Arista EDU and Foma 400 - Are you using them in spite of .... ?? [Archive]

Ig Nacio

30-Nov-2021, 13:09

Hi,

B&H sells Arista EDU 400. It does not sell Foma 400, not in the 4x5 format.

Adorama sells both.

While Arista sells for around $54, (for 50 sheets), Foma sells for around $78.
I don't know why, as Foma is the apparent manufacturer.

At $78, people will either choose Ilford HP5, (for $98), or Arista EDU.

Regardless of Arista's and Foma's price, the reviews written on the B&H
website don't fare well for Arista 4x5", (50 sheets package) and Adorama
has no reviews for Foma 4x5" yet.

I would love to buy Arista 400 in the 4x5" format to shoot it at its box speed
and even push it as much as possible: (800?, 1600?, 3200?). However, the
reviews don't send a good vibe. The film, Arista, has been found defectuous.
Is Foma, its manufacturer, also bad?

Thats why I would like to ask, what has been your experience with Arista or
Foma 400, in 4x5 format?

Has your experience with Arista EDU 400, or Foma 400 been bad in any way?
Look, here are the mixed reviews for this film on B&H's website:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1236258-REG/arista_190445_edu_ultra_400_black.html

Have you pushed any of these two films? If so, by how much?

Thank you in advance, kind regards,

Ig.

_tf_

1-Dec-2021, 01:40

I'd not push Foma 400 at all, the datasheet shows it's really a ISO 200 film, and it has rather nice tonal curve when exposed around 200, but I personally don't like the tonality that much when shot at box speed (Foma publishes decent data sheets for their films, you will not run into any great surprises with what to expect if you read through that.)

As for quality, I can't speak for Arista, but nowadays I shoot Foma almost exclusively and my experience doesn't bear out the poor reputation Foma has in some circles. Sure the QC at Foma is not on the same level as at the other three film manufactures left, but it's good enough to satisfy the needs of medical uses and NDT, and lot better than can be said for some of the new niche film offerings. The main things to know about Foma film before using it:

1. The main defect you encounter with Foma are the tiny black dots (white on positive) which I think are caused by something undissolved in the emulsions. These afflict all film manufacturers, but you will see lot more of them with foma; they are easy to fix in post and on prints (but I find with 4x5 it's rarely necessary); other defects are rare, I have had two dud rolls of some 100 or so, and a handful of frames with minor emulsion damage, one scratched 4x5 from a 100 or so.

2. The foma emulsions are old-fashioned, cubic grain (the 200 is mixed T and cubic grain), they all have certain classic feel. If the look you are after is near-digital, like Acros, you will not get that from Foma (though if you look at the Foma sharing thread on this forum, you will see that you can shoot beautiful, very high standard images with these films).

3. The foma emulsions have a fairly severe reciprocity failure, I find from about 1s onwards (the datasheet says 1/2s).

For me personally, the quality/cost ratio works very well, but I mostly use the 100.

Here is Foma 400 at box speed, developed in Excel 1+1 (the scratch is mine, not a defect):

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/47973687043_7748821de5_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2g6gFMe)Does my bum look big in this? (https://flic.kr/p/2g6gFMe) by tthef (https://www.flickr.com/photos/_tf_/), on Flickr

Bob Wagner

1-Dec-2021, 04:45

Have never had any quality problems but even EI 200 is too high for me, I shoot at 160.

Ig Nacio

1-Dec-2021, 08:01

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!! They are very encouraging!

I'll get the one manufactured for Arista EDU. I'll get both ISOs, the 100 and the 400.
I'll shoot both at box speed.

I would like to use the 400 ISO in the afternoon or early evening when the sun has
gone down a bit, but the extra sensitivity of the film helps to shoot at a not too slow
speed. I think 400 ISO should help for group portraits in a garden. I have a strobe
with a small diffuser to use 100 ISO for portraits as well.

I hope both films are helpful for the above mentioned uses.

The price of the Arista EDU is lower, so I'll start with it instead of the Foma.

Thank you very much again, kind regards,

Ig.

Michael R

2-Dec-2021, 06:32

I’ve never used Foma films, but out of curiosity had a look at Foma’s tech sheet for the 400 film. I would have to agree with the responses above suggesting it is not an ISO 400 film. The data/graphs in the tech sheet clearly indicate it is not ISO 400. Foma should be using the term Exposure Index for its suggested speeds, not “ISO” which has specific criteria.

Ig Nacio

2-Dec-2021, 16:30

MIke Sherck

2-Dec-2021, 17:04

My first encounter with Arista.edu was with Freestyle Sales Co. (California) a number of years ago. I was called by one of their customer service people to tell me that they were out of the 8x10 Arista.edu sheet film I had ordered and asked whether it was all right to send me Foma as it was the same film. I've bought Arista.edu in 4x5 and 8x10 sizes and like the 100 and 200 speed films. Reciprocity is lengthy and the emulsion scratches easily but once you learn to be careful it's very nice film. I really like Freestyle, for what it's worth. They work hard to support film.

"Arista" is owned by Freestyle Sales Co. and denotes that the film is relabeled and the rest of the name indicates the original manufacturer. ".edu" is Foma and Arista Premium was Tri-X (35mm only as I recall. The boxes say, "Made in USA. Packaged in Mexico." I believe that Kodak was trying to head off another anti-trust investigation at the time.) I bought a bunch of rolls of that for less than $2.50 per roll when Tri-X was $4.25 per roll. Still have some in the freezer.

Mike

Ig Nacio

2-Dec-2021, 17:18

Hi,

Thank you : )!!!

Very interesting to read! I didn't know Arista Premium was Tri-X.

MartinP

2-Dec-2021, 17:46

Hi,

Thank you again for your messages : )!!!

So, if I am understanding correctly, the
Arista EDU 400 or FOMA(pan) 400 for 4x5",
is basically and literally a 200 ISO film,
and it should be developed as a 200 film.

So, what you guys mean, is that it should be
pull processed, or developed as if it was
the 200 ISO film they make ??

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig

Middle of the night here so I won't make a link (or not without messing it up) but the curves on the datasheet show the EI, Gamma, density, temperature and time for a good selection of options. Their Excel developer is rather similar in effect to Xtol, and they show curves for Microphen and D76/ID11 as well. The information will enable you to choose a developer and time quite sensibly, rather than just someonelse's time that includes the effects of their exposure-meter and shutter in the results.

Michael R

2-Dec-2021, 18:28

It is difficult to assign a speed to Foma 400 because it is not clear how they determine speed. If we assume an average gradient on their graphs it appears to be somewhere around EI 200 (using their speed numbers) although as evidenced by the graphs this speed will depend on the developer.

This doesn’t mean you adjust development. Develop normally. It just means set your exposure meter to a speed less than 400. 200 might be a decent place to start. Then, if you find your negatives are consistently overexposed, set the meter to a higher exposure index. If you find your negatives are consistently underexposed, set the meter to a lower exposure index.

That’s about all there is to it.

Hi,

Thank you again for your messages : )!!!

So, if I am understanding correctly, the
Arista EDU 400 or FOMA(pan) 400 for 4x5",
is basically and literally a 200 ISO film,
and it should be developed as a 200 film.

So, what you guys mean, is that it should be
pull processed, or developed as if it was
the 200 ISO film they make ??

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig

Ig Nacio

2-Dec-2021, 19:36

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

I'll do that! I'll start at 200. I'll also use Ilford ID-11, that is my go-to developer.

Thank you again, kind regards!

Ig.

LabRat

2-Dec-2021, 20:14

I use Foma 100 a lot due to my personal economy, and because it is a close match to the Agfa APX 100 that I standardized a long time ago... (I can't afford to shoot the new Adox currently...)

