New Arista Premium 100 & 400 films

[Paul Verizzo]

It was only a week ago that the Arista Premium 400 hit the discussion fan on APUG. The discussion also wandered into a digital vs. film topic - actually very good - and now the 100 is available in bulk. At Steve's suggestion, I thought this thread could get back on track and be more current.

The 24 & 36 exposure rolls will be available Aug 15th at prices hardly worth rolling your own.

Those who have tested the 400 say, indeed, it seems to be Tri-X. Walks like a duck, quacks....

The 100 is hoped to be Plus-X, one of the most wonderful but over priced films out there.

So, in the spirit of the (Photo) Olympics, let the discussions begin!

 

[PhotoJim]

If it is Plus-X, why would it be rated at ISO 100 instead of 125? As a way of disguising its true origins?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Short answer, "Yes, quite possibly."

If it is Plus-X, why would it be rated at ISO 100 instead of 125? As a way of disguising its true origins?

Fully discussed previously. Short version: 1/3 stop is rather meaningless i the real world, especially in roll films.

 

[jim appleyard]

I hope this stuff is indeed PX & TX. However, we can do all the shooting and looking we want, but what we need is a scientific test. Arista 100 & 400 shot in identical light along with PX & TX and all souped in the same dev for the same time with the same agitation and then given densitometer and possibly other tests to see how closely they match.

Has anyone does this? Do they want to do it?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I hope this stuff is indeed PX & TX. However, we can do all the shooting and looking we want, but what we need is a scientific test. Arista 100 & 400 shot in identical light along with PX & TX and all souped in the same dev for the same time with the same agitation and then given densitometer and possibly other tests to see how closely they match.

Has anyone does this? Do they want to do it?

Reminds me of the classic movie scene of soldiers lined up and being asked to volunteer for a deadly mission. Everyone except one doofus steps back.

Well, that would be one very tedious way. The fact that all development times in all developers are the same as the Kodak offerings practically speaks for itself. The fact that, I think it was Steve, on the previous thread got 1600 EI out of the 400 in Diafine also narrows it down.

I think the case for the AP 400 being Tri-X is pretty well settled. It walks and talks exactly like that Kodak duck. For me - until proven otherwise - it's as good as running it through all those tests.

 

[BrianShaw]

I hope this stuff is indeed PX & TX. However, we can do all the shooting and looking we want, but what we need is a scientific test. Arista 100 & 400 shot in identical light along with PX & TX and all souped in the same dev for the same time with the same agitation and then given densitometer and possibly other tests to see how closely they match.

Has anyone does this? Do they want to do it?

Has anyone called Freestyle and asked? They are generally pretty responsive to questions. Might be a tad easier than science or speculation.

 

[msuchan]

After reading all the posts on this thread and the other one about Arista Premium film I have to agree with Paul on this one. Look, the film is made in America, has the exact development times as Tri X and Plus X and face it the only company making film in America is Kodak. I think this is great since I love both films and have shot at least ten rolls of Plus X and Tri X in the last month alone. I will be buying some of the Arista brand in bulk rolls this month since it is such a savings over the Kodak branded box. I just think that everyone should stop obsessing about testing for months on end and buy some too. Then get out and take some photos, have fun and enjoy that Freestyle is offering a great film at a very affordable price.

 

[vdonovan]

Hey Freestyle! Where's the 120?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Also covered in previous thread

Has anyone called Freestyle and asked? They are generally pretty responsive to questions. Might be a tad easier than science or speculation.

FS is pretty tight lipped about it. Very unusual for them. I'm sure at some time in the future someone will either slip or get tired of being clammed up.

What makes a film a PX or a Tx? Or any other designated brand and item?

Because someone says it is? Because PX diverted to FS obviously is? There have been numerous formulations of old "X" timers over the years, yet they are all the real thing.

If a film is indistinguishble in performance and development times, no less, its the same thing. Even if another company were to make it. Or Kodak lets it be marketed as Arista Premium.

"A rose is a rose is a rose."

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Yes, the bottom line!

After reading all the posts on this thread and the other one about Arista Premium film I have to agree with Paul on this one. Look, the film is made in America, has the exact development times as Tri X and Plus X and face it the only company making film in America is Kodak. I think this is great since I love both films and have shot at least ten rolls of Plus X and Tri X in the last month alone. I will be buying some of the Arista brand in bulk rolls this month since it is such a savings over the Kodak branded box. I just think that everyone should stop obsessing about testing for months on end and buy some too. Then get out and take some photos, have fun and enjoy that Freestyle is offering a great film at a very affordable price.

I will reiterate an observation of mine from the old thread that I will not find it logical to buy 100' rolls - which is what I almost always do. The cost difference, $6, for 18 rolls of 36 exposure says my time is worth that much.

Now, here's where things get interesting. Will the carts be staked or not? Which might also mean are the rolls produced with Kodak or reloads by FS? The latter used to do a LOT of reloads in years gone buy. I've bought Ilford films reloaded at the same time they sold the real thing. Also T-Max 100 and Eastman 5222 XX. Maybe they just needed to dust off the old stuff. However, those reloads were not boxed and these new Premiums are.

 

[jim appleyard]

Reminds me of the classic movie scene of soldiers lined up and being asked to volunteer for a deadly mission. Everyone except one doofus steps back.
QUOTE]

Thank you for your kind words.

