Arista EDU Ultra 400 4x5 Sheet film

ewbank1 · Feb 18, 2019

I recently purchased Arista EDU Ultra 400 4x5 sheet film for the first time (I have used the Arista EDU Ultra 100 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5). As compared to the Ultra 100, the Ultra 400 has a much darker base. Rather than clear, it is quite gray. Has anyone else had a similar experience? It almost appears that the film is fogged. I don't think I could have fogged it, since I handled it the same way I have been handling the dozens of sheets and rolls of other film I have been doing.

Thanks,

Pioneer · Feb 18, 2019

It has been awhile since I've used AEU400 sheet film I don't recall it looking fogged...or dark gray. I'll have to pull up some of my negatives when I get home and check them out. I know that my 35mm negatives don't look that way as I am looking at a few right now. Do you have some examples we can look at?

ewbank1 · Mar 1, 2019

This is an example the top negative is Arista EDU 400 and the bottom negative is HP5, taken consecutively with the same camera, same exposure, developed with hangers in a tank with Xtol (the HP5 longer than the EDU400).

The base of the EDU is much grayer and the scans look worse than the HP5 (It also seems to have about half the effective speed as the HP5).

If this is typical of the film, I don't find it very useful.

Ed

awty · Mar 1, 2019

I have only used it in 120 film. It has a dark base and is very curly.
What were your development times? The foma/edu looks underdeveloped. Would also recommend a presoke with this film.

ewbank1 · Mar 2, 2019

Since this was the first time using the EDU 400, I used the time listed on the info sheet with the film along with a presoak. I've experimented a bit to see if it is my technique and used HC-110 and Diafine also, with similar results. An EI of 200 seems more reasonable than 400. I have not tried to make a darkroom print.

randyB · Mar 5, 2019

My first impressions are that the 400 film is fogged. Either age or heat. What is the expire date of the 400? Do you know the history of its storage conditions?

ewbank1 · Mar 5, 2019

The film was fresh from B&H Photo with an expiration of 2021-5. I stored it in the refrigerator and used some the next day. I emailed B&H Photo and they are sending a replacement box.

summicron1 · Mar 5, 2019

It may be fresh from b and h, but who knows how old it was when Arista/freestyle rebadged it? My impression with Arista is that it is not Foma’s best.

Guillaume Zuili · Mar 6, 2019

Hi,
The two negs you are showing are underdeveloped, underexposed or both.
Give it a try with more exposure and more dev time.
I use this film a lot, never had any problem with. Fresh or old, no matter.
Scanner I don't know but they print beautifully under the enlarger.
Best,
G

removed account4 · Mar 6, 2019

If you follow Guillaume's advice and your negatives are still flat &c, you might use a different developer. I have never had luck with the developer you are using ( I used it for years and typically got flat negatives ).
Have fun!
john

ewbank1 · Mar 6, 2019

Guillaume Zuili said:
Hi,
The two negs you are showing are underdeveloped, underexposed or both.
Give it a try with more exposure and more dev time.
I use this film a lot, never had any problem with. Fresh or old, no matter.
Scanner I don't know but they print beautifully under the enlarger.
Best,
G

I have used Diafine, Xtol and HC110. I have tried various exposures and compared directly to Ilford HP5 under the same conditions. I have extended the fixing and wash times. The base always looks dark (fogged) and the scans are grainy and the effective speed is about half that of HP5. It's good to hear that Guillaume has had good results. That means there is a good chance that the film was in poor condition when I received it. I should have a replacement box in a couple of days to see if the results are any better.

Thanks,

Ed

Guillaume Zuili · Mar 6, 2019

Ed,
This is an example, developed and printed yesterday, of how dense my neg are. Processed in Rodinal.
And the resulting test lith print.
Best,
G.

ewbank1 · Mar 6, 2019

Guillaume,

Thanks for the example. It does look like a good negative and print. The base material is not fogged like the box I have.

Ed

removed account4 · Mar 7, 2019

Ed
Do you have any Ansco 130 or Dektol? I have develop my sheet film ( and some roll film ) in either 130 or Dektol ( d72 ) for decades. Try either of them 1:6 for 6 minutes. Dektol @68F, A130 @72F. They will probably give you less fog and much better contrast than the developer you are using.

Good luck !
John

lantau · Mar 8, 2019

My Fomapan 400 sheets, which I use in a pinhole camera, have a clear base. But I had the exact same experience, as you, with 35mm Fomapan 400.

I'm using Fomadon LQR for those to get close to Box speed. Initially I thought it is that but it's probably the batch of film. It has a high base fog.

IIRC I used LQR for some sheets as well and they were clear as ever, so it shouldn't be the developer.

I did some prints on Fomatone 542-II and they looked great. Didn't even see excessive grain. Actually I really like that film. The ones which I digitised looked were ok, as well. So at least for those motives it didn't have much of a negative impact.

Arista EDU Ultra 400 4x5 Sheet film

ewbank1

Pioneer

ewbank1

Attachments

awty

ewbank1

randyB

ewbank1

summicron1

Guillaume Zuili

removed account4

ewbank1

Guillaume Zuili

Attachments

ewbank1

removed account4

lantau

Arista EDU Ultra 400 4x5 Sheet film

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency