Solved: Arista EDU Ultra 200 at 100 asa development time

[peter k.]

Well screwed up shot some Arista 200 at 100 asa any suggestions on development time for D-76 1:1 which is normally about 8-9 minutes @ 68f ?

Ah yes.. same as Fomapan 300 ... so om D-76 1+1 for 7.75 minutes

 

[Paul Howell]

Times listed on the Massive Development chart, 7.5

Massive Dev Chart Film Development, Film Developing Database

www.digitaltruth.com

 

[Brad Deputy]

I'd develop it normally. I shoot Foma 200 at 160, and others here state they will shoot at 100 to improve the shadows. I've used both D76 and XTOL.

 

[Rick A]

Develop as normal, 100 is closer to the actual speed of that film. I shoot it at 125.

 

[Kino]

Yes, it certainly works better with at least a stop of "over exposure"...

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 200 box speed rating was basically a marketing ruse to make one think performance would be equivalent to Kodak Super XX.
I settled on 100 as the realistic speed.

 

[eli griggs]

Develop it as regular iso, a one stop difference should not bother it at all

 

[qqphot]

In my opinion that film is more of a 100 or even 64 speed film anyway, you're better off having exposed it at 100. Don't underdevelop it to compensate. I've never understood why it's sold as a 200 speed film. If you want actual EI 200, Double X is a great choice.

 

[chuckroast]

In my opinion that film is more of a 100 or even 64 speed film anyway, you're better off having exposed it at 100. Don't underdevelop it to compensate. I've never understood why it's sold as a 200 speed film. If you want actual EI 200, Double X is a great choice.

It depends on how it's developed. With normal agitation schemes, the effective EI is about 1/2 box ASA (assuming your meter, shutters, thermometers, etc. are reasonably close). That's because the film doesn't sit in the developer long enough to fully develop the shadows.

OTOH, if you use an extended development/low agitation scheme - Semistand or EMA - you can get full box speed and still keep the highlights under control ... depending on developer and film combo, of course.

I base this on:

• Tons of actual densitometer tests with multiple films and multiple developers
• Looking at many, many negatives
• Seeing the results other people are getting
• Observing a recent misbegotten thread here on the difference between EI and ASA. It's a really exciting read ... no, really, it is.

In any case, it actually doesn't matter. What matters is what you have to do to get the results you want. Some magical EI or ASA or development incantation is kind of to the side of the point. The only way to figure this out is for people to try fiddling with this stuff themselves.

tl;dr Shadows take way longer to develop than highlights. Most "standard" development protocols are designed to keep highlights under control - by keeping the development time short and agitating frequently - and will not give you full shadow speed.

 

[peter k.]

Hmmm when we first started to do our own development we tried that, but where to impatient, now think will try that again.

Sounds good, anybody have any suggestions, or can point me in the direction for this particular film and a new film experience?