Arista EDU/ultra

[mark]

I have been reading the archives about Arista EDU and EDU Ultra. There seems to be some concern about the Ultra being junk and the EDU being alright. WHat are people's current views of these films?

I am needing some 8x10 film and this seemed like a pretty economical way to get used to the camera and processing a much larger neg than i am used too.

 

[Nick Zentena]

IIRC

EDU is Forte
Ultra.EDU is Foma

So if you're used to either you'll know what they're like. I don't mind Forte in MF and bigger.

 

[ricksplace]

I have used quite a bit of arista.edu ultra (foma) iso 100 & 400 in 120 and I like it. It's a little quirky (blue base) but you can't argue with results. While the negs look different to say, fp4+, they print well. The blue base makes the negs look like they have a high base+fog. There's a string on here about that. Excellent grain in the 100. Exposes skies well without filters. Try it.

 

[Mike A]

Can anyone add to this thread that has had some experience with it? I ask because I noticed this stuff is available in 11x14 at a reasonable price.

The past threads I researched indicate some quality control issues, specifically Sandy King who's testing among others I usually look too when considering a new film. What other films does this resemble? Is it a low contrast type film or high.......?

Mike

 

[srs5694]

All of the below applies to the Arista.EDU Ultra/Fomapan films, not the Arista.EDU/Forte films.

There have been reports of QC problems, but I've had few or no problems with the 35mm rolls I've shot. (A couple of frames do have some odd artifacts, but I'm not 100% convinced they're film QC issues.) It's very hard to judge reliability/QC issues based on anecdotal reports in Internet forums -- the samples are too small and unscientific.

I can say that, in 35mm at least, the film has little or nothing in the way of an anti-halation layer. Street lights at night, chrome reflecting light in bright daylight, etc., tend to produce halos. IMHO, this is the worst feature of these films. I don't know if the same holds true in MF and larger formats, though.

What I do like about these films (especially in 100 and 400) is the grain pattern. It's unusually crisp, even in developers (such as D-76 and XTOL) that normally produce mushy grain. These films are coarser-grained than T-grain films, but in my subjective judgment aren't grainier than other conventional films of similar speed (Tri-X, Agfa APX, etc.). Others say they are grainier than these films, though, so take my comment with a grain of salt. The APX 200 doesn't produce grain that's quite as crisp as the 100 and 400 do. Of course, this is likely to be much less important for LF users than for 35mm users.

I've seen the claim that these films resemble Agfa's APX line more than any other, but I've shot little enough APX that it's hard for me to comment on this.

 

[Phillip P. Dimor]

I've experienced some QC trouble with a few rolls of 120 arista.edu 400.
One roll out of 20 had black 'flecks' seemingly suspended in the emulsion.
Some rolls are physically short, others start at different lengths (which is a royal pain with my pentax 645. it 'dies' during the initial loading/winding)

It's still a great film, I haven't tried the 100 yet but I would purchase the 400 again if it weren't for the fact that my pentax 645 chokes on atleast 3 out of 7 rolls.

 

[Max Power]

I ordered 20 rolls of 120 a couple of months ago from Freestyle. I've been developing it in Rodinal 1+50.

I personally prefer it to FP4+ and APX 100. I have had no QC issues myself, but I know that others here have. I have coaxed amazing results from it and am really satisified with it.

My only gripe is that I find that it curls quite badly; it's annoying, but I can live with it for what it gives me.

I have been pondering ordering a couple of 100ft rolls of 135, but I'm still obsessed with Delta 100 in 135 for the moment!

Cheers,
Kent

 

[jeffneedham]

i bought a load of the arista.edu 120. no complaints. i use it in my mamiya 645 super, and in my lubitel. every roll seems to be a different length, but it hasn't made a difference.

 

[dxphoto]

Used both. besides what ppl said above, the ultra has frame numbers on the neg, edu doesn't.

I did run into the emulsion problem in both films. Part of the emultion are gone. very strange.

EDU uses paper tape to tape the paper back to the film. Ultra uses mask tape. Paper tape is kind hard to remove, unless u cut it. Ultra is hard to get the frame right in my camera (yashica). I always miss one frame. No idea why yet.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've been using .EDU Ultra 100 in 120 for a couple months, and I like it a lot; I've also shot a bit of Fomapan 100 in 9x12 cm; it's just as good. I've also used a good bit of Classic 400, the same Fortepan as Arista.EDU (Made in Hungary), and it's excellent stuff as well. Given the prices, these films ought to do very well indeed, especially in larger formats like 120 and sheet sizes.

 

[Seele]

I wonder if the irregularity in anchoring point of the film in relation to the backing paper would affect a camera like the Rolleiflex TLR with automat loading, which disregards both the length of backing paper before the start of the film, and the numbering on the back of the backing. As long as the film length is sufficient it should not cause any trouble.

 

[fatboy22]

I have shot both the 120 and the 4x5 version of Arista Ultra. I really like the prints I am getting from it. The blue base is definintely different from any other film I have seen but does not effect quality. I have shot the 120 film in my Pentacon Six, Bronica S2a and my Rollei f2.8 with no problems in film spacing, or any quality problems for that matter.

Jamie

 

[Nathan Smith]

Pushing Arista.EDU Ultra?

