so i want to get some film...arista.edu

I'm interested in trying out some film from freestyle.

I'm particularly interested in their .edu line, mostly for economy. ISO 100, 200, and 400 in 35mm and 120. I'm actually interested in exploring this option since the ISO 100 premium line is discontinued (I'm aware that this is kodak film) and you can't get acros in bulk. I'm aware that there were some QC issues in the past but it is arguably better (I'm not sure) these days. I'm a hobbyist so having 100 % reliability, although desireable, is not crucial for my type of work. If i were getting paid or really wanted QC then i'd go with kodak/fuji/ilford for sure.

How are these films?
1. What is the base? Clear or blue? I've read that they have changed. If so, is it clear for ALL of the film's? Not sure if it makes a difference but I had shot some of this film a long time ago (120 ISO 400) and the blue base looked odd to me. I didn't like it but I didn't give it a chance.

2. How is the QC these days? Still spotty?

3. From what I gather, 100/400 will be similar to plus-x/tri-x (traditional grain) while 200 will be similar to tmax 100 (t-grain)?

4. Which film is the finest grain? ISO 100 or ISO 200? T-grain is supposed to be finer (usually) but lower ISO film is fine too. I'm sure there are exceptions but this is from what I gather on the internet.

5. Anyone prefer the .edu 400 over premeium 400? My thinking is that I should stick with 100 as a plus-x substitute, 200 as an acros substitue, and stick with premium 400.

The three films that I use for these formats are plus-x, tri-x, and fuji acros.

I have been using the stuff in 120 size for years, and have had very few issues-- out of maybe 1000 rolls of it I have had maybe 3 or 4 that I can definitely say had bad spots. Everyone wants to just poo-poo this stuff, but it's good generic film-- haven't seen anything but blue-- but my last order is 6 months back or so-- I regularly buy 100-200 rolls at a time, and toss them in the fridge. I have never used Kodak films so can't compare them to that but I do use fuji and ilford at times and like the comparison to some of the fuji stuff. Go buy 20 rolls and shoot it---it's so cheap that you can actually shoot more stuff --- That I have found is the best reason to use it. I have used the arista for paying jobs and haven't been let down.

The Arista edu Ultra is Foma-- and decent quality. I use it in 120 and 4x5, ran out of 35mm, which is ok as Im phasing out the miniature format.Yes, there some issues, but if you use stop bath mixed at half normal strength or water rinse in place of stop, you will have fewer issues. I also prefer Pyro developers for it, as it tans, or hardens, the emulsion, leaving it less prone to scratching.

I use Fomapan 400, which is the sane as the arista film, in both 120 and 35mm as main film, in fact I prefer it to either Ilford, Kodak or Fuji, there is something about it, it has a tonality all of it's own,and in at least five years of using it day in day out I have yet to have any quality issues with it, My latest batch, dated 4,2014, is on the clear base, It used to be very curly, but for the last 2 years the curl has gone, it is as good in that respect as any other make, I have read reports of curl with the clear base, but I have not had any problems with it, As far as grain, yes, the grain shows with the 35mm film, but it is 'nice'' grain, I like a bit of grain, in that respect it is not a problem, with the 120, it does not show as much, and the 100 version is finer grained than the others, all in all, a very nice film, go buy 20 or so rolls and give it a try, you should be pleased.
Richard

Thank you for your responses thus far. I was aware that it is rebranded foma.

I'd like to hear more experience with these films but it sounds like it is a pretty good film and QC issues are not that big of a deal. I use water stop so I do not think the stop bath will be an issue for me. The developers that I use are Kodak D76 and Rodinal if that matters too.

Thanks for the issues so far! I will definitely toss in some ISO 100, and maybe ISO 200 and 400 too. Speed-wise, I see no need for ISO 200 but maybe if it had a "built-in" yellow filter. I believe that you do not need yellow filters for new films (acros, tmax, delta, etc.) to get blue skys and that is my experience so far.

I like Fomapan 100 in 120. I've seen a couple of pinholes in the emulsion in the recent rolls I got, but I scan my film so retouching them out was easy for me. Tonality is nice. I've used PMK and D-76 with great results. The only downside is it curls severely. I'm sticking to Kodak and Ilford because of that.

Here's some Fomapan 100, 120 size photos.









These were all developed in PMK Pyro

I'm using the 100 in 4x5 and 5x7 while I get the hang of things again, then probably switching to a combination of Ilford HP5 in lower light and the Foma 100 in brighter light. I will already be using the combination in 120.

First of all, it's cheap. That's really necessary when you're just starting out or, like me, are getting used to it all again. When you forget something important like, for instance, my flub at forgetting to account for bellows factor, you're not out the $2 per sheet (for 5x7) you'd be paying for the Ilford. Once I've conquered the basics again I'll likely revisit using FP4 instead.

However, I've taken a liking to the Foma. It's interesting film, for all its flaws. Rodinal brings out the best in it I think.

To correct a misconception - the 200 is no different in formulation than the 100 and 400 - all are traditional, non- t-grain films. I don't know where this idea came from, other than possibly some poorly worded Foma box inserts. I LOVE the Fomapan 200 - it does extremely well in pyro developers and has been wonderful for alternative process printing. I've not used it in smaller (less than 5x7) formats, but it sings at that size.

I have been seriously thinking about getting some when I run out of Legacy Pro. It was really sad when it was discontinued, it was wonderful film.

