Arista EDU Ultra 400 push/pull ability?

[M-88]

Hello

It seems to me that general consensus on the net about this film is that it's repacked Fomapan 400. Now, some people say that the film is not actually ISO 400 but rather 250 or 320. I would just like to know, how does it fare with pushing/pulling? I have no doubt that it will work at EI200 and EI800, but what about EI100 and EI1600 (especially the latter)? I know there are some articles about this on the internet, but I'd rather listen to an opinion of someone who is proficient in film photography and not in earning clicks on their blogs.

P.S. As my resources are limited, please note that I can only use D-76/ID-11 and nothing like Xtol, Rodinal, HC-110 or anything else.

Any input is greatly appreciated!

 

[Paul Howell]

You can find the Forma data sheet for Fomapan action 400 on line, you will see that Fomapan 400 developed in D76 is closer to 250 than 400, I've pushed 400 to 800 as a 1 and half push increasing development time by 75% or D76 stock 21 minutes at 68 degrees F. When shot at 250 I develop in D76 1:1.

https://www.foma.cz/en/fomapan-400

 

[Donald Qualls]

My experience is that .EDU Ultra 400 (= Fomapan 400) has a limited ability to push. In my Super Soup (created to recover images accidentally exposed through the base of Tri-X 320 sheet film), which gets EI 5000-6400 from Tri-X, Fomapan 400 is only good for EI 1000.

That said, for a one stop push, it works as well as you might expect any 400 speed conventional grain film to do. I just wouldn't plan on going beyond EI 800 in a conventional process of any sort.

Others have noted a "true speed" for Fomapan 400 of between 200 and 320 -- this doesn't match my experience. I've shot this film at box speed for years, in 35mm, 120, and 4x5, processed in HC-110, Diafine, Parodinal, D-23 replenished, and most recently in Xtol replenished, and I find expected levels of shadow detail at normal contrast in all of them with my processing. Much of that has been exposing by rule -- "Sunny 16" with corrections for conditions -- since most of my old cameras don't have built-in meters and I only got a smart phone years after my old darkroom was closed up (and a metering app for it just this year).

 

[M-88]

Thank you. I knew it wouldn't go as far as HP5+ goes, for example, but your input reinforced my impression. So it is EI200-800 film. Or EI1000 in worst case scenario... Good thing I still have that f/1.4 lens.

And it will feel very much "at home" if shot at EI200... This is also a good thing. My last bulk was Kentmere 100 and I would gladly go for Kentmere 400, if it was available over here, as K100 didn't fare well at EI400 and sometimes EI100 was a little low.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I've shot Fomapan/.EDU Ultra 100 at 400 and found it almost indistinguishable from Fomapan 400 (in 35mm, at least). I haven't tried pushing it to its limits, but it still has some shadow detail at EI 400.

 

[Paul Howell]

Although I've not pushed over 800 I think 1200 is within reach, I would test at 23 or 24 minutes in D76 stock.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The ISO test for that film didn't use a standard developer... It can reach 400 in a speed enhancing developer, but it's the slowest ISO400 film I've used, and it's also really bad at being pushed, the worst one I've tried...
The reason for buying that film is IMO exposing it correctly... That's 200, or less if it's a sunny scene... Then its tone is fine...
I use my Foma400 for big grain only now: here and there I find QC issues these days (emulsion tiny holes...).
Kentmere 400 is, on the contrary, a great and versatile ISO400 film that reaches 1600 in Microphen with great tone and grain... A shame they don't sell it in 120...

 

[M-88]

Well, for whatever it's worth, I've shot Fomapan/.EDU Ultra 100 at 400 and found it almost indistinguishable from Fomapan 400 (in 35mm, at least). I haven't tried pushing it to its limits, but it still has some shadow detail at EI 400.

Makes me wonder whether Foma 100/200/400 are three different films, or just the same... I would speculate that at least 200 and 400 are the same thing. A "native" ISO200 film seems to be a rarity.

Although I've not pushed over 800 I think 1200 is within reach, I would test at 23 or 24 minutes in D76 stock.

I might give it a try, after all, a bulk roll is a lot of film, so why not?

The ISO test for that film didn't use a standard developer... It can reach 400 in a speed enhancing developer, but it's the slowest ISO400 film I've used, and it's also really bad at being pushed, the worst one I've tried...
The reason for buying that film is IMO exposing it correctly... That's 200, or less if it's a sunny scene... Then its tone is fine...
I use my Foma400 for big grain only now: here and there I find QC issues these days (emulsion tiny holes...).
Kentmere 400 is, on the contrary, a great and versatile ISO400 film that reaches 1600 in Microphen with great tone and grain... A shame they don't sell it in 120...

