Arista EDU Ultra Issues

[PentaxGuy87]

Hello APUG,

This is my first time posting, and just recently got into rolling, developing my own film. I figured for a start I would try Arista EDU ULTRA ISO 200. So far I have had less than great results. The images are thin and have very little contrast. I have snooping around the forums for answers, but haven't found anything I haven't already tried. Are some of these rolls lemons cause they come from the Czech Republic? Or should I just have spent the extra $20 on TriX?

These are the steps I have checked for error so far:

-Film in bulk loader with correct orientation
-Shot tests through multiple cameras
-Used chemistry to develop TMax 400 and came out fine
-Used stock D-76 for recommended 5-6 mins
-Used stock D-76 and push processed for 10 mins
-Used D-76 1:1 and processed for 10 mins

So yeah, i've been trying to find a sweet spot for this film and all my results end up pretty similar. If anyone has any input i'd greatly appreciate it. If I can't get any better results in the next couple days i'll just order some TriX and be done with it.

BTW, I use all Kodak chemistry, but just started so don't know how much that will effect development. Thanks!!

TMAX 400 (120)developed in same chemistry, all standard times.




Arista 200 (135)developed all standard times

 

[tkamiya]

If your negative is coming out thin and low in contrast, you might want to increase your development time by 20% and see what happens.

I saw your second example, but I see the image is out of foucs and looks like your subject moved as well. Without knowing what color the clothing was, it's kind of hard to judge the contrast - but I do see the hair rendered pretty white and the sweater with good density. I also see that scene may have been back lit with not much light going to the face. It may just be a bad example. Do you have another?

By the way, Arista Premium films are Kodak Tri-X and Plus-X. I use them and they are just fine...

OH, yeah... WELCOME TO APUG!

 

[Rick A]

I have shot many rolls of EDU Ultra, I always use a yellow filter and meter at half the speed listed on the box. I use ei 50 for 100 speed film, then develope for normal time in D-76 1+1.

 

[pstake]

I've used 35mm EDU Ultra quite a few times as well. I expose and develop it at 100 using D-76 at 1:2 in order to increase acutance.

Here's my recipe:
D-76 @ 68 degrees F / 20 degrees C / Dilute 1:2 / expose at 100 iso / 15 minutes

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

Never liked the stuff, which is rebranded Foma I think. A bit more for the Arista premium is the sweet spot. The arista legacy pro which was neopan was also very nice when it was around. Discontinued within the last few months.

I have my students now shooting Arista Premium 400 and 100 which is Tri-X and Plus-X?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

For a true test, I would shoot the two film, same format on the same subject. But it looks like you have 2 shots done one 2 different formats. The shot on the bottom looks like a contrasty scene while it's under exposed and over developed. Correct me if I'm wrong. Also, T-max film has a clearer film base than Arista. I've used Arista Ultra EDU in 35mm and 120. My only complaint is that the film base is too curly. But they've fixed the problem.

 

[padraigm]

I use the arist edu 200 with no problems. I rate at 125 and develop in D-76 1:1 for 7 minutes Jobo. If your shooting box speed it will be underexposed.

 

[PentaxGuy87]

Thanks for all the info gentlemen,

As for the 2 shots they (obviously) different but thought illustrated my point. Anyhow while different formats both are shots set to recommended ISO setting and metered exposure. Again different cameras though so indeed I should've expected different results.
The first thing ill try is shooting at 100 ISO in camera. Ill also role a couple shorts and do a test on a setup. If nothing else will give someone in the future a frame of reference.

I made a ghetto contact sheet and the results were much more promising then my scans. Yet another reason im happy to try and keep the process all analog. Sorry I have to start with a new set of frames, but I wasn't even sure this old paper would develop.

I just use a 3in1 scan combo for these, cause i'd rather buy film then a v500 or something. Not really looking for info on that, just saying. Would be open to darkroom tips since I'm acquiring gear bit by bit, but i'll probably just troll the forums.

So heres a comparison of the contact vs straight scan. At least this time the same frames. It really looks more like a scanning issue. Nonetheless the testing will continue!!

Negative Scan (Luminance Adjusted)




Contact Sheet (cropped in Aperture)



Full Contact (Luminance Adjusted)



Although this is entertaining if I can't get better results with a couple tweaks looks like Tri-X is in my future.

Thanks again.

 

[agfarapid]

I've been using Arista Ultra 200 in 120 format for about 2 years now. I've developed in either Rodinal 1:50 or Kodak Xtol 1:1. I also rate at 1/2 box speed and have gotten pretty decent results. I can't speak for the 135mm but in 120 the negatives have a grayish/blue base which gives the appearance of low contrast but when scanned comes out equivalent to a grade 2 paper. When compared to my other favorite, Tmax 100, obviously, the Kodak product is superior. That being said, the Foma emulsions aren't bad and are pretty good when processed with care.

 

[pstake]

I've used 35mm EDU Ultra quite a few times as well. I expose and develop it at 100 using D-76 at 1:2 in order to increase acutance.

Here's my recipe:
D-76 @ 68 degrees F / 20 degrees C / Dilute 1:2 / expose at 100 iso / 15 minutes

I need to correct this. I looked back at my negative sheets. The time is 11:30, not 15 minutes.

My apologies if you tried the recipe that I so hastily provided.