My first Arista Edu Ultra 120 experience .....

Since the demise of TXP 320, I've been searching for a new film, not necessarily an exact replacement, just something different, and being "frugal" I decided to give some of the Ultra 400 a go. Having read many threads here and in other places, I knew what to look for and assume this is still just rebranded Foma.

Anyhow my observations:

1. I didn't have any of the scratches / emulsion problems others have reported. Shot and loaded in both my Koni Rapid 200 and Bronica ETRS.

2. I did, however, have a big problem with the spooling. For instance, I put the spool in my Koni back, went to pull it across, and the spool started to "let loose" ... like unroll itself! I've never had any film do this. Fogged the first three frames. Was more careful with the Bronica when loading.

3. Similar issue when I went to load on reels in the darkroom. The film just spooled out into wide roll ... unlike other films that curl back nicely on themselves and allow control in loading, this film just wanted to not stay rolled up.

4. The blue! I mean ... ok, I'd read about it, but geez this film is blue. Anyone know the historical/emulsion history of why? Never seen film this color.

5. On the positive side, rated at 320 I got good negs souped in Rodinal 1:25 for 5.5 mins. I think the next batch I'm going to do 1:50 for 11 mins.

I have a few more rolls to shoot, but I don't think I'll be buying anymore. Even if I pull good prints, the QC on the spool loading, plus what I've read about emulsion / scratch issues, just doesn't make the savings up front worth the stress and worry of what might happen. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to be cheap

I will add to this next weekend when I do some prints, and I'm going to finish the other rolls I have as well.

Did I mention the blue? hehe.

I've used Arista EDU 120 and overall, I'm pretty happy with the film. As far I can tell, the blue doesn't effect the MG paper I use. The only thing I don't care for is my negs are pretty curly. It's actually beautiful stuff souped in hc-110.

I have shot a few rolls of 120, havent had one try to unroll itself. I have had one roll not register properly, and lost the first shot, even though the arrows were lined up. I like the blazes outta the 100 speed, and I'm going to shoot a bunch more. I love it in Pyrocat-HD, gives super-duper printable negatives.

ralnphot said:

I have shot a few rolls of 120, havent had one try to unroll itself. I have had one roll not register properly, and lost the first shot, even though the arrows were lined up. I like the blazes outta the 100 speed, and I'm going to shoot a bunch more. I love it in Pyrocat-HD, gives super-duper printable negatives.

Click to expand...

You love everything in Pyrocat

1. You will, sooner or later, and it will be on that one important roll. I've learned to just live with it though. I've never seen any scratches that couldn't be cured with nose grease when darkroom printing or taken care of easily if scanning.

2. I've never noticed that when loading.

3. The nice part about this is that the film becomes nice and flat once dry, a lot better than other curly films.

4. Yea it weirded me out at first too.

5. I do 1:100 Rodinal for 60 minutes and get great negatives.

I've shot probably close to 50 rolls of the .EDU Ultra in both 100 and 400. Although I passed it off as junk after my first few rolls, after giving it another try I really came to like it. I can't quite pin down what it is that looks different about it, but it definitely has a different feel than the other films I use like Acros and HP5.

One note, the 400 does not push well at all. I threw a couple rolls in along with my HP5 to shoot at a music gig, and the results from it weren't anywhere near as good as Neopan 400 or HP5 pushed to 1600.

I haven't used the 400 much, but I like the 100 a lot. It's by far the grainiest 100-speed film I've ever used and somehow I don't really care.

5stringdeath said:

You love everything in Pyrocat

Click to expand...

Everything except Ortho films.

DLM said:

5. I do 1:100 Rodinal for 60 minutes and get great negatives.

One note, the 400 does not push well at all. I threw a couple rolls in along with my HP5 to shoot at a music gig, and the results from it weren't anywhere near as good as Neopan 400 or HP5 pushed to 1600.

Click to expand...

I take it you mean stand development ... one agitation at 1/2 hour?

I never push film, so its not an issue. I'll finish the rolls I have and print some this weekend before I rule it out altogether. I mean its hard to beat the price.

And yes, I had actually read that this film was quite curly, but mine was dead flat after coming out of the dryer.

DLM said:

I can't quite pin down what it is that looks different about it, but it definitely has a different feel than the other films I use like Acros and HP5.

Click to expand...

That's my take on it, too. I think at least part of it has to do with the grain, which in my experience has a crisper and more "organic" feel to it than the grain from most other films. This is most noticeable in Fomapan 400 in 35mm rather than Fomapan 100, especially in MF.

PhotoJim said:

I haven't used the 400 much, but I like the 100 a lot. It's by far the grainiest 100-speed film I've ever used and somehow I don't really care.

Click to expand...

I don't really notice much difference in overall graininess between Fomapan 100 and other conventional-grain ISO 100 or 125 films, although as I say the feel of the grain is different. IMHO, Efke's ISO 100 emulsion is far grainier than Fomapan 100. Maybe this has to do with developers. FWIW, I use mostly DS-12 with Fomapan 100 lately, although in the past I've used XTOL and PC-Glycol with it.

5stringdeath said:

I take it you mean stand development ... one agitation at 1/2 hour?

I never push film, so its not an issue. I'll finish the rolls I have and print some this weekend before I rule it out altogether. I mean its hard to beat the price.

And yes, I had actually read that this film was quite curly, but mine was dead flat after coming out of the dryer.

Click to expand...

