Battle of the Bargain Brands

[aparat]

As film prices continue to climb, a lot of photographers reach for the least expensive options. Currently, if purchasing in bulk, the Arista Edu Ultra and Ultrafine Finesse are among the least expensive 35 mm films on the market (at least in the US). At Photo Warehouse, a 100 ft. bulk roll sells for:

• Ultrafine Finesse 100: $60.95
• Ultrafine Finesse 400: $61.95
• Arista Edu Ultra 100 and 400: $63.99

Are these films true bargains, or are they duds? Let’s see if we can figure this out.

I ran a six-curve family test (for 4, 5:45, 8, 11, 16, and 22 minutes) for Arista Edu Ultra 100, Arista Edu Ultra 400, Ultrafine Finesse 100, and Ultrafine Finesse 400, and developed them in the same tank, in Ilford ID-11 1+1, in a rotary processor at 20C. I used Ilford ID-11 simply because I had just made a fresh five-liter batch and because it's a great, very popular, all-rounder. I ran the test twice and averaged the density readings for the final analysis. There’s a lot of data to go through so I will be posting my analysis in installments.


First, let’s take a look at the Arista Edu Ultra 100. I grew up behind the Iron Curtain, where Foma (apparently, the manufacturer of Arista Edu Ultra films) and ORWO were highly sought-after brands of photographic materials.

This is a conventional, panchromatic B&W film. It is coated on a gray or gray-blue cellulose triacetate base, 0,135 mm thick. It handles very well. It curles prior to processing, but dries flat. I have found no emulsion defects in this batch. Base fog density is respectable, ranging from 0.3 to 0.35 in my test. The film produces a family of well-formed curves, with a short toe, nice separation along the entire tonal range, and a sizable increase in film speed (about 2 stops) over the six developing times. The ISO speed, according to my test, is around ISO 95. Interestingly, it appears to be around 1/2 ro 3/4 of a stop faster than the CatLABS X FILM 320 Pro, another economically priced film, tested in this thread. More data and sample photographs coming up soon.

Your comments and photographs are highly appreciated!

 

[Paul Howell]

I've used Foma off and on past 20 years, Foma 400 tends to show grain, and is only at near with 400 when using an acutance type developer. As I understand it Foma 200 is a hybrid with both traditional and T grain, seems to be close to 200 with most developers. As with 400 Foma 100 is with most develpers and half posted ISO, around 50. I don't have a densitometry, using a shoot round I pegged 400 at 320 with D76 and F78+, 250 with MCM 100. I got to ISO 50 with Foma 100 at 50 with D76, and 100 with MCM 100. I use Finess, have a few rolls left from my bulk load, will not buy again, for not much will stay with Foma as my shoot around film. For travel I will use Tmax 400, 3200 and 100.

 

[aparat]

I've used Foma off and on past 20 years, Foma 400 tends to show grain, and is only at near with 400 when using an acutance type developer. As I understand it Foma 200 is a hybrid with both traditional and T grain, seems to be close to 200 with most developers. As with 400 Foma 100 is with most develpers and half posted ISO, around 50. I don't have a densitometry, using a shoot round I pegged 400 at 320 with D76 and F78+, 250 with MCM 100. I got to ISO 50 with Foma 100 at 50 with D76, and 100 with MCM 100. I use Finess, have a few rolls left from my bulk load, will not buy again, for not much will stay with Foma as my shoot around film. For travel I will use Tmax 400, 3200 and 100.

Yeah, I also expose Fomapan 100 at EI 50, particularly if I need shadow detail. I haven't used Finesse before, so I am curious to see how it performs, esp. against a proven contender, such as the Foma films.

I haven't shot a roll of Fomapan 200 in a long time. I should try it again one day. I hear it's a great film.

 

[gone]

Both the EDU Ultra films are Foma films, so that makes it simple. I use Clayton F76 Plus for them both, but the 100 shot at EI 50 and developed in Rodinal at 1:25 to 1:50 is the bomb. Beautiful combination.

The 400 I shoot at 250, sometimes 320, and it comes out very nice. That film doesn't like Rodinal at all, at least when I do it. The 200 is a love-hate sort of thing for a lot of people, and it didn't work for me. If all I ever had were the 400 and 100 films, I would be perfectly happy. Some folks don't like the 400 grain, but it looks quite different on the wet prints.

 

[aparat]

Both the EDU Ultra films are Foma films, so that makes it simple. I use Clayton F76 Plus for them both, but the 100 shot at EI 50 and developed in Rodinal at 1:25 to 1:50 is the bomb. Beautiful combination.

The 400 I shoot at 250, sometimes 320, and it comes out very nice. That film doesn't like Rodinal at all, at least when I do it. The 200 is a love-hate sort of thing for a lot of people, and it didn't work for me. If all I ever had were the 400 and 100 films, I would be perfectly happy. Some folks don't like the 400 grain, but it looks quite different on the wet prints.

Yeah, I love the grain on the Fomapan 400. I feel the same way about Foma products. By the way, do you happen to know who makes the Ultrafine Finesse films?

