New Arista Premium 100 and 400 films Made in USA

[memoryofadream]

Just did a test @1600 and I absolutely love it. Looks like I'll be filling my freezer with this stuff, provided I don't see any more scratches on the emulsion.

 

[Dennis S]

Premium

Looks Good. I tried it @ 800 and wasn't happy. I'll try 1600. Did you use Rodinal to develop your film ?

 

[memoryofadream]

Yep, Rodinal 1:50. Here's one more.

 

[Dennis S]

Very Good also. I'm going to try XTol the next time. The greys really came out GD.

 

[Mike H]

New Arista BW Film - USA made

Freestyle has new B/W Arista "Premium" films listed on their website - now advertised as "U.S.-manufactured". Does this mean Kodak? It would be terrific if we could get Tri-X equivalent at $1.89 a roll. Anybody know?

 

[Ian Grant]

Mike, there are (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[jim appleyard]

Most folks do believe it's Kodak. I've tried some and it sure does look like Kodak, even down to packaging (bulk) and frame #'s. However, no one has come out and made an official statment.

 

[R W Penn]

I used a 100ft roll and have gone to factory rolls.I like the stuff and price use microdol x at 1-1

 

[Mike H]

Thanks all. For some reason, the search function didn't work for me (no hits on "arista"), but I'm glad to see this film has been discussed favorably.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Threads merged, title updated.

 

[brofkand]

How is Arista Premium?

I assume it is rebranded Tri-X. If so, how do you like it?

I have never used any Kodak films other than T Max 400, so I have no idea how good it is. Thinking of buying 25 rolls of the 100 ISO Arista stuff. Would it be worth my time buying it?

I guess what I'm asking is, I mostly do wide angle architectural and landscapes, along with mid telephoto portraits. Sometimes on the same roll. 100 ISO is normally fast enough for me, since I shoot at double ISO and develop at box speed. I don't want much grain.

Can this film deliver? It certainly delivers on price... $2 for a 36exp roll.

 

[jmal]

Definitely same as TX. I'll continue to use it until it changes.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

It doesn't get any better than Plus-X and Tri-X. Compared to TMax 400, the Tri-X is different. The TMax has less pronounced and better separated highlights. The Tri-X has more oomph and weight in my opinion, but to each their own. Plus-X is just brilliant stuff.

At that price you have nothing to lose.

- Thomas

 

[brofkand]

I figure you're right, Thomas. I have nothing to lose.

I just put in an order for 25 rolls of the stuff along with some other odds and ends I'll need since my local camera shop is closing up.

 

[SilverGlow]

I really love Arista Prem 400. A very good film. And you can't beat the $30 for 100ft bulk either. It comes out to around $1.50/roll of 36 exps.

 

[jim appleyard]

I've done 3-4 rolls of the ISO 100 and just did my first roll of the 400; no prints yet, but the negs look good.

 

[SamWeiss]

I assume it is rebranded Tri-X. If so, how do you like it?

Well, as far as the ISO400 version, yes, as far as I am concerned it is Tri-x. I've only used the ISO400, not the 100 which is supposedly Plus-x. I rate the ISO400 at 200 and use D76, and when I expose correctly the images look fine.

I only wish it came in bigger sizes.... 35mm seems so small....

 

[marke]

I've been uisng the Arista Premium 400 and 100, and love both. I shoot the 400 at EI 200. Works great in D-76.

 

[Lee L]

After seeing it mentioned in other APUG threads that times were the same, I went looking for the development times listed at Freestyle for the Arista Premiums and Kodak Plux-X and Tri-X. The attached .pdf summarizes the data for the four films in the developers for which Freestyle listed times.

Lee

 

[Tim Gray]

After seeing it mentioned in other APUG threads that times were the same, I went looking for the development times listed at Freestyle for the Arista Premiums and Kodak Plux-X and Tri-X. The attached .pdf summarizes the data for the four films in the developers for which Freestyle listed times.

Lee

Hard to argue with that evidence, isn't it?

Which makes you wonder. If Kodak is selling this to Freestyle cheap enough that they can then sell it to us for half the price of Tri-X/Plus-X, what's the deal? Is it somehow lower standard film? Old stock film? Slightly different formulation? Or just plain old overcharging? I find the different formulation most likely, but if the times don't change and no one can tell the difference, what's the point of that?

Has anyone shot this stuff on a color checker, etc, side by side with Tri-X to see if there is any difference?

 

[PHOTOTONE]

On a private label film, the warranty is covered by the Brand and not the manufacturer. If Kodak or Ilford or any other vendor makes private label film for Freestyle, then Freestyle is solely responsible for the warranty, and this can reflect in the final price. Also, I imagine it is hard to turn down an order for hundreds of thousands of rolls of film, if you are a manufacturer. Freestyle and to a lesser extent some other vendors seem to have the academic market pretty much all to themselves.

 

[arealitystudios]

I've used the 100 speed version quite a bit and I am pretty much convinced it is Plus-X. If there is any difference in formulation between Arista Premium and Plus-X it is so minor I can't tell the difference at all.

I too wish it came in more than just 35mm. I'd buy a whole lote more of it if it came in 120 size. But then again, I happily shoot with the Arista.Edu Ultra film which I'm 100% sure is Foma and get great results at a great price there too.

 

[Lee L]

Hard to argue with that evidence, isn't it?
<snip>
Has anyone shot this stuff on a color checker, etc, side by side with Tri-X to see if there is any difference?

Well, in my book it's more a list of "facts" of reasonable provenance than it is hard evidence. For me evidence would be more along the lines of an invoice from Kodak charging Freestyle for the film. But I'll admit that it is good fodder for speculation and conjecture, as in your second paragraph.

I haven't tried comparing color rendition, H&D curves, film base, base color before exposure, clearing time, etc, as I don't have the film in hand, but I may try that stuff when I get some.

Lee

 

[eye_of_wally]

Hard to argue with that evidence, isn't it?

Which makes you wonder. If Kodak is selling this to Freestyle cheap enough that they can then sell it to us for half the price of Tri-X/Plus-X, what's the deal?

Easy, Freestyle just buys it in super large quantities more than likely an entire production run which makes it much easier for Kodak to make and then ship by the truck/rail load. As Kodak does not need to worry about warehousing, marketing, or distribution. From Kodaks perspective they have an order for "X" that will cost them "Y" to make so they have no risk and just make money.

When Kodak makes film to sell under the Kodak brand, they have to warehouse it, and pack it up to ship in smaller batches to retail outlets. All of that space, time, packaging, and handling adds costs to the end product, then of course the retail outlet marks up the price also so they can make a profit.

It also looks like Freestyle is doing the same thing with Fuji film now

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/194361-Legacy-Pro-BandW-100-ISO-35mm-x-36-exposures

 

[jim appleyard]

It will be interesting to see if the two legacy films match up to the listed dev times (and oher criteria) for Acros and Neopan.