Is Arista EDU Ultra 400 ISO 8x10 any good?

[paulbarden]

Go with good quality from the beginning and a lot of excuses will never be needed.

I've used Fomapan 100, FP4, HP5, Delta 100, CHS 100 II, X80 II, and probably others I'm forgetting. Oh yeah - Bergger Pancro 400. Not one of those is anything less than a "good quality" film. They all have their own unique traits, and some require slightly different handling, but ALL are good quality films. A new practitioner can get excellent results using any of those I quoted. But someone new to sheet film is going to go through "a few sheets" in the beginning no matter what, so why spend $8.3 per sheet when you can do perfectly good work with a film that costs $4.80 per sheet?

I still use Fomapan 100, frequently - and I like it a lot. It produces a different look from FP4, but no sacrifice in quality. I've been working in 8x10 format since 2015 and I still appreciate the unique character some of the less costly films deliver.

Some days it seems this forum is way too happy to spend other people's money, for no good reason.

[Louis Pacilla]

I've used Fomapan 100, FP4, HP5, Delta 100, CHS 100 II, X80 II, and probably others I'm forgetting. Oh yeah - Bergger Pancro 400. Not one of those is anything less than a "good quality" film. They all have their own unique traits, and some require slightly different handling, but ALL are good quality films. A new practitioner can get excellent results using any of those I quoted. But someone new to sheet film is going to go through "a few sheets" in the beginning no matter what, so why spend $8.3 per sheet when you can do perfectly good work with a film that costs $4.80 per sheet?

I still use Fomapan 100, frequently - and I like it a lot. It produces a different look from FP4, but no sacrifice in quality. I've been working in 8x10 format since 2015 and I still appreciate the unique character some of the less costly films deliver.

Some days it seems this forum is way too happy to spend other people's money, for no good reason.

Paul as always I TOTALLY agree with all you have said.

[Vaughan]

I would just add that "quality" needs to also take consistency of cut sheet size into account. I've had some sheets are too bog or too small to fit into a holder with Shanghai GP3 in 6½x8½ and 8x10. No issues with Fomapan or Ilford.

[paulbarden]

For anyone needing to stock up on B&W film, Blue Moon has a 10% discount off the price of ALL B&W films for today only. I believe this makes Blue Moon the cheapest source for 8x0 FP4 at the moment. B&H is $209, and $200. at Freestyle, but at Blue Moon today it's $182.69

[Drew Wiley]

Just my personal experience, but I happened to bag some very good images when I started out in LF. Some of them might have been overexposed and overdeveloped, so were hard to print until I learned a few more tricks; but I'm glad I learned on Kodak and Ilford films, especially FP4. But once one scales up to 8x10, longer exposure times are generally mandated due to the smaller stops necessary to obtain comparable depth of field. Foma "400" is at least functionally one stop faster than FP4. HP5, however, is close to actual 400 speed (many people rate it at 320). But yeah, like Willie suggested, quite a few people start out with FP4 and never leave it. It's an especially cooperative film, and what I personally recommend to beginners.

But if one is not familiar with sheet film processing in general, and potentially risks ruining a number of sheet during the learning curve, that would be an incentive for using a more affordable film.

My only esthetic gripe with Foma 400 is that has a bit more "salt and pepper" grain than I like with Pyrocat and Pyrogallol developers. Something like D23 might solve that.

There is a brief sale going on for all Arista films at the moment at Freestyle in LA.

[dsphotog]

You might research xray film.

[Michael R]

I think it is best to remain rational about this. You make the decision to try 8x10, don’t lose sight of why. Economizing to a degree makes sense, like if you can’t afford Kodak film, get Ilford, or if you can’t afford Ilford, try Foma. But I think that’s pretty much the limit. Downgrading further to x-ray film… you’d be far better off downsizing the format and upgrading the film.

[Tin Can]

Ba humbug

[paulbarden]

Downgrading further to x-ray film… you’d be far better off downsizing the format and upgrading the film.

I have to agree with that. I have no complaints about most ortho films, but I have never seen a photograph made on X-ray film that I felt was up to my standards. There's economizing, and then there's punishing yourself for no good reason.
Yes, I know some people here are big fans of X-ray film, but I'm not one of them.

[FotoD]

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.