Is Arista EDU Ultra 400 ISO 8x10 any good?

[Alan9940]

Yes, I know some people here are big fans of X-ray film, but I'm not one of them.

I'm not a fan of x-ray, either, but I've seen some pretty nice images done on this film stock. That said, it's definitely not a film I'd recommend to a beginner because there are a LOT of gotchas and it takes quite a bit of work and knowledge to obtain proficiency with this film, IMO, anyway. Back in the day, recommending a newbie start with Technical Pan would be the equivalent to my mind.

[Drew Wiley]

Tech Pan would be a lot easier for the stated purpose than Ortho Litho. Neither are all that cooperative for con-tone imagery. Been there, done that, mostly just for the fun of it, since I already had those kinds of film on hand for completely different purposes like highlight masking. And Tech Pan never existed in ULF sizes. I recently sold off the last of my 8x10 TP. Given all the time and fuss just to calibrate those extreme films to mimic regular films, and the number of potential sheets expended in the learning curve, that route isn't all that affordable at all, unless one has prior experience or is really determined. There are plenty of web blips and articles telling one how to just use dilute Dektol or whatever for Ortho Litho; but unfortunately, that's generally stated in the context of some funky artsified look incompatible with the clean precise repeatability necessary for good enlarged negatives.

[jnantz]

Fomapan 400 is great film. Most of the naysayers haven't used it. If you'll expose it at EI 200 your negatives will be as good as with any film.

The only films I've had major problems with are Kodak films. And their chemistry too. All other brands have been OK.

couldn't agree more .. with the naysayer part. it's always like that.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, at least Kodak naysayers versus different film naysayers do us a favor by giving us good reason to question their own assessment. How does one have "problems" with Kodak film? Their quality control is as good as it gets.

[jnantz]

Well, at least Kodak naysayers versus different film naysayers do us a favor by giving us good reason to question their own assessment. How does one have "problems" with Kodak film? Their quality control is as good as it gets.

how does one have problems with their QC ? does crappy information from their tech service / profession "hot line" count ? their people didn't even know the products / chemistry they sold, referred me to the wrong products, wasted my time and then told me to throw countless hours of film ( hours spent shooting and developing ) in the trash after I followed their advice, then they told me the person whose name I wrote down who gave me the sh*tty advice never worked for them. Dale was good, but besides that, plenty of good reason for me ( and others ) not to use their products besides it costing 2x what other products cost but that's besides the point. I had to go to their competition who referred me to the KODAK product ( or at least part of it ) to fix my problem. as usual you're pretty funny Drew.

[Michael R]

Well, at least Kodak naysayers versus different film naysayers do us a favor by giving us good reason to question their own assessment. How does one have "problems" with Kodak film? Their quality control is as good as it gets.

I have to agree. Kodak sheet films are the top of the line - including easiest to process. Expensive though.

[Alan9940]

Tech Pan would be a lot easier for the stated purpose than Ortho Litho. Neither are all that cooperative for con-tone imagery. Been there, done that, mostly just for the fun of it, since I already had those kinds of film on hand for completely different purposes like highlight masking. And Tech Pan never existed in ULF sizes. I recently sold off the last of my 8x10 TP. Given all the time and fuss just to calibrate those extreme films to mimic regular films, and the number of potential sheets expended in the learning curve, that route isn't all that affordable at all, unless one has prior experience or is really determined. There are plenty of web blips and articles telling one how to just use dilute Dektol or whatever for Ortho Litho; but unfortunately, that's generally stated in the context of some funky artsified look incompatible with the clean precise repeatability necessary for good enlarged negatives.

Pretty much my thoughts about and experience of when I went down the x-ray rabbit hole years ago.

[MartyJoelFrank]

I've been using 8x10 FOMA 400 for a few years, exposing @200, developing in HC-110 1:31 and have been very happy with the results. I've never seen defects from manufacturing or packaging and my results have been consistent both with expansion and contraction during development. I use BTZS tubes and try to be especially careful as the emulsion can easily scratch when wet. I use my negatives for alternative processes and don't miss the Ilford films I used previously at all. (I still use HP5 plus for my ULF work)

[Andy F]

Hi,

I just want to once again thank everyone on this forum. You all gave me a lot to think about. Thank you all.

-Andrew

[Scott Davis]

Another fan of Fomapan/Arista.EDU 200 here. It's a great film for alt process, especially ones that need lots of contrast, because it has a very long straight line in the middle of the curve so you can really crank the contrast up through development. If I'm doing night photography, though, I put it away and switch to FP4+. The one really bad thing about it is the reciprocity characteristics. But I would have to retire my 8x10 if it weren't for that film - I can still (more or less) afford to work the way I like to work using it. My latest shoot was 32 sheets of Arista.EDU 200 ( I was working with a model ). If I'd had another 9 film holders I would have shot the entire 50 sheet box in a sitting.