New Arista Premium 100 and 400 films Made in USA

[Tim Gray]

They were scans. Diafine doesn't do anything else with more than 3 mins in each bath. So all films will have the same times.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

They were scans. Diafine doesn't do anything else with more than 3 mins in each bath. So all films will have the same times.

Actually, they suggest increased times for Acros and TMX.

 

[bcostin]

I presume that's at the suggested 3 minutes in each bath.

Yes, 3+3, with the usual very gentle agitation.

Were these prints or scans?

They're scans of the negatives, using a Nikon Coolscan V ED.

 

[ssloansjca]

I just processed my first roll in D76H (Photographers Formulary TD16) and I am very impressed with the negs. Clean film base, the film has a long tonal scale with shadow detail and highlight detail that looks like TX. It has what I used to call a good sloping toe and shoulder back in the days when I talked about D/log E curves and had no idea what a histogram was.

These look like they will print just fine. I will try to post scans tomorrow.

Steve Sloan

 

[Tim Gray]

Actually, they suggest increased times for Acros and TMX.

Huh, didn't know that.

I do know that leave other films in Diafine for a longer time doesn't do anything...

 

[Terrence Brennan]

Why shoot film?

I am going to process the film I have labeled "FTX-135-36" (Freestyle Tri-X) tonight and then will have a grand look at what this film will do when developed in D76H. Meanwhile, like I told a friend recently when he asked, why do you still shoot film?, "you can take my film camera when you pry my cold dead fingers off the shutter release."



~Steve Sloan

Good one, Steve; I'll remember that one for those "superior" fauxtographers who I encounter when out shooting!

I picked up yesterday, at the depot of a local transport company, a 25-Kg bag of sodium sulfite and a 25-Kg bag of sodium thiosulfate; yes, true photgraphy IS worth the extra effort!

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Good one, Steve; I'll remember that one for those "superior" fauxtographers who I encounter when out shooting!

I picked up yesterday, at the depot of a local transport company, a 25-Kg bag of sodium sulfite and a 25-Kg bag of sodium thiosulfate; yes, true photgraphy IS worth the extra effort!

I remember my 7th grade art class instructor in 1958. He sniffed at the idea of photography as art. As the son of an award winning, published photographer, I was amused and offended. Although I didn't know Stieglitz back then, it's obvious he didn't either.

So here we are in another revolution running from oils to bromides to megapixels. Digital photography is just as "true" as its predecessor. You write with light, right? You make an image, right? Sure, it's so easy that the hordes have embraced it, but it lessens not one whit the core intention.

APUGers and others embrace the wet process. Me, too. But just because it arrived in time before digital, or is more difficult, or requires much patience (and money!), doesn't mean it is the only road to walk on.

Probably 95% of digital photogs point, shoot, and hope for the best. But there is a small percentage that have learned to see things with an artist's eye. The beauty of form, of lighting, of trying to translate the experience into an image. For them, I say "Welcome aboard."

 

[ssloansjca]

Mostly, I agree with you. However, just as many analog photographers can be smug, so can many digital photographers. Each often thinks their medium is better. I say they are different, not better.

When you use film to capture light you are using a different palette. Film sees light differently than a sensor does and reacts to it differently. A digital camera with a digital sensor has the film built in and it will always see the same light the same. A decent digital camera delivers that image (hopefully) in a data dump we call a RAW data file and you add interpretation later in software. An analog camera, with film as the sensor, will see the same light differently depending on the material loaded in it. Then the film image is a latent image that holds the potential of an image and is subject to a layer of chemical interpretation before the image itself is delivered. Then the negative or positive can be further interpreted by either analog or digital means.

I say, depending on your volume, analog cameras can be cheaper because you can upgrade your sensors by buying the latest new film. A 50 year old film camera can use the latest film. A five year old digital camera is a door stop. To realize the value aspects of a digital camera you got to shoot like crazy, in my opinion. Low volume shooters may find the cost of materials in analog is a better value proposition than the cost of upgrading hardware and software in a 36 month refresh cycle. I can buy a lot of film for the cost of a Nikon D3.

