Arista EDU Ultra ISO 200 in 120 size

[John Wiegerink]

I was just over on Freestyles site to order a few things and noticed a sale on Arista EDU ISO 200 in 120 size, but then I noticed it was "out of stock" until Aug. 19. I have used the ISO 100 version of this and like it pretty well, except for the fact I can only get about ISO 50 out of it. There is grain, but it is nice looking grain. I have never tried the Arista EDU 200 in 120, but if the grain was close to the ISO 100 Arista EDU and the real speed was at least ISO 100 I'd be a little more excited than I am with the ISO 100 version. Has anybody compared the two? I would be gaining some needed speed at maybe the cost of a little grain. Let me know how the 120 Arista EDU ISO 100 stacks up against the Arista EDU ISO 200. Thanks, JohnW

 

[polyglot]

Assuming it's Fomapan 200, then it's good for about EI125 in my experience. Looks great, though a bit grainier than HP5.

Fomapan 200 is the only film I've ever had QC issues (fine longitudinal scratches) with however that doesn't mean that the Arista-packaged stuff will also have issues.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Assuming it's Fomapan 200, then it's good for about EI125 in my experience. Looks great, though a bit grainier than HP5.

Fomapan 200 is the only film I've ever had QC issues (fine longitudinal scratches) with however that doesn't mean that the Arista-packaged stuff will also have issues.

I remember reading something about rough backing paper on the roll film from Foma causing scratches, but that was two or three years ago I thing. That's one reason I shied away from it until now since I hadn't heard much more about a backing-paper issue. I've went through six rolls of the Arista EDU 100 and see no problem except it seems slow for me. If I could get ISO 125 and grain like my HP5+ negs I'd be satisfied. Like you mentioned earlier "if it's the same" as Foma? I'm sure the ISO 100 is, but I know nothing, except for what I've read, about the ISO 200 Arista EDU.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

As far as I know, it is the same as Fomapan 200. Yes, there were problems in the past, but Foma has overcome them: the backing paper was improved and the film base was changed to a clear one. The detected problems were only for Fomapan 200 in 120 format. All other formats and films were ok, but still benefit from the changes.
Batches of 120 Fomapan 200 with an expire date of 2015 onwards should be fine. Sorry, I don't know about the Arista specific product batches, but it should follow the same pattern.

 

[John Wiegerink]

As far as I know, it is the same as Fomapan 200. Yes, there were problems in the past, but Foma has overcome them: the backing paper was improved and the film base was changed to a clear one. The detected problems were only for Fomapan 200 in 120 format. All other formats and films were ok, but still benefit from the changes.
Batches of 120 Fomapan 200 with an expire date of 2015 onwards should be fine. Sorry, I don't know about the Arista specific product batches, but it should follow the same pattern.

I would imagine if Arista EDU 200 is Foma 200 and Freestyle is "out of stock" then any newly acquired stock should be fresh dated Foma 200. That is "IF" for sure it's Foma 200.

 

[msbarnes]

That is "IF" for sure it's Foma 200.

I'm 98% sure it is.

I went to the freestyle store in LA to pick up some film and decided to give Arista EDU Ultra 200 a shot and so I asked for some. They told me that it was out of stock and offered me Foma 200 at the same price because it is the same thing.

I had the feeling that the employees at freestyle are informed but it is also possible that he deduced this from his own experimentation or perhaps even the internet, lol.

 

[polyglot]

Oh yeah, examples in D76 and Xtol (see the tags). All 6x7, all from the blue-base Foma 200. Apparently the new stuff is on a clear base; I've no idea if the emulsion changed though.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

The Foma emulsions seem very blue sensitive, so even though with Foma 200 you get grain comparable to HP5+, the tonality is a good bit different. Watch out for those skies, which quickly turn very dense. Foma 200 (Arista.EDU Ultra 200) also reacts to developers very quickly, and if you don't watch it it's easy to over-develop them.

Just a couple of words of caution. It's beautiful film for sure. Just a little different. I've been shooting the 200 speed film at EI 100, and found good shadow detail at that speed.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm 98% sure it is.

I went to the freestyle store in LA to pick up some film and decided to give Arista EDU Ultra 200 a shot and so I asked for some. They told me that it was out of stock and offered me Foma 200 at the same price because it is the same thing.

I had the feeling that the employees at freestyle are informed but it is also possible that he deduced this from his own experimentation or perhaps even the internet, lol.

