Arista Pro 400 Premium high base + fog

[dfoo]

I rolled up a couple of cans of AP 400 that I bought last year a couple of weeks ago and got around to developing some of the film from a recent trip on Sunday. I was pretty surprised to see that it has quite high base + fog. I developed a single roll along with a roll of Tri-X in the same tank using the same chemistry and the AP 400 base looked noticeably darker. I did some measurements with my DA Enlarger meter last night using it as a projection densitometer and here is what I found:

The Tri-X base + fog was 0.378. The AP 400 was 0.627. I measured some AP 400 from earlier last year and found that came in at 0.441.

I then tried developing some unexpected film. From the same lot:

- Exposed AP 400 leader. This was right around 0.3.
- Unexposed AP 400. This was right around 0.24.

From a different lot of AP 400.
- Unexposed AP 400. ~0.24.

I then measured some unexposed Tri-X. It measured ~0.21.

I have 10 other tins of 100 foot AP 400 in my fridge that I just bought. I'll roll up a sample of that tomorrow and shoot & develop and see what I get.

What would be normal for the film? How harmful is this high fog?

At this point it looks like I have 2 entire tins which are not all that usable which is pretty disappointing.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

What is the expiration date of the Arista? I have found that Kodak ISO 400 films and faster don't take to age very well, increasing in base fog almost immediately after expiration.

Base fog is normally not a problem, but you may have to expose more to get shadow values up above that base fog. So you lose film speed, and your exposure times will be longer. The prints themselves should be fine.

If you're having this problem, perhaps you should call up Freestyle. They might replace it for you if it's still within date.

- Thomas

 

[dfoo]

I sent Freestyle an email today but haven't heard back yet. I'm not sure offhand of the exact expiration date, I'd have to dig the cans out of the trash. If they are expired its only just expired. I also developed a tmax-400 in the same tank as a test roll of Tri-X. The tmax 400 is from 1998, and has far less base + fog than the AP 400 (right around the same level as the Tri-X).

 

[dfoo]

I just dug a can from the garbage and it will expire on 1/2012. The other can would have been the same.

 

[brucemuir]

Is there an emulsion number handy?

 

[dfoo]

Where can I find that?

 

[brucemuir]

Im pretty sure it's the number at the bottom of the outer label on the can.

 

[dfoo]

The bottom of the can has two numbers:

13810122 1247493

 

[brucemuir]

I have some rolls& cans I bought just recently.
I'll have to dig them out of the freezer...thanks for looking that up.

 

[chriscrawfordphoto]

I've shot a lot of the Arista Premium 400 and the base fog was about the sameas the Tri-X I have shot at thesame time. I wonder if you got some that had been improperly stored? Or maybe it got heat damaged in shipping if it sat in a UPS truck over a hit weekend in summertime before it got delivered?

 

[dfoo]

I guess its possible... I had it in my fridge since I bought it. I'll try and print some of the negs this weekend and see how the fog affects actual prints. The negatives do look rather low contrast compared to the Tri-X I developed at the same time.

 

[brucemuir]

Believe me when I say I'm not trying to insult your experience or methods but have you eliminated any error on your part when loading or handling the film?

I assume the fog is uniform or it would've tripped you're "o shi*t" meter.

I checked one of my cans with a 9/2013 date and the second number is the same as yours but the first number is later.

I mostly buy rolls cuz cans aren't that much cheaper in the long run. The roll numbering is different unless I am missing something somewhere.

 

[dfoo]

Mishandling was the first thing I thought Bruce. However, the fog is uniform over the 3 entire rolls of the film. I wouldn't expect a light leak to produce uniform fogging, unless the loader had a leak. However, I spooled up the two rolls of AP 400 using different loaders and they both have fogging Also, I later spooled up some double X & Tri-X and it has no fogging. Furthermore, if my darkroom had a leak you'd expect all of the film I developed at the same time as the AP 400 (I spooled up and prepared a roll of Legacy Pro 100, three rolls of Double X, one roll of Tri-X and 2 rolls of AP 400 at the same time) to all be similarly fogged and they are not.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

It is never a good idea to mix films when developing. Chemicals released during development from one film can seriously effect development of the other. I know there are some people who will say that they never have any problems but why take a chance. For example, Tmax films release a lot of iodide during development.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It is never a good idea to mix films when developing. Chemicals released during development from one film can seriously effect development of the other. I know there are some people who will say that they never have any problems but why take a chance. For example, Tmax films release a lot of iodide during development.

That's interesting. In order to believe it, however, I'd be genuinely interested in understanding why developing a lot of TMax film in a replenished developer doesn't seem to have any ill effect on other films, where such chemicals would exist in abundance.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

When you mix films the chemicals are released into a small volume of developer where they have the greatest effect. When you replenish, the chemicals are deluted both by volume and the addition of fresh developer. I only mentioned Tmax as an example of a film that produces an unusual byproduct of development. Iodide ion has a restraining effect similar to that of bromide. However it is more potent in its effects. There are also other chemicals such as sensitizing dyes that are released. This problem has been discussed before either on APUG or on pure-silver.

 

[dfoo]

It is never a good idea to mix films when developing. Chemicals released during development from one film can seriously effect development of the other. I know there are some people who will say that they never have any problems but why take a chance. For example, Tmax films release a lot of iodide during development.

Ok, its a good point, however, its not the reason for the high base fog I developed a separate roll of film from the same bulk roll by itself in a tank and it had exactly the same issue.

 

[dfoo]

I shot & developed a test roll from the cans I recently bought and the film has low base + fog (close to 0.3 like the Tri-X I originally developed). I then developed & shot a test roll from the other can that I rolled when I spooled up the original roll I shot. That had a base + fog of around 0.45; so it is starting to get fogged, but not very bad yet.

 

[brucemuir]

Did you say the effected can was marked 2012??

 

[dfoo]

Of the ~40 rolls of film I separated them into two batches, so I know one lot came from one can and one came from the other. However, unfortunately, I don't know which batch came from which can and I only found one can in the trash. I don't know for sure that the fogged film is from 2012... it could be the case that the less-fogged (or perhaps 0.45 isn't considered fogged at all) film is from 2012 and the other is from an older batch

 

[Marvin]

I had thought about the hot truck issue with film and thought it would be better ordering it in cool weather. I have also wondered about mailing exposed film in summer.
Marvin