I had some issues with the 2X3 sheet version, but not with the 4X5... One issue was that the code notch was cut so big that it intruded into the image area... Another was sometimes the edge cutting was a little rough/messy that could make the film harder to load into the holders, and sometimes a trace of residue that could leave razor stubble like particles on film... I had at first gotten some clear spots on negs but found a solution... I had used standard stop bath after development an usually had more than one, but read the instructions again that said to use a very weak stop bath or plain water... Ended up using plain water for 5 minutes and no pinholes... Another benefit was slight improvement of edge sharpness probably due to slower development exhaustion deep in the emulsion (I could see greater "etching" of the image when dry film was examined with light reflecting off film)... I don't agitate too much in the water stop, just let it sit there mostly...

But the film works good, and will use it until I can afford something else... ;-)

Steve K

_tf_

3-Dec-2021, 00:49

I had used standard stop bath after development an usually had more than one, but read the instructions again that said to use a very weak stop bath or plain water... Ended up using plain water for 5 minutes and no pinholes.

Steve K

Ah, interesting, I was thinking that recently I am seeing fewer of these than I used to, and this could explain it, as I am mainly using PyrocatHD just now with half-strength ilfostop. I'll try the weaker stop as well next time I am using Excel.

Drew Wiley

3-Dec-2021, 15:44

Arista EDU and Foma 400 are the same thing. Arista is just the private label house brand of Freestyle in LA, which is no doubt where B&H special orders its Arista film from when its requested. I've tried various Arista/Fomapan films in 8x10. The alleged 200 speed product is the most interesting; but I found the dicey quality control unacceptable, and it was nowhere near true 200 speed. The 400 product under question is certainly usable, but there are other films like HP5 and TMY400 which are much more realistic at true 400 speed, and have way more to offer me personally.

I tend to think of Foma 400 as just so-so, nothing special. In both Pyrocat and PMK, I found the grain a bit obnoxious. Other idiosyncrasies have already been mentioned by others. I expect premium results from 8x10; otherwise, why bother shooting that format? If someone's priority is price instead, well, have at it. But as they say, a bird in the bag is better than two in the bush, and if you don't like half of your shots due to the film itself, well, for all practical purposes, that doubles its price; so you might as well have used something better to begin with.

Michael R

4-Dec-2021, 07:45

I haven’t looked at the data sheets for the slower speeds, but at least in the case of the 400 Foma, I find it crappy they use “ISO” all over the place referring to exposure index numbers while it is not an ISO 400 film based on anything I see on their graphs (although it is still possible it is ISO 400 in some unnamed voodoo developer). Not many photographers are interested in trying to decipher this stuff which is why we have standardized speed methods such as ISO in the first place. If Foma says it is ISO 400, it should meet the ISO speed criteria in a fairly standard developer, so that people can set their meters to 400 and have reasonable expectations without nasty surprises.

Arista EDU and Foma 400 are the same thing. Arista is just the private label house brand of Freestyle in LA, which is no doubt where B&H special orders its Arista film from when its requested. I've tried various Arista/Fomapan films in 8x10. The alleged 200 speed product is the most interesting; but I found the dicey quality control unacceptable, and it was nowhere near true 200 speed. The 400 product under question is certainly usable, but there are other films like HP5 and TMY400 which are much more realistic at true 400 speed, and have way more to offer me personally.

I tend to think of Foma 400 as just so-so, nothing special. In both Pyrocat and PMK, I found the grain a bit obnoxious. Other idiosyncrasies have already been mentioned by others. I expect premium results from 8x10; otherwise, why bother shooting that format? If someone's priority is price instead, well, have at it. But as they say, a bird in the bag is better than two in the bush, and if you don't like half of your shots due to the film itself, well, for all practical purposes, that doubles its price; so you might as well have used something better to begin with.

abruzzi

7-Dec-2021, 09:18

I don't like the 400 much. I first shot it on 35mm and the grain was way too much for me (not just the amount, but pattern of grain which felt more widespread, unlike TriX's grain which feels more localized to the dark areas of the frame.) I should try it on 4x5 since grain on 4x5 will be much more subtle, but haven't. OTOH, Foma/Arista 100 is my go-to for just about any size from 120 up to 8x10. I also like Foma 200, but so far only on sheet films (some people have reported issues with the 120 version of Foma 200 that doesn't seem to be an issue with the sheet films.) I also have a box of the 320, but I haven't tested it yet.