I've also decided to try a new developer, after using the regular arista liquid developer, I bought some HC110. I have read a lot on this topic and am wondering if HC110 is compatable with arista.edu ultra. I'm tempted to try it at Dilution "H" for a longer period of time. Any thoughts on this? I also have read that the emulsion is really soft, what can I do about this? I recently bought some hardening fixer, is this enough to help with the emulsion?

I have been seriously thinking about getting some when I run out of Legacy Pro. It was really sad when it was discontinued, it was wonderful film.

I've also decided to try a new developer, after using the regular arista liquid developer, I bought some HC110. I have read a lot on this topic and am wondering if HC110 is compatable with arista.edu ultra. I'm tempted to try it at Dilution "H" for a longer period of time. Any thoughts on this? I also have read that the emulsion is really soft, what can I do about this? I recently bought some hardening fixer, is this enough to help with the emulsion?

Thank you for clarifying the grain structure. I had the impression that ISO 200 was modern grain, as many have believed so too. I'll base my decision on speed and grain (assuming that lower ISO is finer, as it is with most films).

Another question. How do you guys usually rate this film? Compared to ilford/kodak/fuji. I'm not so picky but I usually overexpose 1 stop with rodinal/hc-110 and rate it at box speed with D76. I incident and oftentimes guess/adjust with my eyes because my bodies don't have meters and I walk around a lot. Ofcourse I'l have to play around with these things myself but a little insight would be beneficial to me.

The Foma/Arista needs a good full stop of additional exposure to take best advantage of the film. I normally rate the 200 at 100, and the 100 at 50.

It's probably safe to say HC-110 is going to be acceptable with pretty much any film. I don't think I've ever used it with Fomapan 100, but I developed a little bit of 400 in it and liked the results (e.g., the attached image, from a 6x6 frame shot with a Nettar folder). I didn't really find that the 400 film gave me anything special over HP5 or TX, but it was fine.

I shoot a lot of Fomapan 100, though; I like the tonality, especially at 50. It's grainy for its speed, which is a potential issue in 35mm but negligible in MF or LF. I have had a few pinholes, and several years ago I got one roll that looked like it had a bizarre coating defect throughout, but I'm also in the situation where as a hobbyist I can afford to roll with problems like that rather than worry about them.

Well worth experimenting with in your situation, for certain.

-NT

I’ve been using the Arista.edu line for years, mostly in 120 and a little bit in 4x5. I admit I don’t like it as much as say HP5 or PanF but for the price you really can’t complain at all. Much like a bottle of two buck chuck it gets the job done when you need it to and the end result is more or less the same.

My only real complaint about the stuff is the fact that there is a very steep sensitivity fall off when it comes to long exposures. I shoot a lot of pinhole work and when it comes to any exposure over say 2 seconds I will often double or even triple the measured exposure time to get a good negative. Once you learn this it becomes a non-issue. As with any film there is a learning curve.

My last order of Arista.edu actually had a clear base, not the usual blue.

I've used the 100 and 200 (blue) in 4x5 and 120, they're great but the 200 is/was quite coarsely crunchy (similar to HP5 yet 1.5 stops slower) and came scratched. I tend to shoot them at about EI50 and EI125 respectively though you can go pretty close to box speed in Xtol.

I wouldn't use HC-110 personally since it's speed-reducing and produces pretty coarse grain, both of which are going to accentuate the primary faults of these films.

Reciprocity failure is terrible so don't bother shooting it at night.

arealitystudios said:

My only real complaint about the stuff is the fact that there is a very steep sensitivity fall off when it comes to long exposures. I shoot a lot of pinhole work and when it comes to any exposure over say 2 seconds I will often double or even triple the measured exposure time to get a good negative. Once you learn this it becomes a non-issue. As with any film there is a learning curve.

Click to expand...

I actually LIKE the fact that is loses sensitivity on long shots. I do pinhole shots of public spaces inside and have exposures of several minutes. If a person walks through the shot he does not register in the image because he is moving.

On another note the 100 speed responds wonderfully to green light film latensification. I can get a true EI of 250 -320 with it. Yes I tested it with a step tablet so I know the speed increase is real.

I've been shooting off a bulk roll of the 200 lately. Really nice.

This was shot on my first roll of Arista EDU 200 and developed in Arista premium developer at 1:7.

[/url] 00430014.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

The 200 does not seem to curl as much as the 100. Don't know why...

Try some, I think you will like it.

Regards,
Kent

only used the 200 in sheets....but I really like the tonality that it gives...sort of an older film look...do yourself a favor and develop it in xtol 1:2 or similar. I just rate it at asa 125 and don't even worry about the filter factor!! have fun..it's great film for little money...
Best. Peter

polyglot said:

I've used the 100 and 200 (blue) in 4x5 and 120, they're great but the 200 is/was quite coarsely crunchy (similar to HP5 yet 1.5 stops slower) and came scratched. I tend to shoot them at about EI50 and EI125 respectively though you can go pretty close to box speed in Xtol.

I wouldn't use HC-110 personally since it's speed-reducing and produces pretty coarse grain, both of which are going to accentuate the primary faults of these films.

Reciprocity failure is terrible so don't bother shooting it at night.

Click to expand...

I should also point out that I'm still using Blue. I'm running through the last of that stock before I buy more.