Apparently I am unable to learn from my mistakes: once again I've shot a roll of film, Arista.EDU Ultra 100 this time, without resetting my light meter (400ASA).

So, since the whole roll is done at this setting I'm not quite as worried, but I don't know for sure how to proceed. I have the info for developing the film when shot at the proscribed 100ASA, but nothing else. How does one come up with the values for pushing film like this? I currently have Rodinal and HC110 to choose from.

In the past I've used Rodinal 1:100 with little or no agitation for overexposed rolls, but those have generally been extremely overexposed and/or shot at different degrees of confusion

Thanks,
Nathan

 

[Donald Qualls]

You're looking for a two-stop push here. If you're used to using Rodinal 1:100 in what amounts to stand development, you've probably been processing for 30-45 minutes. What I'd suggest is do exactly the same thing, but at 1:50 instead. With conventional processes using intermittent or continuous agitation, I'd usually recommend doubling the time for two stops, but that's not very practical with stand development, and especially not at very high dilutions.

FWIW, when I process that film normally in Parodinal (homebrew from acetaminophen tablets that uses the same dilutions and times as Rodinal), I use 1:50, 11 minutes, with continous agitation the first minute, then five inversions in 10 seconds every 3rd minute; if I were to try a two-stop push I'd give 22 minutes with the same agitation. For HC-110, I'd use Dilution F (1+79), 14 minutes with the same agitation as above, for normal, which would put two-stop push at around 28 minutes. However: with these dilutions and agitations, I'm already getting most of a stop additional speed (in the form of extra shadow detail), so I'd probably only push 1 stop, by adding 50% to time or by increasing agitation to a 1 minute cycle without increasing time at all.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Oh, and relative to the irregular film start reported earlier in this thread: I still haven't seen this with .EDU Ultra, but I have now seen it with Fortepan under the "Classic 400" rebrand. Same deal -- the starting point of the film was about 1/3 of the way through the first frame, instead of half a frame before the start. Comparing the backing with another from the same film type showed that, instead of starting within the two full-width crossbars with the + and - signs, the film started about the same point as the frame 1 mark on the 6x4.5 track. If it makes any difference, the one with the incorrect starting point was the newer, paper-tape pasted film, compared to the older one that had the masking tape style paster.

 

[dxphoto]

Developed two rolls EDU in microdol-x (1+1) and (1+3). Start to getting creamy. One roll has the defect on the emulsion. Light leak on the edge. Please load carefully.

 

[Bill Bresler]

I've used about 20 rolls of ISO 200 .edu and 10 rolls of .edu ultra. The only problem I've found is excessive light fogging at the edges of the 120 film. I kind of expect this when I run film through a toy camera, but not my old rollei and hasselblad. It's not my own loading/unloading technique, because I rarely, if ever, get edge fog with 120 TX.
No problems with 4x5 sheets of edu.ultra.
Bill

 

[Nathan Smith]

You're looking for a two-stop push here. ...

Thanks Donald!

 

[Donald Qualls]

The only problem I've found is excessive light fogging at the edges of the 120 film. I kind of expect this when I run film through a toy camera, but not my old rollei and hasselblad. It's not my own loading/unloading technique, because I rarely, if ever, get edge fog with 120 TX.

Two possible factors here. First, it's likely that Kodak still cuts their backing paper a fraction of a mm wider than the distance between spool flanges, so that it "rides up" just a hair onto the flange on both sides. And second, there can be variations between different brands of spools (again, a fraction of a mm) that could lead to film going from Foma to Foma spools being fine, but (as an example -- haven't actually tested for this) going from Foma to Kodak spool giving edge fog.

I solve this by loading and unloading in a dim room (when I can), and carrying a few 120 film cans; as soon as I have the end tape stuck down and the camera information written on it, into the can goes the film. The can is black, and has a light-tight lid, so the film gets NO exposure at the edge while in the can -- nor does it get mechanical stress that can lead to loosening the backing from the flanges. Haven't seen significant edge fogging in several months, with a random mix of Kodak, Forte, Foma, Agfa, Lucky, and Pro 100 films.

 

[Bill Bresler]

You know, I thought of the mixed brand spool factor but that's not it. I've shot medium format since 1972 (What a geezer!) so I'm used to shading the camera with my rather lumpy body. The only thing that guarantees no edge fog is to load in extremely subdued light. As I said, I've not encountered this with Kodak, or Ilford and Agfa roll films either.
Bill

 

[Donald Qualls]

You know, I thought of the mixed brand spool factor but that's not it. I've shot medium format since 1972 (What a geezer!) so I'm used to shading the camera with my rather lumpy body. The only thing that guarantees no edge fog is to load in extremely subdued light. As I said, I've not encountered this with Kodak, or Ilford and Agfa roll films either.
Bill

Careful who you call a geezer there; I owned a Kodak Reflex II in 1974, and learned to load 620 about 1966...

I don't know what's up with the edge fog, then, if it's not mismatched spools. I've never had significant edge fogging on .EDU Ultra, even after cutting it in daylight to a narrower format (127 or 828). The only other factor I can suspect is the film cans I use, which keep the roll in complete darkness from a few seconds after I finish unloading until processing, other than a few seconds of room light now and then as I determine which cans to take into the darkroom for loading.