Well, it's currently also the cheapest BW bulk roll on the market, so it is not a surprise that it might be worst of the worst. I know what I'm doing, but I also want to know what it can do, so that I can use it efficiently.

I agree about Kentmere 400, it's one step lower than HP5+, while Foma 400 is a lot lower than both.

 

[Pioneer]

The problem with answering a question like this is it is heavily dependent on what you are trying to photograph, how much shadow detail is acceptable and to some degree, how large do you want to print?

I routinely shoot AEU400 at box speed with no problems so I can't validate the opinions rating it at a slower exposure index. You can certainly do that if you want but it really isn't necessary. Pushing to EI-800 works fine as well. I have also pushed it to EI-1600 but there is very little detail in the shadows. Of course that is OK if you aren't worried about the shadows anyway. I shoot it at EI-1600 at high school basketball games all the time but the court is evenly lit, I can get pretty close to the players and I really don't care about the shadows in the crowd behind the action.

I have also tried it a couple of times at EI-3200 on a high school football field with typical lighting trying to get a shutter speed capable of capturing some action. I did get some pictures but I was further away from the action so getting detail on the players was a lot tougher. The end result was a decision to spend a bit more money and buy some Delta 3200 for those situations. In other words pushing AEU400 was less than satisfactory and buying the Delta 3200 was worth the additional cost.

Obviously though, your circumstances may be a lot more different so my experience is not applicable. Usually during the daytime I don't work at those higher exposure indexes.

 

[M-88]

My shooting environment typically comprises of scenes with insufficient light for EI400. Something one would get in the evening, shooting outside. I occasionally do interior photos as well, again. with no flash or studio light and usually EI400 is enough for that.

I used Delta 3200 only twice in my life and in both cases it was more of an experiment to see the capabilities of the film, rather than a solution dictated by the shooting conditions. My third roll sits in the fridge for two years already, after finding out that HP5+ pushed to 1600 does pretty much the same for my scenes and it's pointless to pay an extra.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

You should really get some HP5+ and Microphen... Then you can have at hand a film that's fast enough for indoors and even low light, like in dim churches: 1/30 f/1.4 @3200, with good tone wet printed... And most of rhe time, as you won't really need that speed, you can use your HP5+ dayly in the street at 800 or box speed, and 200 and even less for sun... HP5+ is cheap for what it gives, both in image quality and in versatility.
I know you want to make foma work well for your need of speed: it's just not possible for great tone if you wet print, but it will do it fine enough if you scan...
If you want speed and quality for wet printing from 35mm, all roads will take you sooner or later to HP5+...
Have fun!

 

[M-88]

You should really get some HP5+ and Microphen... Then you can have at hand a film that's fast enough for indoors and even low light, like in dim churches: 1/30 f/1.4 @3200, with good tone wet printed... And most of rhe time, as you won't really need that speed, you can use your HP5+ dayly in the street at 800 or box speed, and 200 and even less for sun... HP5+ is cheap for what it gives, both in image quality and in versatility.
I know you want to make foma work well for your need of speed: it's just not possible for great tone if you wet print, but it will do it fine enough if you scan...
If you want speed and quality for wet printing from 35mm, all roads will take you sooner or later to HP5+...
Have fun!

I have to agree with you about HP5+, my own workflow has already led me to it, but there are times when I don't require that quality, so I also need something cheaper than that film.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Then buy a mix of Foma400 for generous exposure, Kentmere400 for mild pushing, and HP5+ for the few times you really need speed... That way you get all you need for every situation, and you pay little money over buying only slowish film.

 

[M-88]

Then buy a mix of Foma400 for generous exposure, Kentmere400 for mild pushing, and HP5+ for the few times you really need speed... That way you get all you need for every situation, and you pay little money over buying only slowish film.

Actually that is exactly what I'm trying to achieve right now, because I have HP5+ and Arista would complete the list. Can't buy Kentmere, unfortunately.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Another 35mm film that's very good and has fair price is Kentmere100... For tripod use, or when there's good light but you don't need to stop down a lot for depth of field, it's optimal...
If you go into pirate-photo.fr and click "pages" (to the right), you'll find among others a page comparing it to APX.
Have a nice day!

