Is Arista EDU Ultra 400 same as Foma 400?

[Rich Ullsmith]

I have seen this asserted elsewhere. I can't find any times for the Arista EDU 400 with PMK. Got a time for Foma, not Arista. Totally new film for me, I just need a starting point.

 

[henryyjjames]

Yes, same stuff.

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

Thanks much, H.

 

[Paul Howell]

If there any technical difference the differences are so small as not cause any issues using Foma times.

 

[cmacd123]

some of the Foma Data sheets actually say the foma 400 may be idetified by the edge print that says "Ultra" which sugests to me that more of the stuff is sold as Arista EDU Untra than as Fomapan Action.

 

[Cholentpot]

Interesting. I've been shooting a lot of EDU-400. It looks better at 800 than 400 to my eyes.

 

[Steven Lee]

Interesting. I've been shooting a lot of EDU-400. It looks better at 800 than 400 to my eyes.

What chemistry do you use and can you share some samples? I couldn't get any shadow detail (and I am not even the shadow detail guy!) using the box speed. Only after I started treating it as ISO 200 film I started to get usable results. My developer is Xtol 1+1.

 

[Paul Howell]

I've shoot maybe a 1000 rolls over 40 years or so, with most meters and cameras I found 320 to work well for me. I've used so many developers with Foma films. Xtol is as good as any. I currently use Kodak HC 110 D=E, I also have a bottle of Clayton F76+ which works really well. I tend to favor middle of the road type develops for 400 to tame the grain. I'll look for some samples when I get a chance to scan the prints.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I got decent results shooting it at 200, and developing it either in PMK pyro or Pyrocat. Full 400 box speed just doesn't sound realistic to me if you want good shadow detail in a contrasty scene. But it's not a film I normally use.

My hunch, and that of certain other people, is that Foma makes big bulk initial cuts for Freestyle to quickly break even on a coating run, then progressively cuts down their own label needs afterwards, necessarily at higher pricing.

 

[Paul Howell]

Looking at the Foma 400 data sheet, it seems to be a stop slower, I guess I have not been as keen on shadow details as others so 320 has been good for me.

 

[Cholentpot]

What chemistry do you use and can you share some samples? I couldn't get any shadow detail (and I am not even the shadow detail guy!) using the box speed. Only after I started treating it as ISO 200 film I started to get usable results. My developer is Xtol 1+1.

Most of my photos are of personal nature so they're not going up. I have a few off shots that are not my best work but it can show the film off.

EDU400 @800 HC110B 9min SRT 101

EDU400 box speed HC110B 8 min Signet 35

Film is ok, good enough for every day use. I just like how it looks at 800 over 400. It picks up more contrast for an otherwise flat film.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Cholentpot Thank you for sharing. The results you get look very similar to what I get when I use it at box speed, so there's probably difference in how we meter.

 

[grain elevator]

I got decent results shooting it at 200, and developing it either in PMK pyro or Pyrocat. Full 400 box speed just doesn't sound realistic to me if you want good shadow detail in a contrasty scene. But it's not a film I normally use.

My hunch, and that of certain other people, is that Foma makes big bulk initial cuts for Freestyle to quickly break even on a coating run, then progressively cuts down their own label needs afterwards, necessarily at higher pricing.

I dont think so, higher pricing seems to have something to do with the US distribution. The Fomapan labeled stuff is quite a bit cheaper in Europe.

 

[Pioneer]

Everybody seems to have their own preferences and some have already worked out things the way they like them. Right now I want contrast and grain in my negative and I want my prints to slap me in my face. Both Fomapan 400 and AEU400 seem to be the same film from what I can tell and they both give me what I like whether I'm shooting 35mm or larger negatives.

I'm not shooting film so that it looks like digital and when I shoot portraits I'm not using this film. I usually meter off the shadows. I've been under exposing at EI800 lately, sometimes even EI1600, and developing with d-23 1:1 for 15m @ 20C. If I need something smoother later then I may start over exposing or moving to AEU100. I tried EI3200 but lost me too much in the negative so I backed off. If it is really low light I grab a tripod and shoot at box speed, otherwise EI800 seems to be the sweet spot for what I want.

Just like I change things in low light I also do not typically shoot in a full, bright sun here in Nevada summers. If I do I will change my developing times or my agitations a little, maybe even my temps. I am still playing around and trying different things and Fomapan (or AEU) is not so expensive that I feel I have to limit myself in what I shoot. Right now contrast is GOOD and shadow detail is not the most important thing in my photographs. But interestingly, I am not losing as much in the shadows as I thought I would.

The way I am playing around with things you may not want to use my advice but...back on topic. I use (and change) Fomapan and Arista EDU Ultra developing times off the Massive Development Chart interchangeably and have not noticed any difference. From my experience they seem to be the same film coming off the same master roll.

