Arista EDU Ultra 400 Development time?

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,772
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Getting ready to develop my first roll of Arista EDU 400 in Legacy Pro EcoPro ascorbic acid at 1+1 dilution.

Neither Arista nor EcoPro give times for this film at 1+1, and I am confused by what I am seeing in the development charts from Freestyle and Digital Truth (Massive Development Chart)

Looking at the database from Freestyle <here>, they show:
Arista EDU Ultra 400 iso + EcoPro Ascorbic Acid [1+1] @68*F = 12.5 minutes

Looking at Digital Truth (Massive Development Chart) <here> I see:
Arista EDU Ultra 400 + Eco Pro [1+1] ISO 400 at 68*F = 9.5 minutes

Three minutes seems like a significant difference to me. Does anyone know of a third source for this kind of information?
Or can someone recommend a time for this combination based on their personal experience?

I also searched both sites, substituting Fomapan 400 for Arista Edu Ultra 400 - and substituting XTOL [1+1] for EcoPro [1+1] and the two numbers don't change.

Both Arista and Foma do give the same time for stock Xtol (7.0 minutes @68*F/20*C) - so maybe I should forget about the 1+1 dilution, and just go with stock?
Thank you
 

Steven Lee

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2022
Messages
1,434
Location
USA
Format
Medium Format
Arista EDU 400 is rebranded Fomapan 400. Legacy Pro EcoPro claims to have identical times to Xtol, so you can start with Foma 400 in Xtol number, which is 12 minutes for 1+1 @20C on MDC, so the Freestyle number is fairly close.

The 9.5 MDC number is nuts IMO. Fomapan 400 is slow to build density in Xtol, I can't imagine 9.5 being enough for 1+1 dilution.
 

Patrick Robert James

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
3,362
Format
35mm RF
The massive development chart is just times given by amateurs. You never know if they are accurate because you never know who is doing the recommending. I'd avoid it. If Foma has a time then follow that time. There shouldn't be any question about that.

I never get why people use that resource first. It should be the last resort.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,314
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
the FomaPan 400 data sheet is here: https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

they only show a time for stright Xtol. (I see that the data sheet now shows the expected Edge Print Identification as being ULTRA 400 - I guess they got tired of swapping the name slide in the packaging equipment)
 

Adrian Bacon

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 18, 2016
Messages
2,086
Location
Petaluma, CA.
Format
Multi Format
runswithsizzers said:
I agree that the Massive Development is the last resort.
My question is, Are the times provided on the <Freestyle website> any more reliable?
Or is there some other reliable source I am not aware of?
Click to expand...

Freestyle's time for stock xtol is correct in that it matches up with what Foma has on their tech sheet: http://www.fomausa.com/pdf/Fomapan_400.pdf

So based on that, their 12.5 minute time for 1+1 seems like it would be reasonable, however they don't disclose how they came up with it.
 

PhotoPham

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2022
Messages
31
Location
California, USA
Format
Large Format
Maybe the 9.5mins is constant agitation? In this case, I would go with the 12.5mm based on foma, I rather risk overdevelopment than underdevelopment.
 
OP
OP

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,772
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
All four sources (Arista/Foma/EcoPro/Kodak) agree that 7 minutes at 68*F is the correct time for Arista EDU Ultra 400 or Fomapan 400 in stock EcoPro or Xtol.

But the only two sources I can find that provide times for 1+1 dilutions are secondary sources (NOT Arista/Foma/EcoPro/XTOL), and those two do not agree.

The MDC does show two times for Fomapan 400 at EI 400 in EcoPro/XTOL at 1+1. The 9.5 minute time does not have any notes, so I interpret that to mean that 9.5 minutes is the time they normally recommend. They also show 12 minutes, but with a note that says "high contrast" which suggests that is not the recommended "normal" time.

Also notice, the MDC shows a 12 minute time for Fomapan 400 shot at EI 320 in Xtol at 1+1. Does it make sense that a small increase in exposure (EI 320 vs. 400) would require a 2.5 minute increase in development time (12 vs. 9.5 minutes)? So there is definitely something screwy with the MDC numbers.



Based on what I am reading in your replies, the 12/12.5 minute times seem more resonable. I have sent Freestyle an email asking where the data in their chart comes from.
 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,314
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
Freestyle does act as the distributor for Foma Pan in the USA, and they have a MAJOR business selling to university film courses, so I would give more weight to their sugested times. (at least as a Staring point) do the times they give for "Holga 400" agree?
 
OP
OP

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,772
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Is Holga 400 the same film stock as Fomapan 400 / Arista EDU Ultra 400? I did not know that. And yes, Freestyle's chart does show the same 12.5 minutes for Holga 400 as it does for Fomapan 400 and Arista EDU Ultra 400 in EcoPro at 1+1.

But the Massive Dev Chart shows questionable times for Holga 400 in EcoPro at 1+1, just as it does for Fomapan 400 and Arista Ultra 400. That is, 12 minutes for Holga 400 35mm film shot at EI 320, but only 9.5 minutes if shot at EI 400. Notice it is showing 12 minutes for 120 film for both EI 320 and 400! That 9:30 time just doesn't look right, so I'm going with 12 or 12.5 minutes.

 

cmacd123

Subscriber
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
4,314
Location
Stittsville, Ontario
Format
35mm
Holga 400 only comes in 24 exp 135 and 120. the 120 has the same backing paper as Ultra 400. It is in boxes with the exact shape as the foma boxes, (one the cutouts that make the flaps for example) so many folks suspect that it may be the same stuff.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
23,415
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
runswithsizzers said:
So there is definitely something screwy with the MDC numbers.
Click to expand...

As said before, they're user-contributed times. If you see how the contribution process for the MDC works, it's easy to see how inconsistencies will occur. You send in your times and without further questions asked or notice, the numbers get published at some random moment. I know, because I did this once or twice, I think for Fomapan 200, but I don't recall exactly.

Anyway, the 9 vs. 12.5 minutes could be explained by factors like what a normal negative looks like to one person vs. another. Some people like their negatives on the thin side with low contrast, perhaps because they usually print on a condensor enlarger at grade 3, whereas another person generally prints with a diffusion head at grade 2. And then there's the very real possibility that some of the times on MDC are contributed by people who never print, but instead scan their negatives. For scanning, even very thin negatives with weak shadow detail can be perfectly acceptable.

With Foma400, I would definitely err on the side of stronger development. It's a very difficult film to get a lot of density out of, as anyone who has tried it in sheet film for alt. process prints knows. Consequently, there's not all that much of a risk of overdevelopment as long as you remain in somewhat reasonable boundaries.
 
OP
OP

runswithsizzers

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
1,772
Location
SW Missouri, USA
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for your reply. I will definitely be trying the longer development time.

Digital Truth (Massive Development Chart) says <here>
"Continually updated, the chart has been online since 1995 and contains both manufacturer's published times and user submissions. All data is curated for accuracy using multiple source verification and actual user feedback."

Sounds good, but I'd like to know more details about the "curated for accuracy using multiple source verification" part.

In this case, I'm not finding any "manufacturer's published times" so, quite likely the 9.5 minute time is user-submitted - and possibly Freestyle's 12.5 minutes, as well. It would be good to know if these databases require some minimum number of user-submissions befiore calculating a mean/median - or if they would publish a single user-submitted time? It will be interesting to see if I get replies to my email inquiries to Freestyle and Digital Truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…