 

[Вormental_old]

It seems to me that general consensus on the net about this film is that it's repacked Fomapan 400. Now, some people say that the film is not actually ISO 400 but rather 250 or 320. I would just like to know, how does it fare with pushing/pulling?

There's no need for consensus, just take a look at it's data sheet published by Foma. On the last page you'll see that even in their own testing they haven't hit ISO400 with any of the developers, with only Microphen breaking 320.

Therefore this is a barely ISO400 film, and only with Microphen, and they're rounding up from 320.

No, I wouldn't expect this film to push well. Technically, you're already pushing it when exposing at box speed. However, it's one of my favorite films. I shoot it at ISO200 and absolutely love the special look it brings.

 

[M-88]

Yes, performance is less than stellar according to datasheet. However I'd still give it a chance at EI800.

 

[Agulliver]

I've usually shot at box speed. The first two rolls I shot at 320 on the advice of people who are experienced with Fomapan 400 and even developing for EI320 I found the results not pleasing. Blown out whites. I use ID-11 stock or Microphen.

In medium format I have pushed Fomapan 400 to EI16oo and it handled it quite well, but with more contrasty images than Ilford HP5+ similarly pushed. So you can do it, depending on your subject matter. I was shooting musicians in a dim jazz club.

 

[M-88]

Wow. Blown highlights at box speed and in ID-11/D-76 is not what I'm looking for. I guess I should be careful.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've been shooting .EDU Ultra/Fomapan 400 at box speed for years. I've never had problems with blocked highlights or loss of shadow detail. I've processed in Parodinal 1:50, HC-110 F and G and H, D-23 replenished stock, and most recently in Xtol replenished stock. The only time I've had loss of speed was in Df96 with "normal" process; I think you'd have to run that at "Push +1" conditions to get what I consider normal negatives.

 

[radiant]

Wow. Blown highlights at box speed and in ID-11/D-76 is not what I'm looking for. I guess I should be careful.

Yes and also always listen and follow single person opinions on the internetz

 

[radiant]

No, I wouldn't expect this film to push well. Technically, you're already pushing it when exposing at box speed. However, it's one of my favorite films. I shoot it at ISO200 and absolutely love the special look it brings.

My logic is like this: (looks at datasheet) Hmm, with Xtol it's about ISO 250, so lets round to ISO 200.

ISO200 exposed at 1600 is 3 stops underexpose. How many films maintain shadows at that kind of underexposing? ISO 800 is practical maximum I think (2 stops).

Here is Foma 400 exposed at 1600 and overdeveloped in Rodinal for your daily dose of grain!

 

[Agulliver]

Wow. Blown highlights at box speed and in ID-11/D-76 is not what I'm looking for. I guess I should be careful.

That's just my experience with Fomapan 400. Most people do reckon it's genuine speed is lower than the box speed hence my first attempts exposing at 320. I found that shots taken outside in sunlight had blown highlights but shots taken indoors in low light were OK. Not something I have with other 400 speed films. So thereafter I'd expose Foma 400 at box speed and it works better. I used two different cameras so its probably not a dodgy camera meter.

I have shot it at 1600 and predictably the contrast increased but that was fine for the scene in the jazz club. Generally if I was pushing B&W film I'd say HP5+ or Tri-X are better but you *can* push Fomapan 400 and compensate in the darkroom when printing or electronic manipulation.

 

[M-88]

Yes and also always listen and follow single person opinions on the internetz

...as long as that person is me

How many films maintain shadows at that kind of underexposing?

Only two native ISO400 films come on my mind and Foma 400 is neither of them.

 

[albireo]

I've been shooting .EDU Ultra/Fomapan 400 at box speed for years. I've never had problems with blocked highlights or loss of shadow detail. I've processed in Parodinal 1:50, HC-110 F and G and H, D-23 replenished stock, and most recently in Xtol replenished stock. The only time I've had loss of speed was in Df96 with "normal" process; I think you'd have to run that at "Push +1" conditions to get what I consider normal negatives.

Agreed on all counts Donald - I shoot tons of Foma 400 in 120 at EI320 or box speed - simply beautiful in the right developer.

TBH these endless discussions on the 'real film speed' of Foma or other film make little sense unless people specify exactly how they expose. A 200EI via matrix metering on a Nikon camera will probably be very different from a 200EI reached by choosing shadows of interest, metering for the shadow with an incident Sekonic, placing them in zone III and adjusting accordingly.