Ig Nacio

13-Dec-2021, 22:28

Hi,

Thank you again for your messages : )!!!

Very kind regards,

Ig

mikeh721

22-Jun-2022, 07:25

I have used both of these in 4x5 though I have not pushed them I did pull them to 320 asa and at both box speed and at 320 I have had outstanding results. My suggestion is to get a box of both say in the 25 sheet box and give them a test. You never know until you try them.

nitroplait

22-Jun-2022, 12:41

Foma is a nice economic alternative - I am happy it is available. I think 400 is fine in LF when shot at 200. In 35mm not so much.
I personally prefer Foma 200 rated 100 - it works well for me in both 4x5 and 35mm.

Bernice Loui

23-Jun-2022, 11:40

Now on roll# 3 of Foma/Arista EDU 200, curious film, sorta a hybrid Tmax/non-Tmax film. Appears linear once off the "toe" of it's density curve. Develops faster than other Foma/Arista films, has a working ISO about 100, not 200 as advertised.

Bernice

I personally prefer Foma 200 rated 100 - it works well for me in both 4x5 and 35mm.

Drew Wiley

23-Jun-2022, 16:34

I put too much work into my shots to gamble with Foma/Arista films. Learned that lesson the hard way. For example, the alleged 200 speed product has the longest straight line, and least toe, of any current film. But it isn't anywhere near 200 speed, has abominable long exposure characteristics, and for me at least, twice had real headache substandard quality control issues (8X10 sheet film). Every other shot had to be thrown away. How does that save money? Then there was all that extra spotting of zits and crack lines on prints from the partially salvageable shots.

Like Bernice noted, this film develops VERY fast. My try "normal" in PMK was only 6min at 20C. And while truly having an impressive straight line characteristic, this film is not even remotely as development flexible per gamma range as Super XX or even Bergger 200. Much finer grained, however.

Now to the more specific question about the 400 speed product instead. I tried a box of 8x10 of that once. It was OK, just OK. No problems, but nothing special either. Wasn't impressed; but at least I didn't have the same defect issues as the 200 speed variety. Prints from pyro negs (either pyrocat or pyrogallol) looked a bit gritty. Tonal range was decent, but rather ordinary. For me, it was another waste of money. I'll stick with TMY, TMX, FP4, and HP5 instead. 8X10 photography is too much work for ho-hum results.

Jim Noel

24-Jun-2022, 08:29

I haven’t looked at the data sheets for the slower speeds, but at least in the case of the 400 Foma, I find it crappy they use “ISO” all over the place referring to exposure index numbers while it is not an ISO 400 film based on anything I see on their graphs (although it is still possible it is ISO 400 in some unnamed voodoo developer). Not many photographers are interested in trying to decipher this stuff which is why we have standardized speed methods such as ISO in the first place. If Foma says it is ISO 400, it should meet the ISO speed criteria in a fairly standard developer, so that people can set their meters to 400 and have reasonable expectations without nasty surprises.

ISO speeds are determined by the manufacturer according to the standards set. The normal course is to use film straight off the production line in a higher potency developer than is generally available ( I think I still have a copy of the developer formula somewhere). It does not take into account the alteration in speed which may come about during storage prior to shipment, or various developing methods and developers available to the general public.. During my 80+ years in photography I have tested and used a multitude of films. The only one I ever tested which came close to the mfg ISO, was Super XX prior to the adoption of ASA as a standard. When ASA was adopted the speed assigned to Super XX increased from Weston 100 to ASA 200. The film formula hadn't been changed.

Bernice Loui

29-Jun-2022, 12:49

After 3 rolls of Arista EDU 200/Foma in 120 roll, this film comes up as a Meh... They still have quality control issues, does not respond to B&W contrast filters well and ...

Likely not going to use these films again. Back to Ilford, Kodak and Fuji..

Bernice

nitroplait

29-Jun-2022, 13:36

After 3 rolls of Arista EDU 200/Foma in 120 roll, this film comes up as a Meh... They still have quality control issues…

Foma 120 seem to particularly problematic - don’t know why.

