as Patterson Acupan in the past. I usually develop it in PMK at 1:2:100 for around 7 minutes at 70 degrees. I had hoped that Foma 400 would be similar with a little more speed but so far I am not getting the results I had hoped for from the 400 speed Foma. I have had some problems with the Edu Ultra 200 backing, it seems that my Pentax 645n occasionally doesn't like the backing and won't take up the film the way it should sometimes leaving me with only one frame or a partial frame before rewinding after I think I have shot an entire roll. No problems with the backing in my Rollei or Pentax 67. I hope you don't give up on this film before seeing what it is capable of.
Good luck,
Doug Webb