Film can be cheaper than replacing your digital camera, computer and software every three years for some folks. Now, I gotta scan that Freestyle film...

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Mostly, I say they are different, not better. Exactly!


I say, depending on your volume, analog cameras can be cheaper because you can upgrade your sensors by buying the latest new film. I don't think cost is a factor in deciding which technology to use. You either want one or the other for other reasons. A 50 year old film camera can use the latest film. A five year old digital camera is a door stop. I think that, like computers, the great improvements have been done. Yes, we will continue to see more megapixels for the buck, but we are past what is needed for most purposes. My now long in the tooth Minolta A2 still serves me very well and I've no desire to get a newer camera. Most of the "improvements' now are marketing gimmicks. To realize the value aspects of a digital camera you got to shoot like crazy, in my opinion. It also allows any budget to become pro, i.e., shoot like crazy and then pick one or two shots. Unfortunately, the great unwashed don't pick one or two.

Yes, please share your experience!

 

[dxphoto]

I did call them and try to find out what it is. Strangely, they didn't want to tell me. They always told me what Arista films are indeed.
So do we have a definite answer yet, base on everyone's experiment?
I just purchased 300 feet Kodak and a few 100"-roll edu ultra. foma 400 isn't bad at all.

 

[dougb]

. A five year old digital camera is a door stop.

That may be true today, but I can't really think of any "must have" feature that would render something like the 21 megapixel Canon 1DS obsolete 5 years from now. It's already good for larger prints than 35mm is capable of. I think 35mm now is pretty much for starving students and people who "like their pictures grainy, dammit!"

 

[ssloansjca]

Here is my first Roll:

http://tinyurl.com/ftx135-36

The tonal scale is nice with good shadow and highlight detail. I have not printed them, but the grain does not look bad. This is developed in TD16, Photographer's Formulary Version of D76H.

Would I buy this film again? Oh yea!

It's sweet!

~Steve

 

[ssloansjca]

Looks like they have the 100 in stock now...

 

[srs5694]

A five year old digital camera is a door stop.

That may be true today, but I can't really think of any "must have" feature that would render something like the 21 megapixel Canon 1DS obsolete 5 years from now.

I can: a camera that functions! This isn't a put-down of the Canon 1DS specifically; it's just that sophisticated modern electronics have a way of going kaput pretty quickly, and it's not cost-effective to repair them. My first digital camera (and so far my only digital camera, if you don't count what's included in cell phones) began working unreliably about two or three years after I bought it. This was out of warranty, of course, and when I called about getting it repaired, I was quoted a price that was very close to the cost of a comparable replacement camera. CD players, DVD players, computer monitors, cell phones, and other electronic items also die pretty quickly. (I read recently that the average life of a cell phone is something on the order of 18 months.) Most new digital cameras may not be obsolete five years after purchase, but a huge number of them will be in landfills because they broke.

Very advanced film cameras can break down for similar reasons, of course, but simpler cameras are another matter. I've still got my first SLR (a Fujica ST-801), and it functions perfectly. I've collected a few ancient Soviet cameras, like a FED 2 and a Zenit C; I imagine both are 40+ years old. Despite some quirks, they still work. Most things that can go wrong with them can be repaired by anybody with a slightly above-average level of mechanical aptitude. To keep this remotely on-topic for this thread, I'm sure they could take the "new" Arista film, too. My first roll in the FED 2 was T-Max 100.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Your are certainly correct about electronic reliability, Steve. In effect, it's a crap shoot. You might buy a new Canikon and it might work great for a decade or four. Or it might be in the trash, as you say, after a year or two.

My original Minolta D7 went in for a power board issue under warranty. Twice. My A1 caught the famous Oops! Bad Sony CCD disease; I sold it as is just to move on. My long line of Nokia 9290 smart phones have lasted as little as a few months (used) or gone for two years. Go figger.