Well, I guess I'll get some EDU 200 then as long as it will still be Foma 200. I'm in no hurry, but did want to know if the new EDU 200 was of the quality of the EDU 100 I'm now using. The doubling in the speed department will be very welcome. From polyglot's examples the grain looks more than acceptable. Especially in D76 or Xtol and I would think Pyrocat-HD or diluted Rodinal would also be good.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thomas thanks for the tips

The Foma emulsions seem very blue sensitive, so even though with Foma 200 you get grain comparable to HP5+, the tonality is a good bit different. Watch out for those skies, which quickly turn very dense. Foma 200 (Arista.EDU Ultra 200) also reacts to developers very quickly, and if you don't watch it it's easy to over-develop them.

Just a couple of words of caution. It's beautiful film for sure. Just a little different. I've been shooting the 200 speed film at EI 100, and found good shadow detail at that speed.

I noticed that I had to keep my Pyrocat-hd developing times for the EDU 100 down by about 15% when I rated it at ISO 50, but the negatives/prints came out very nice. Printing was a piece of cake. I did notice that the shadows seem fairly open at ISO 50 and the mid-tones look very, very nice, but my upper values might be a little compressed. I might lengthen my developing time by 5% more on the next roll and see what happens. I'm shooting a Rollei with dark yellow filter and light yellow filter for outside stuff. If the EDU 200 is the same "creature" I'll rate the first roll at 100 and knock down my developing times a tad. I like the EDU 100 because it's cheap, does what it's suppose to do (other than being a little slow) and prints pretty darn good. But if I have to shoot at ISO 50 then I'd rather spend a little more and shoot PanF+ at ISO 32. It's absolutely perfect in Perceptol 1:3. Cost more, but I like the looks better. Still, the Arista 120 EDU films are a "good bang for your buck" and have a high quality look. Like you said, good, but different!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Arista.EDU Ultra 200 IS Fomapan 200. I've had this confirmed by more than one Freestyle sales rep, over a period of 3+ years. I've shot a LOT of the 200 in sheet film sizes - it is much happier being shot at 100 than 200, it has a unique look like a film from the 1930s to 50s (it's an ortho-pan, not a true panchromatic film, so as noted before it is more blue and less red sensitive. There's no point in using a red filter with it, as you'll have to add EXTRA exposure on top of the default filter factor for the red filter, just to get a negative with shadow detail), and it is fantastic for alternative processes because it builds contrast very quickly and responds favorably to alternative developers like Pyrocat HD.

 

[John Wiegerink]

The Arista.EDU Ultra 200 IS Fomapan 200. I've had this confirmed by more than one Freestyle sales rep, over a period of 3+ years. I've shot a LOT of the 200 in sheet film sizes - it is much happier being shot at 100 than 200, it has a unique look like a film from the 1930s to 50s (it's an ortho-pan, not a true panchromatic film, so as noted before it is more blue and less red sensitive. There's no point in using a red filter with it, as you'll have to add EXTRA exposure on top of the default filter factor for the red filter, just to get a negative with shadow detail), and it is fantastic for alternative processes because it builds contrast very quickly and responds favorably to alternative developers like Pyrocat HD.

Well, I guess I can throw my red filter away then. Truth is, I almost never use it and use the light yellow much, much more, but now I'm going to have to do some more exposure test with and without a filter. It would be nice not to use any filter at all for scenic landscapes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

Well, I guess I can throw my red filter away then. Truth is, I almost never use it and use the light yellow much, much more, but now I'm going to have to do some more exposure test with and without a filter. It would be nice not to use any filter at all for scenic landscapes.

Kodak TMax 400 is really nice for scenic landscapes. Skies are typically rendered with a little bit more tone than other films, like Tri-X, which is already providing way more detail in blue skies than the Foma films.

My use of Foma has been more or less shooting where bright skies have not been included. But I think with a deep yellow filter a lot of the sensitivity limitations can be worked around. It isn't worse - just different.

 

[StoneNYC]

If its similar in grain to HO5+ then why not just shoot that, support Ilford (sorry, I know it's a faster speed and "pricier" but it's good stuff


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Klainmeister]

I find 200 has one of the best grain profiles I have ever seen. I couldn't believe my eyes when I did a 12x12 enlargement of a friends wedding. Much better looking that 400TX I shot the same day.

The contrast is great outta the box too, which is nice if you can't put a filter on (like my TLR).