My personal experiences with Foma 200 (shot @ 100) has been fine in both 35mm and 4x5.
If I notice problems, it can mostly be attributed to my slopy handling of the more fragile emulsion.

jimskelton

2-Jul-2022, 21:48

I shoot Arista 400 at 200 and get good results. I have also pushed their ISO 100 film to 400 and found the shadows didn't develop well, though the highlights got darker, making for a pretty high contrast negative (using D-76 1:1). I'm not looking for pristine results though.

Drew Wiley

4-Jul-2022, 11:09

The 200 product certainly doesn't accept boosted contrast "plus" development like true 200's such as Super-XX or even Bergger 200 did. That might not be a terrible limitation to typical silver-gelatin printers;
but practitioners of long-scale UV contact processes, and even Azo printing, hated this film for its shortfall in that respect. It's actually been around a long time. I first remember it as being marketed under the "Classic 200" sheet film label.

Bernice Loui

4-Jul-2022, 11:11

Arista EDU / Foma 200 does not like "plus" development.. verified. It's an ok film for what it is.

Bernice

Serge S

4-Jul-2022, 12:36

Just got a box of Foma 400 (5x7 format) - will give it a shot to see how it works for me:)

Dugan

4-Jul-2022, 12:45

Arista 400 EDU 5x7 developed in Rodinal 1:50 is one of my go-to combinations.
I plan on mixing up some D-23 to try with it for comparison.

Serge S

4-Jul-2022, 13:18

These days I've been using DDX.
Never tried Rodinal, I thought it was for slow emulsions only?

Arista 400 EDU 5x7 developed in Rodinal 1:50 is one of my go-to combinations.
I plan on mixing up some D-23 to try with it for comparison.

Dugan

4-Jul-2022, 16:04

For contact prints from 5x7, grain isn't much of an issue. Rodinal is economical, easy to mix, the concentrate keeps forever, and it has great 'adjacency effect'. I don't like mushy grain.
That's my preferred method, feel free to do what works best for you.

Drew Wiley

4-Jul-2022, 20:14

Ahhh .... contact prints. I seldom do them, but was looking at some of my past 8x10 contacts today, and getting mighty tempted to get back into it, at least when my color printing season winds down in the Fall. Certain films I don't particularly appreciate for enlargement usage, like TRI-X, can excel in contact printing. But since I already have a fair amount of TMY on hand, that's what it's likely to be. I'll stick with PMK for that application too. Want a versatile neg.

FotoD

4-Jul-2022, 20:44

The 200 product certainly doesn't accept boosted contrast "plus" development [...]
practitioners of long-scale UV contact processes, and even Azo printing, hated this film for its shortfall in that respect.

I know it's been a long time since you used this film, but what were your problems with extended development of Fomapan 200?

Drew Wiley

4-Jul-2022, 21:51

The inability of Foma 200 to build linear contrast with extended development has never changed from its inception. I once heard Michael Smith say some unrepeatable expletives about it, for this reason; that's why he stockpiled traditional Super XX. But that was spoken in context of Azo printing, and him standardizing on Gr 2 paper, and sometimes wanting something equivalent to N+2 dev in the neg. I don't think the typical silver-gelatin printer needs that kind of expansion unless they badly underestimate something to begin with. I wouldn't worry about it much with today's VC papers and sheet film per se, where individual sheets can be sorted out for specific development, moderately differently at least. My personal problem with Foma 200 was with the unacceptably dicey quality control and the horrible reciprocity characteristics.

The 400 sheet film was workable, and perhaps an adequate learner film. I just didn't find anything special about it; and it simply wasn't a good match for my own expectations.
It tended to get conspicuously grainy in pyro, so there was that too.

Scott Davis

6-Jul-2022, 11:41

I used the Fomapan 200 (in the guise of Arista.EDU film) extensively in 5x7 and 8x10 format. Shoot it at 100, develop it in Pyrocat HD, and it makes gorgeous palladium prints. I shot several hundred sheets of it in the span of perhaps 2-3 years. Since I was contact printing all of it I couldn't tell you what the grain looks like, but it certainly didn't show up in any appreciable way in any of my prints.