Yes, stand development. The one thing I do differently than some people recommend is that I agitate twice, once at 20 minutes and once at 40. For my agitation I just invert it 4 times. I found that 1 hr untouched gave me uneven development. Inverting at 30 minutes cleared up that problem sometimes, but by doing it twice during the hour, it has cleared it up completely.

I've used Fomapan 400 in 120 and 35mm since they became regularly available in the U.S. Quality control problems made me stop using the 120 but recently I've shot a brick of it and had no problems at all. I've never had problems with the 35mm other than that it fogs easily if you don't load in very subdued light and it even seems to run smoother than Tri-x in my Voigtlander R3M. Foma ad copy from the 90's for the American market claimed something like "glowing tonality available only to Eastern European photographers" and the prints I get prove it's no hype. I shot my sister's wedding on Fomapan 400 and had it souped in Xtol at a custom lab. The machine proofs looked like custom work from a European master, tonality wise anyway. I shot some Fuji Neopan too that went to the same lab for the same treatment and the tonal range was quite dull and lifeless like most "modern" films. I get the same "glowing tonality" every time I shoot Foma, in any developer and I'm definitely not a European master or any other. If only the nagging QC issues would go away, I'd use no other brand but Foma.

With the QA issues Foma experiences....I could not shoot anyone's wedding on it. You don't get do overs at a wedding. What if those rolls had the QA bug? Sorry, sis?

Keep the Brasso handy.

Mike

No, if I would not use this film for a paying gig. While I've never had a problem with it, the QC at Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji is head and shoulders above anything out of the Foma factory. Now, this problem is supposed to either have been or will soon be addressed according to Foma. There is a scheduled shutdown of the factory for refitting this summer. But for the amateur on a budget, this stuff is great. Foma 100 is the best of the lot, and is one of the very few films that I actually like souping in Rodinal 1+50. I really like this film a lot. Foma 400 is ok - not up to the standards of Tri-X, HP5+, or Neopan 400; but still a very acceptable film. Just don't expect to get box speed under most conditions. An exposure index of 250 when developed in D-76 or XTOL 1+1 is more realistic. Keep development towards the shorter side of the recommended time range unless you really like blown highlights.

As for "glowing tonality available only to Eastern European photographers"? Wow, talk about spin! Truth is that the anti-halation properties of Foma films leaves a bit to be desired. The glow is flare. The somewhat deficient anti-halation characteristic also means that one should take a bit of extra care when loading and unloading the camera. The usual caveat about loading and unloading in direct sunlight should be taken more seriously. The film really doesn't like hot spots in the composition and you can see where they kind of bloom when they're really hot. Don't get me wrong, Foma is nowhere near as bad as the Chinese Lucky Pan films in this regard, but they're not nearly as good at controlling specular highlights as the big three makers.

fschifano said:

There is a scheduled shutdown of the factory for refitting this summer.

Click to expand...

If this is true and goes off properly, I take it as a good sign. More than any question of improving the quality of this one product line, it means that the company believes there's enough of a future in the film business to be investing in improvements to their factory. Between this and the revival of various (mostly Agfa) products under the Adox brand, this could be very good news for the B&W film industry.

Now if the loss of products on the color side would just slacken off a bit....

Truth is that the anti-halation properties of Foma films leaves a bit to be desired.

Click to expand...

This is certainly true of Foma film in 35mm. My understanding was that it's better in MF, but I've shot little enough of it in MF that I can't speak to that question from personal experience. In most cases the halation in 35mm, if present, is a problem; however, I've got one photo in particular, enlarged to 11x14 inches and hung on my wall, that's actually improved by it.

It is a bit better in medium format, probably because of the very flat black paper backing. As for the blue tint, who cares? It's actually more cyan than blue, and adds nothing more than some neutral density when projected onto variable contrast or graded papers.

I finally got some printing done with the rolls I shot. I did manage to pull some good prints, tonally. I know, like any film, I'd need to put more time and effort into locking in exact methodology with this film, but in general I think I'd need to rate it at 200 to get the density I'm used to ... it wasn't far off, but enough that I noticed the adjustments in the darkroom. Not a big deal overall, but the truth is I'll probably not buy any more of this film.

This film was hard to handle in the darkroom ... it kept wanting to twist up on itself like a spring .... I had read other people saying it dried with a curl, but mine dried flat ... and it is flat, yet still want to spring to life ... weird, I can't explain it I guess but it was annoying enough to, well, annoy me ;-) I suppose this just has to do with the film being thinner than most. Prints also showed that I did not have any scratches.

Never say never .. I suppose if I'm feeling frugal again I'd give it another shot, but ... eh.

I think Foma has the best tonality of all current films but I don't use it because of the drawbacks. The curl is no big deal, but pinholes, scratches etc are. In the darkroom it is a pain. If I were only scanning the film I would use it in a heartbeat.

of course not

mikebarger said:

With the QA issues Foma experiences....I could not shoot anyone's wedding on it. You don't get do overs at a wedding. What if those rolls had the QA bug? Sorry, sis?

Keep the Brasso handy.

Mike

Click to expand...

I wasn't the official photographer or I would have used something else.
My sister and I are pretty close and she knows all about my photo hobby. I was pretty much just snapshooting for the family album. I've never claimed to be any good. Anyway, there was a real photographer there to do all the once in a lifetime stuff. I got to talk to him later and he liked the prints I got out of the Foma film.