 

[grain elevator]

Everybody seems to have their own preferences and some have already worked out things the way they like them. Right now I want contrast and grain in my negative and I want my prints to slap me in my face. Both Fomapan 400 and AEU400 seem to be the same film from what I can tell and they both give me what I like whether I'm shooting 35mm or larger negatives.

I'm not shooting film so that it looks like digital and when I shoot portraits I'm not using this film. I usually meter off the shadows. I've been under exposing at EI800 lately, sometimes even EI1600, and developing with d-23 1:1 for 15m @ 20C. If I need something smoother later then I may start over exposing or moving to AEU100. I tried EI3200 but lost me too much in the negative so I backed off. If it is really low light I grab a tripod and shoot at box speed, otherwise EI800 seems to be the sweet spot for what I want.

Just like I change things in low light I also do not typically shoot in a full, bright sun here in Nevada summers. If I do I will change my developing times or my agitations a little, maybe even my temps. I am still playing around and trying different things and Fomapan (or AEU) is not so expensive that I feel I have to limit myself in what I shoot. Right now contrast is GOOD and shadow detail is not the most important thing in my photographs. But interestingly, I am not losing as much in the shadows as I thought I would.

The way I am playing around with things you may not want to use my advice but...back on topic. I use (and change) Fomapan and Arista EDU Ultra developing times off the Massive Development Chart interchangeably and have not noticed any difference. From my experience they seem to be the same film coming off the same master roll.

When you say you meter the shadows for EI800, are you talking about zone II or III or do you mean pointing the meter to shadows and using that reading for your exposure (zone V)?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Grain elevator - Foma distributes their own products in the US via FomaUSA, but this inevitably involves some sort of uneven markup arrangement. I'd imagine far more of their film sold in this country is actually under the Arista label instead of their own, easily explaining the price difference. It's a quantity issue. Yet according to this same arrangement, Foma might demand Freestyle charge more for the Foma label itself (which they do), to prevent complete undercutting of other sellers. Nothing unpredictable there. And then there is the overhead of shipping to another continent, as well as maintaining a separate warehouse and staff here for sake of a relatively small line of items. None of that alters my own hunch about two separate cuts.

 

[Pioneer]

When you say you meter the shadows for EI800, are you talking about zone II or III or do you mean pointing the meter to shadows and using that reading for your exposure (zone V)?

Sorry, that reference was probably confusing and it didn't need to be. I am using in-camera metering most of the time so when I meter I find that having a preponderance of shadows when I meter gives me a more consistent reading, ergo a clearer result, nothing else. So I am typically using that reading as my Zone 5 exposure reading. I don't know if that helps or not.

I think that how people meter a scene is often a habit they have developed over time. Today, which is a bright, cloudless day at my house, my camera gives me an exposure reading of 1/1000 at f11.5 when I meter as I habitually do. In another area of the yard it shows an aperture of f11. It would probably vary by about half of a stop anywhere I took the reading in the yard.

Obviously If I use my spotmeter I would meter that part of the scene that I want to show up best in the picture so that is a bit different.

 

[albireo]

I'm not shooting film so that it looks like digital and when I shoot portraits I'm not using this film. I usually meter off the shadows. I've been under exposing at EI800 lately, sometimes even EI1600, and developing with d-23 1:1

Fomapan 400 in D23 1+1 is gorgeous Curious to try it in Adox D76 next. Should be hopefully as good as with Foma's own D76 clone, Fomadon P. I'm mixing a batch tonight.

 

[Paul Howell]

Here is sample from the way back machine, Lisbon 1979, I dont think that Foma 400 has changed much over the years. I need to look at my daybooks, but recall that a couple of shops I stopped at were out of ILford and Kodak, bought 10 rolls of Foma. At the time I was using D76, this would be stock. Camera was Leica IIIG with Canon 35mm 3.5 lens. The scan is low quality, much detail in the shadows in the print. I have a few more that I will post when I dig them out. Foma is a fine film, I never had the qc issues others have had, 400 is a bit grainy which is why I use a middle of the road developers.

 

[albireo]

Here is sample from the way back machine, Lisbon 1979, I dont think that Foma 400 has changed much over the years. I need to look at my daybooks, but recall that a couple of shops I stopped at were out of ILford and Kodak, bought 10 rolls of Foma. At the time I was using D76, this would be stock. Camera was Leica IIIG with Canon 35mm 3.5 lens. The scan is low quality, much detail in the shadows in the print. I have a few more that I will post when I dig them out. Foma is a fine film, I never had the qc issues others have had, 400 is a bit grainy which is why I use a middle of the road developers.

love it!