 

[Moose22]

I've had good luck with Arista 100 in Clayton 76, which is what my lab uses. It is just generic "film" -- something that gives good and predictable results at box speed. It's good in xtol, too, though I have had issues loading reels that I don't seem to have with Delta or Tmax. The film base seems to stick or twist or something.

I haven't been using the Arista 400 much as I've been using Kentmere for my "cheap" 400. From a user's perspective, entirely non-scientific, Kentmere 400 is good film. I'll be interested in the results and people's opinions about the Arista EDU 400 as I have had rolls in the fridge waiting to be shot for a while now and just always gone to HP5 or Kentmere.

Looking forward to the rest of your results here.

 

[Paul Howell]

Finess is made in the E.U so either Foma or Orwa. The rolls I've developed seem to have different development times from Foma. Unlike other generic films sold by PhotoWarehouse it is only sold in bulk rolls.

 

[aparat]

Thanks @Paul Howell for the info!

Speaking of Foma, I thought I'd show a comparison between Foma's published data sheet for Fomapan 100 and the results of my analysis. I do not claim to offer analysis nearly as accurate as Foma's, but I think this is an interesting comparison, nonetheless.

The curve families look similar, except that Foma gave the film a little more exposure and developed in Microphen. By the way, is the Ilford ID-68 (mixed from the formula) the same as the current Microphen? I have the ingredients required for ID-68, so if the two are the same, I might try developing the film in ID-68 to see if there's any gain in speed.



Here, we have Foma's combination graph showing the relationship between film speed and developing time, as well as the Average Gradient (Ḡ) and developing time. I have them on separate plots. Foma's data are from D76 and ID-11 stock, whereas mine are from ID-11 1+1.

 

[Paul Howell]

The other bargain films are Kentmere, 100 and 400 and Kodak double x, movie film which is sold under a wide range of labels. I've used both, have shot a ring around with DDX which I should do.

 

[gone]

Hopefully someone will know where the Finesses films originate because I don't. One thing I do know is that the exposure and choice of developer make a huge difference in how any film looks. Even the type of agitation can make a difference. I've used Mic-X and Acufine with Foma 100 and that also looks very different, especially in the tonality and grain.

I'm going to try the Kentmere films films next. Don't think the double X will work, but who knows until I try it? Acros was a film that never worked for me, but when I saw the results people got using a different developer, their negs looked great. Totally different than mine.

 

[Huss]

Absolutely love Kentmere 400 which often is cheaper per roll than Foma or Arista.

 

[Paul Howell]

Kentmere native ISO is very close to 400, contrast is very similar to Ultrafine eXtreme 400.

 

[aparat]

Kentmere native ISO is very close to 400, contrast is very similar to Ultrafine eXtreme 400.

I looked for Ultrafine eXtreme 400 at the Photo Warehouse, but it is out of stock.

 

[aparat]

I have a couple of photographs to share. First, I captured a standard color chart in even, late afternoon light. I set my spot meter to ISO 100 for the Arista Edu Ultra 100, and ISO 64 for the Ultrafine Finesse 100. I measured off the grey background. I processed both rolls in ID-11 1+1 for 8 minutes at 20C. My scanner is ancient and has banding issues, so I apologize for the scan quality.

What's clear to me, so far, is that the Ultrafine Finesse is demonstrably a decent, inexpensive film. I did not expect that. Fomapan 100 has an established reputation, so its good performance is not surprising, but the Finesse looks very good to me. The films are different in their spectral response, which is evident from the color chart photographs. Arista has a lighter red patch and darker green, whereas Finesse has a darker red and green, but lighter blue. Both films are capable of capturing a long tonal range, if exposed and developed well.

But if Finesse is not Fomapan, then what is it? I have no idea, but, so far, I am enjoying using it.

Arista Edu Ultra 100:


Ultrafine Finesse 100:

 

[aparat]

I have been unsuccessful trying to find out any background information on the Ultrafine Finesse 100 film. It's only available in 100 ft bulk rolls, it seems to be a conventional panchromatic film. In terms of performance, I was very pleasantly surprised. It produces a family of well-formed curves, it responds to exposure and development in a conventional manner, it's capable of a slight increase in shadow detail with increased development time. Its speed is about 2/3 stop slower than Arista Edu Ultra 100 and has a different spectral response. Here's a curve family for this film. Note that the eight-minute development produces a curve with the Average Gradient of 0.62, so it coincides with the ISO curve. It's just a coincidence.

 

[Paul Howell]

Of the 2 Finess films I liked the 100 better than 400, but not enough to by a second roll. Ultrafine eXtreame has been out of stock for a couple of years. I used it as my shoot around film for years but as prices climbed I switched back to Foma. What is odd about Finess 100 that I got ISO 200 in MCM 100.

 

[relistan]

Since it doesn’t seem to be another known film, my guess is that Finesse is one of the experiments from Inoviscoat/Orwo that preceded their new films. That’s also the source of many of the funny color films from Lomography. I have no facts regarding Finesse. There just aren’t that many folks coating film. My only hesitation is that the grain is finer than the other Orwo films. But I’ve never seen new NP100 except on their site. Finesse seems fairly nice though.

