False Economy, the worst film I ever tried to use.

[Kirk Gittings]

I remember when Arista was rebranded FP4+ and CHEAP. I bought a ton of it and froze it-still shooting it today.

[SergeiR]

I remember when Arista was rebranded FP4+ and CHEAP. I bought a ton of it and froze it-still shooting it today.

well you lucky then None of boxes i got from them was/is anything like FP4

[Kirk Gittings]

Not luck at all-back in 2002 it was a known fact. Back in that day to make sure, I ran some fresh FP4+ and shot a second identical neg in the Arista 125 and then processed them together. There was no difference except for the notches.

[David Karp]

I am on my last 100 sheet box of the Arista 400 speed film that was private labeled HP5+. I think I might have part of a 25 sheet box of the 125 speed.

[brucetaylor]

I have had similar problems recently with Arista 200 edu in 120 roll film. At first I thought it might be me scratching the emulsion in the camera/processing/sliding into neg sleeves, but I think this is not the case, as the problem is consistently seen in multiple rolls. I also could not see a scratch in the emulsion which I would have expected to see. I think perhaps the reason I haven't see it in 4x5 or 8x10 is either the subject matter and/or the low enlargement factor.

[jnantz]

those were the days ...
photo warehouse sold
rebranded ilford too, cut off the master rolls
to any size for a tiny amount too.

and mrfoto on eBay sold 100foot aero rolls ...
and j&c sold efke and forte too

lot has changed in 13 years

[Jac@stafford.net]

Yes, I got some very bad film from some depressed country manufacturer. It had emulsion defects, and some did not even fit a 4x5" film holder. We know why.

To me, after schlepping a large camera about, and considering the investment in hardware and my health in general it is sensible to buy film known to be excellent. Why leave the final step to some schmuck in a desperate, poorly funded manufacturing enterprise?
.

[Rayt]

I have shot a lot of Arista.edu for its intended purpose which is as a budget film for students to learn with. It would be unreasonable to expect perfection given it was advertised and priced as a student film.

I understand while the Foma version is the same film the Arista label uses the ends which are less than perfect?

[Flauvius]

+1

As an aside, it amazes me that anyone who has gone through the large format learning process would foist likely defective film upon a newbie struggeling to understand all the variables in making a good large format negative.

In my opinion, it is damn near criminal fraud for a manufacturer, or any retailer, to sell such likely defective film to anyone.

Flauvius

[John Kasaian]

I've no complaints with 100 iso Arista/Fomapan but certainly these kinds of events are discouraging. I don't think Freestyle would ever knowingly sell defective film so your information re: lot number etc...would be of great value to them. If the issue was already reported your info would serve to further substantiate the extent of the problem.

I used to stick with one film until the distribution problems arose some years back when Ilford filed for protection and Kodak shut down when they built a new dust-free facility both at the same time (those were indeed golden days, as john nanian mentions, when Freestyle and Photo Warehouse sold proprietary branded FP-4+!) As a hedge against future supply disruption I'll put aside boxes of .eduUltra, x-ray, and the new version of APHS in "reserve." I admit is is fun to "learn" new films but as of yet nothing has replaced Ilford in my book (nor Kodak, but Kodak is just silly expensive in 8x10 and being special order stuff that makes it all the more a hassle I don't feel like dealing with.)