• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Arista Premium Film

Marvin said:
Just wonder if any of you have used the 100 and 400 Arista Premium Film and how they compare to Plus X and Tri X. I wonder if these might also be available in 120 in the future.
Marvin
Click to expand...

I have used them. Mostly the 400, but I tried two rolls of the 100 just to compare it to Plus-X.

Lets put it this way: They compare to Plus-X and Tri-X in every way but edge markings. They contrast in no way but edge markings.

It is my best guess, thanks to a recent link to a Kodak MP catalog posted by an APUG member that shows the price per foot being nearly identical, that they are cut from 1000 and/or 400 foot rolls of the motion picture negative films Plus-X and Double-X, which are AFAIK identical to the still films Plus-X and Tri-X.

Given my best guess, I do not see them becoming available in any format but 135...but it is possible, if Kodak becomes desperate enough to sell medium format Plus-X and Tri-X!

If Kodak can move the film at about the same retail price per foot as they are getting for MP stock, the real question to me is not how Kodak can make a profit. They obviously can do so at this price, if they move enough volume. The question to me is, why are the retail prices for Plus-X and Tri-X so high when it comes in a yellow cassette for still cameras? Are the relatively high prices coupled with relatively low demand, and many other good options for budget-conscious film buyers hurting their sales so badly that they had to strike this deal with Freestyle just to keep production lines rolling and/or clear out stock that might have otherwise spoiled in a warehouse?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would not say Double X is identical to Tri-X. In fact I would say they are quite different, not to mention that the sprocket holes for MP stock are different. Double X reminds me of Tri-X from the seventies, it shows more grain than the current Tri-X. Nice looking stuff though.
 
I have used and still have some Double-X cine film. It's nothing at all like the current Tri-X still camera film. Aside from having differently shaped sprocket holes (proves nothing, change the die on the machine that cuts the sprocket holes and you have a differently shaped hole), Double-X is far more grainy than Tri-X and the contrast is different. Can't say anything about the cine and still versions of Plus-X. Never used the cine version.
 
Thank you two. As I said, a guess.

The pricing of Double X and Plus X MP negative film does prove that if sales volume is sufficient, Kodak can make a profit at the current pricing of Arista Premium.
 
Are there a lot of people that are still shooting black and white movie film?
 
This is an excellent discussion. It seems as if the earlier (and general) opinion here is that the Arista Premium products are exactly the same as Plus-X and Tri-X. Does anyone debate this point?

Also, if I do opt for one of these films, should I go with Arista 100? I ask because I had thought Tri-X was a bit too grainy for my taste, but I cannot remember if Plus-X is much different. I did like the rest of what Tri-X conveyed, though. I am also trying to remember how these films compare to Delta 100 and 400 in terms of white sky syndrome. Only Rollei Superpan 200 has shown good tone and definition in my skies--yet, in most other respects, I prefer the Ilford and Kodak films. I know that the white skies might have something to do with developing (I do not develop my own film), but I do not wish to debate this point here. I tend to doubt it has much to do with developing, since I have gotten good results with skies (using the same pro lab) with Superpan 200.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You could try shooting with a yellow filter if you are looking for more tone in the sky, at least when the sky is blue. As for the movie stock, there are some folks who shoot it, I've done so in the past, but it's harder to find the short ends than it used to be. There is a long running but still active thread about it over on RFF.
You can by 400' cans of it from Kodak, but it would be cool of Freestyle repacked some of that too.
 
Lucky make their C-41 colour stuff in 16mm 1R and 2R apparently, and offer their 100-400 range in 35mm 1000ft and 2000ft rolls in tins, which would be brilliant, but I cant find anyone that buys the big tins, last time I contacted lucky directly the minimum order was like a shipping containing full.
 
I do have yellow filters on hand, but have not been careful and precise in noting differences in this respect. I thank you for reminding me of this, and I will go ahead and document my results.

Could a yellow filter give more tone to a cloudy sky (i.e. where there are some discernible darker clouds)? I cannot see any reason why it could not, but perhaps I am missing something here.
 
Well, the filters work on the color spectrum, so it depends on how much color is in the sky. The best advice really is to try it for yourself, try it with and with out and make some prints and see the differences. You'll get a lot of good info from that. Filters are a great tool and can do good things with a lot of subjects, but it is easy to forget about them, at least for me sometimes.
 
Sometimes a yellow or orange filter can add a little texture to an overcast sky. It depends on the uniformity of the cloud cover. High thin clouds will usually show a bit of texture, but if the sky is just plain leaden and uniformly grey, not much will help. You have to be careful when using these on overcast days. The color temperature of the light on an overcast day is considerably cooler (more biased towards blue and less towards red) than it is on a clear day. Yellow, orange, and red filters are essentially blue blocking filters with yellow being the least strong and red the most. All other things being equal, the sky should darken a little bit, but of course, all other things are not equal. Filter factors, an approximation at best since no two films have exactly the same spectral response, are gauged on full spectrum daylight, and so you might have to add more exposure than the filter factor calls for when using them on an overcast day to get decent exposure on the foreground. Once you compensate for that, the sky gets more exposure and prints light again. Back to square one. Short answer, filters don't buy you much on a cloudy day for sky values.
 
to follow up. The Arista 36 exp product comes in a plastic can identical to a Kodak Can. The expiry date and emulsion number are printed on the box in the same place in the same font. The frame numbers are the same, the film is held on the spool by the same white plastic tape. The spools are the same as Kodak Spools (which is good because I save Kodak spools for bulk loading as I use tape and don't have a fancy punch to make a hole for the AP Photoplastics spools.)

Presumably Kodak is making the stuff, and perhaps attempting to undercut Foma/Ultra.EDU
 
Good, I am glad to see Kodak being competitive and getting a foot in this market that they would not otherwise be able to compete in. Plus it keeps their equipment going, jobs, etc. I think it's a smart move, because they're not really cannabilizing their own sales too much. Those in the market for re-branded film are likely not willing to pay the price for "Kodak" branded film in the first place. Seems like a win-win there.
Jed
 
Hi

I am interested in this film in sheet sizes, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10
Don't see it at Freestyle, only there in roll.
Where can I get it? Do you have a link?

Thanks.

-R
 
Sorry, that's all there is and only in 135 format at that. Too bad really. I'd love to see it in 120. There is no Tri-X 400 in any sheet film sizes, so that's not going to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register