 

[alanrockwood]

Thanks @Paul Howell for the info!

Speaking of Foma, I thought I'd show a comparison between Foma's published data sheet for Fomapan 100 and the results of my analysis. I do not claim to offer analysis nearly as accurate as Foma's, but I think this is an interesting comparison, nonetheless.

The curve families look similar, except that Foma gave the film a little more exposure and developed in Microphen. By the way, is the Ilford ID-68 (mixed from the formula) the same as the current Microphen? I have the ingredients required for ID-68, so if the two are the same, I might try developing the film in ID-68 to see if there's any gain in speed.

View attachment 322722 View attachment 322723

Here, we have Foma's combination graph showing the relationship between film speed and developing time, as well as the Average Gradient (Ḡ) and developing time. I have them on separate plots. Foma's data are from D76 and ID-11 stock, whereas mine are from ID-11 1+1.

View attachment 322725 View attachment 322726 View attachment 322727

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the technical data sheets for fomapan 100, 200, and 400 show characteristic curves that are identical except for the development times. The curves for the three films are even placed in the same places on the horizontal (exposure) axis. This makes me think that the curves supplied by Foma are not based completely on true experimental data. Furthermore, given that the curves are placed in the same places on the horizontal scale would mean that the film speeds are the same for the three film, but this does not seem reasonable to me.

 

[cmacd123]

Double-X 5222 is worthwhile testing. It is rated for Motion Picture use at 250 ASA, But I suspect if developing for normal still contrast some may find it capable of slightly more. Direct from Kodak, it is only available in 400Ft and 1000 ft rolls, so many will want to get it re-spooled into 100ft rolls from folks like FFP and Photo warehouse.

 

[aparat]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the technical data sheets for fomapan 100, 200, and 400 show characteristic curves that are identical except for the development times. The curves for the three films are even placed in the same places on the horizontal (exposure) axis. This makes me think that the curves supplied by Foma are not based completely on true experimental data. Furthermore, given that the curves are placed in the same places on the horizontal scale would mean that the film speeds are the same for the three film, but this does not seem reasonable to me.

That's a great find! The curves do look the same. I overlaid them in Gimp and they are identical. This is something worth asking Foma about. I will try to give them a call next week and see if I can speak to an engineer about this. Most likely, they'll ignore me, but I might get lucky and get some useful information.

@cmacd123 When I was browsing over at Photo Warehouse, I came across their Double-X 5222 film sold as 36-exposure rolls, which they probably spool themselves. I ordered three rolls, hoping to test them vs. 400TX. It'll take a while, but I may end up doing the test. I agree with you that it would be nice to know more about Double-X 5222.

 

[aparat]

Do these color charts look the same to you? I tested the grey patches in Gimp with an Color Picker tool, getting very similar values (l looked ratios, such as green to red, red to blue, etc. of V values in HSV) across these two images. And what about the grain? Does it look the same to you?

The chart on the left is Arista Edu Ultra 400 and on the left Ultrafine Finesse 400. I developed them in XTOL stock for 7:30 min. at 20C in a Jobo processor. To me, the grain looks surprisingly fine. I thought I knew Fomapan 400 very well, but this is the first time I've developed it in XTOL, and grain looks the finest I've ever seen in this film. I used XTOL because I am trying to season it for a different test I am planning to run.

 

[Anon Ymous]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the technical data sheets for fomapan 100, 200, and 400 show characteristic curves that are identical except for the development times. The curves for the three films are even placed in the same places on the horizontal (exposure) axis. This makes me think that the curves supplied by Foma are not based completely on true experimental data. Furthermore, given that the curves are placed in the same places on the horizontal scale would mean that the film speeds are the same for the three film, but this does not seem reasonable to me.

The X axis is relative log exposure, so placement doesn't matter, but the identical shape is certainly strange. Another thing I noticed was the uneven placement of the vertical lines. The space between -3 and -2 looks larger than -2 and -1.

 

[Paul Howell]

Xtol is likley a good choice for Foma films, Foma makes a version of Xtol, Freestyle at one time carried it, have not looked to see if it is still in catalog, expensive as it only sold in 1 liter size.

 

[relistan]

Do these color charts look the same to you? I tested the grey patches in Gimp with an Color Picker tool, getting very similar values (l looked ratios, such as green to red, red to blue, etc. of V values in HSV) across these two images. And what about the grain? Does it look the same to you?

The chart on the left is Arista Edu Ultra 400 and on the left Ultrafine Finesse 400. I developed them in XTOL stock for 7:30 min. at 20C in a Jobo processor. To me, the grain looks surprisingly fine. I thought I knew Fomapan 400 very well, but this is the first time I've developed it in XTOL, and grain looks the finest I've ever seen in this film. I used XTOL because I am trying to season it for a different test I am planning to run.

View attachment 322888 View attachment 322890

I would say those are probably the same film. Interesting that the Finesse 100 is so different from Fomapan 100 though. Perhaps it’s Fomapan 200 after all?

 

[Paul Howell]

That would explain why I was able to shoot it at 200 when developed in MCM 100 and F76+