Of course, my Rollie TLR has had repairs, as has a Ricoh 35mm, and my Hitler era Leice needs a shutter clean up. Finding a camera repair shop will be very, very difficult in ten years.

So, I guess whichever road we choose, we're screwed!

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Indeed, just as they said they would!

Looks like they have the 100 in stock now...

And one week to go for the 24 & 35 exp. I will definitely be ordering!

If this stuff is as good as we are hoping for, the barn red box might well take it's place alongside the yellow and the green!

 

[2F/2F]

"A five year old digital camera is a door stop."

Personally, I don't know how on Earth I manage to get any pix at all with my 10D (over 5 years old) and my 1D (6+ years old)...or how they have managed to last this long without a *single* problem.

Please explain why a camera becomes a doorstop just because a better one comes out.

Basically, I think the problem is really with people believing things like this quote I pulled, when in reality, only a major change would cause true obsolescence. These changes would be things like lens mount, an industry-wide memory card format switch, etc. The problem is with consumerism (largely conspicuous consumption) and planned obsolescence, not with digital cameras. The problem comes from cameras being viewed, marketed, and received like consumer electronics instead of cameras.

They only lose value quickly because people have this sick urge to have the latest and greatest, not because they get any worse. Losing value does not equal obsolescence, however.

 

[aparat]

Basically, I think the problem is really with people believing things like this quote I pulled, when in reality, only a major change would cause true obsolescence. These changes would be things like lens mount, an industry-wide memory card format switch, etc. The problem is with consumerism (largely conspicuous consumption) and planned obsolescence, not with digital cameras. The problem comes from cameras being viewed, marketed, and received like consumer electronics instead of cameras.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.

 

[2F/2F]

In fact, one of the main reasons I love digital (and other electronic cameras, I suppose) is because of how much value they lose so quickly! All you have to do is wait five years and you have a bad ass pro-quality camera for 20% of its original price.

 

[Dennis S]

Thread

Did you forget what this thread was about ? We were talking about FILM. Arista premium 400.

 

[2F/2F]

They still make film? I thought it was obsolete.

I live near Freestyle. Perhaps I will go test myself. If it is cheap enough, it may be reason enough to temporarily switch to it instead of HP5. I am pretty well addicted to Ilford, though.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

They only lose value quickly because people have this sick urge to have the latest and greatest, not because they get any worse. Losing value does not equal obsolescence, however.

Well, it sort of does. I bought my first digital camera in 2000. It was probably a year old then. It had a whopping 2.2 megapixels. At that resolution I, and everyone else, wanted better. And we got it, and even cheaper.

The reason that camera and millions of other is obsolete is because why on earth would I shoot on it instead of a newer 5, 8, or 12 megapixel? Now, I will agree that most people never will need more than 3 mp for their 4x6's, but for those of us who understand such things, we can use the mp's for cropping, for instance.

Things will also become obsolete when you can get a battery, memory, or hey, a serial port connection anymore.

 

[2F/2F]

"The reason that camera and millions of other is obsolete is because why on earth would I shoot on it instead of a newer 5, 8, or 12 megapixel?"

Because I am not made of money, the cameras from 5 years + ago give me everything I want and more, and I believe that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Did you forget what this thread was about ? We were talking about FILM. Arista premium 400.

Oh, we're just off in the bar having a passionate discussion on that other photo system while we're waiting for our dinner. I mean, more hands on experience with the Premium films....

 

[Dennis S]

film

From what I see of the scans it certainly looks like good film. I doesn't look like any grain at all. Grain is the answer NOT PIXELS. Sorry I interupted your compu talk Your fortunate to live close to Freestyle. Even with a shipping charge it is still a very good bargain. I like Ilfords paper but I have never been too thrilled with their film
Let us know how the prints turn out. 2F/2F.