 

[John Wiegerink]

If its similar in grain to HO5+ then why not just shoot that, support Ilford (sorry, I know it's a faster speed and "pricier" but it's good stuff


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Better yet, "Why not buy American"! I have TMY2 in my one of my Pentax 67's and a roll in my other Rollei. It's still nice to have a cheaper alternative with a different look. I did a couple of portrait shots of my little granddaughter with EDU 100 and then the other Rollei with TMY2 and I must say that I like the EDU shots much better. It was soft outdoor lighting with green foliage background and the EDU 100 aka Foma 100 just looked nicer.

 

[StoneNYC]

Better yet, "Why not buy American"! I have TMY2 in my one of my Pentax 67's and a roll in my other Rollei. It's still nice to have a cheaper alternative with a different look. I did a couple of portrait shots of my little granddaughter with EDU 100 and then the other Rollei with TMY2 and I must say that I like the EDU shots much better. It was soft outdoor lighting with green foliage background and the EDU 100 aka Foma 100 just looked nicer.

I'm not surprised the EDU looked better, TMY-2 is just awful stuff (oh the wars I will start for that statement haha).


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not surprised the EDU looked better, TMY-2 is just awful stuff (oh the wars I will start for that statement haha).

~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Only awful for those who don't know what to do with it...

 

[StoneNYC]

Only awful for those who don't know what to do with it...

That's what she said


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

That's what she said


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah, only what he heard.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I'm not saying the TMY2 shots were bad, awful or anything like that, but I just liked the EDU100/Foma 100 shots better. To be honest I think there's more noticeable grain in the EDU 100/Foma 100 then I had in the TMY2 shots, but grain ain't all bad and this stuff didn't look clumpy like some films do. I guess it's "smooth" grain? I haven't used much TRI-X lately, but that might be interesting when I'm done testing/trying EDU 200.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'm not saying the TMY2 shots were bad, awful or anything like that, but I just liked the EDU100/Foma 100 shots better. To be honest I think there's more noticeable grain in the EDU 100/Foma 100 then I had in the TMY2 shots, but grain ain't all bad and this stuff didn't look clumpy like some films do. I guess it's "smooth" grain? I haven't used much TRI-X lately, but that might be interesting when I'm done testing/trying EDU 200.

I didn't think you were either. I just love poking fun at Stone about TMax 400, that's all, and he's pretty good at getting back at me.

You like what you like. If you Foma 200 works well for you, then continue shooting it! It is pretty lovely stuff and I agree the grain is very pretty.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Thomas, I ran the last roll of TMax400 thru my antique 500C with an old chrome non "T" 80mm f2.8 Planar and it produced some of the sharpest, best contrast negatives I've seen in a while. I developed them in FX37 homebrew, but Pyrocat-HD and Xtol work great with it too. It was almost grain free in FX37, which isn't a "fine grain" developer. I tried switching to TMax films, from TRI-X, when TMax first came out and I went right back to TRI-X. This new TMax is much more user friendly in my opinion. Well, the EDU 100/Foma 100 works well for me except for it being a little slow and if the EDU 200 does also I'll stick to using it for certain stuff. You know, people complain about not having enough good film/paper products, but we still have enough and maybe less is really more? JohnW

 

[StoneNYC]

I didn't think you were either. I just love poking fun at Stone about TMax 400, that's all, and he's pretty good at getting back at me.

You like what you like. If you Foma 200 works well for you, then continue shooting it! It is pretty lovely stuff and I agree the grain is very pretty.

Yea it's all in fun. I just shot a model yesterday and used one roll of HP5+ and one roll of TMY-2(Tmax400 in 120). I plan to compare the results.

I can't decide though what developer, I've only used HP5+ in Ilfsol 3, but so far I like TMY-2 in Rodinal, but I have a feeling HP5+ in Rodinal will be a grainy mess haha. But I want them to be fairly comparable, I know that's impossible but I exposed a specific shot exactly the same between the two so I could compare.

Only one more roll of TMY left...

Kinda glad I don't like it now that I'm moving to 4x5, since all the Ilford stuff is cheaper, just wish they had PanF+ in 4x5... *sigh*


~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

TMY grainy in Rodinal? You must be doing something wrong. I'm serious this time... I make 16x20 prints from 120 TMY-2 / Rodinal where grain is barely visible. No crazy standing development or anything like that either, just EI 250 and 1+25 for however many minutes I can't recall. HP5+ on the other hand I can't make an 11x14 without looking decidedly grainy. Good thing I like grain. Lends nice character to the pictures. Texture.
Anyway, shoot what you like, man. No sense in torturing yourself.