If you think it's Kodak, fine. I'd like to see a more detailed test and I'd like to know why FS isn't saying who makes the film. They've always been very good re: rebranding questions in the past.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Reminds me of the classic movie scene of soldiers lined up and being asked to volunteer for a deadly mission. Everyone except one doofus steps back.
QUOTE]

Thank you for your kind words.

If you think it's Kodak, fine. I'd like to see a more detailed test and I'd like to know why FS isn't saying who makes the film. They've always been very good re: rebranding questions in the past.

Oh for Pete's sake, I wouldn't say such a thing implying you are a doofus. No, just that whomever does it is the unappreciated hero. I'm too old and way beyond calling people names. Sorry if you thought I was.

As to the second paragraph, reread my post.

 

[ssloansjca]

So far through real world tests, see Arista 400P photos here, we have established that the 400 film behaves a lot like Tri-X, producing very usable results in D76H and Diafine. I am planning to test it in Rodinal, but that test will be delayed by a week's worth of relatives visiting. I have the 100 on order and plan to repeat the tests with it. If somebody wants to break out a densitometer that is fine. I am more interested in real world tests because I usually do not photograph with a densitometer. I am planning to switch to the 400 speed version as my main B&W film because it produces images that suit my vision of what I want in my photos. That is the most important test to me.

Yes, I would love to see these same films in 120 and 4x5. So far, I know I would buy the 400.

~Steve

PS - I promise not to stray too much from the topic of this thread!

 

[2F/2F]

I hope this stuff is indeed PX & TX. However, we can do all the shooting and looking we want, but what we need is a scientific test. Arista 100 & 400 shot in identical light along with PX & TX and all souped in the same dev for the same time with the same agitation and then given densitometer and possibly other tests to see how closely they match.

Has anyone does this? Do they want to do it?

This is exactly what I said in the previous post.

I will be doing it as soon as I can! I will have to wait for the pre-loaded cassettes, though. I also need to get my loaned-out MacBeth chart back, if I can. I might need to buy a new one.

Medium format....we can all hope and dream, but no luck so far. Medium format film is so cheap already that it is probably not worth anyone's (meaning Kodak's or Freestyle's) while.

 

[Jordan]

I e-mailed Freestyle about this film a couple of weeks ago. They only told me that it is made in the USA. AFAIK the only company making B&W film in the USA is Kodak, so everyone can draw their own conclusions...

I also asked about 120-format. They said that their plans are to carry this film in 35mm only (no 120 or large-format).

 

[PhotoJim]

My guess is that it is indeed Kodak film and Kodak has told Freestyle not to specify the film's origin. Kodak has historically not been in the business of supplying film to others, except under the Kodak name.

If it is something different, that's no bad thing. I'm always game to play with new emulsions. Just about every emulsion has something going for it that makes it interesting to play with.

 

[aparat]

I am really glad to see that FS is selling these films at such good prices. It appears that the film is quite good. I am definitely going to try it. It's always great to see new BW products on the market.

 

[Nick Zentena]

I also asked about 120-format. They said that their plans are to carry this film in 35mm only (no 120 or large-format).

Which makes me wonder if it's a Kodak movie film.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Which makes me wonder if it's a Kodak movie film.

Kodak only makes two B&W 35mm movie films. One is 5231, Plus-X, and the other is 5222, XX. While the 5231 could, in theory, fill the role of the Arista 100, there is no 400 or even close equivalent.

5231 is rated 80 EI IIRC, but there is a lot of success at 100-125 on the net. It has the same RMS granualarity as the still image PX, 10.

Movie films are used with D-96 and a print film, all having different H&D curves from still image PX. The Massive Development Chart has a contributed (since Kodak doesn't supply D-76 times) D-76 time of 7 minutes. That's a lot different than the still PX of 5.5.

 

[Nick Zentena]

That lower speed is the movie rating system isn't it? Not the still ISO number. Or am I remembering wrong?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

There is no "movie rating" AFAIK

That lower speed is the movie rating system isn't it? Not the still ISO number. Or am I remembering wrong?

They tend to use incident light readings, but other than that, it's just like still. Now, having said that, just like still they work their media taking into account the developing and printing process. Prints means movie stock.

 

[ssloansjca]

If it is a movie stock, it lacks a rem-jet backing. Or is it only color motion picture film that has that?

~Steve Sloan

 

[Moopheus]

I will reiterate an observation of mine from the old thread that I will not find it logical to buy 100' rolls - which is what I almost always do. The cost difference, $6, for 18 rolls of 36 exposure says my time is worth that much.

Bulk isn't just cheaper, 100' cans are easier to store in the fridge/freezer. I've got way more bulk film in the freezer than I could have room for if it were boxed rolls. But those boxed rolls are pretty cheap.

 

[fotch]

I think the advantage of bulk cost wise is you can load the number of frames you need rather than just shooting up the whole roll. I have some recently acquired RF cameras that I would prefer to load up, say, 12x just to test the basics out.

If you combine the 20x + 36x prices, the bulk is way cheaper. Then again, if only shooting 36x, then saving 17% maybe is not enough.

Its nice to have both as a choice.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

If it is a movie stock, it lacks a rem-jet backing. Or is it only color motion picture film that has that?

~Steve Sloan

Only color negative.