cheaper 8x10 B&W film? Arista EDU 100?

[Daniel_Buck]

So I'm looking at the possibility of trying a more inexpensive film. Currently I'm using Tri-X 320, developing with HC110 (diluted from the twist-cap bottle to 1:31, developing in a roller print drum), and fixing with TF-4. What I really like about this combo is that it's very easy to develop (not real picky about temperatures), and it gives me good highlight and shadow detail. Now that I'm starting to shoot more 8x10 film, I'm seeing how much higher the cost of film is than 4x5. It's not killing me, but I'd like to keep that recurring cost down if possible.

I see Arista EDU 100 and 200 available in 8x10 that work out to about $1.80-$1.90 per sheet. Tri-x is running me $4.70 a sheet, more than double the cost!

Keeping in mind that I like the easy developing of Tri-X and diluted HC110, would Arista EDU be worth trying out, either with diluted HC110, or trying some other developer? I honestly never monitor my temperatures, I just take whatever comes out of the tap, it's usually about the same temperature, but I don't monitor it or my chemicals.

Would Arista EDU 100 or 200 hold up to my sloppy developing habits? Or would I do best to stick with Tri-x and pay for the ease of developing with the higher cost of the film? The actual tonal curve is not of huge importance to me, since I scan my film and have alot of control over that during the scanning/processing, however having detail in the highlights and shadows is very important to me (not blocking/clipping highlights or shadows).

I see some people using HC110 (which is not recommended by manufacturers?) in higher dilutions, would 1:31 do well? Or would it be best to look for a different developer to use in higher dilutions? (higher dilutions, again to keep the recurring costs down and reduce possibly un-even developing)

Thanks for any info!

[Jiri Vasina]

Arista EDU Ultra 100 = Fomapan 100, and that one would work well even with development habits not robotic precise. At least that is my impression (and style of work). I don't know about HC110, but some do use it to their content. I haven't tried it, use Rodinal or R09.

[IanG]

There's a current thread about Foma 100 on this forum here. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=37716)

Ian

[Gary L. Quay]

Arista (Foma) 100 in HC110 dilution H seems to take 5 to 5.5 minutes. I shoot it at 80 instead of 100, and it works well. Dilution H takes dilution B and doubles the water, and the time is normally doubled as well, but the Foma apparently doesn't take as long. There's a link to this thread as well.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=34647

--Gary

[Scott Davis]

I'd recommend the Arista EDU Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200), if only for the speed bump you get. I rate it at 100, and I soup it in Pyrocat HD, 1:1:100, and run it in a Jobo CPA for 11 mins @ 75f on the slowest possible rotation speed. I do this combination for several reasons:
A- my Jobo's thermostat is wonky and will not run cooler than 75f in the winter, and 75f is what I get out of my tap in the summer
B- I'm printing platinum/palladium, so I need the extra contrast

If you want a contrast range more suited to grade 2 silver gelatin printing, I'd run the times and dilutions the same, but knock the temp back to 68f, or cut the time by 15-20%.

[Marko]

Based on how you describe your process, I think you could be a good candidate for Rodinal.

FP4+ is another old-style, mid-speed emulsion and I've had great results with it in Rodinal at 1:50, but you could go to 1:100 to prolong the dev time and thus increase tolerance for sloppiness. :)

[John Kasaian]

I shoot Arista.eduUltra 100 (Fomapan 100) and develop in D-76. No problems to report other than all this spare cash accumulating around the place because of the less expensive 8x10 film costs :rolleyes:

I don't know how it would work the HC-110 but I've heard good things about it in Rodinal. I'd suspect it would work well in any soup.

[Daniel_Buck]

Thanks for the comments everyone! I've got a box of Arista 100 and a bottle of Rodinal on the way from freestyle :-)

[Ron Marshall]

Another vote for the Arista.edu Ultra 200. It is actually closer to ISO 125, and similar to FP4. I've only tried it in XTOL (very good) but I'm sure it would do well in HC-110.

[Gregg Cook]

100 or 200 works well in xtol 1-1 at about 75 for about 7 and a half minutes.

I shoot em both at 100. fwiw.

[PViapiano]

Domenico uses Arista film with HC110...he gets unbelievable results with it. Do a search and look for his comments...

[Daniel_Buck]

100 or 200 works well in xtol 1-1 at about 75 for about 7 and a half minutes.

I shoot em both at 100. fwiw.

Sorry if this is a silly question, but why would you shoot both 100 and 200 versions of the film instead of just sticking to one of them if you are going to meter them both at 100? I assume for some contrast or grain reason?

[Gene McCluney]

Sorry if this is a silly question, but why would you shoot both 100 and 200 versions of the film instead of just sticking to one of them if you are going to meter them both at 100? I assume for some contrast or grain reason?


The 100 and 200 versions are entirely different films. The 200 has a "similar" grain structure (but not quite) to the T-max and Ilford Delta style films, the 100 is more conventional. Many people rate the 100 at 50, and the 200 at 100. So you see, they don't rate both films at the same ISO. The bottom line is that the films ARE NOT variations of the same film. They each have their distinct, different characteristics, and some people prefer one over the other.

[Daniel_Buck]

ah, thank you :-)

[eddie]

i shoot arista (foma100 ). i use hc110 at dil h for 9 min agitation first min and every min after that. and dil g for 18 min. agitation 1st min and every 3 min after that. i rate it at 100.

i have also begun using pyro HD with nice results. 1:1:100 for 12 min or 2:2:1-- for 6 min.

i have been playing with silver and VDB printing methods. i find both HC110 and Pyro offer me great results. i am not sure which is "better" yet....both are very good for sure.

i have just uploaded some pics to my apug gallery (http://www.apug.org/gallery/showgallery.php?cat=500&ppuser=9453) if you want to have a look at some of them. a few pages back you can see the HC110 stuff.

have fun.

eddie

[Daniel_Buck]

how do you think HC110 would work with Arista in a rolling print drum? (I usually use 1:31 dilution from the stock bottle, not sure what letter that is) Or Rodinal for that matter?

[Ron Marshall]

For rotary processing with HC-110 I found that my times were below 5 min with 1:31. Try a higher dilution, or Rodinal works very well, as does XTOL.

[Daniel_Buck]

Thanks Ron :-) I've got some Rodinal on the way, I'll compare it to a higher dilution of HC110. What dilution would you suggest, for the rotary drum?

[MIke Sherck]

I use Arista's 200 speed film in straight D-76 and have gotten pretty fond of this film. If there's a downside to these Foma films, it's the reciprocity: they're the worst films for long exposures I've ever used. Another issue for me is that the emulsions don't seem to be as hard as Ilford or Kodak films, and they're a bit easier to scratch during processing. However, they do seem to be relatively tolerant of processing variations and have lovely tonality. The pre-soak water comes out an absolutely lovely emerald green for the 200 speed film. ;)

Mike

[Jiri Vasina]

how do you think HC110 would work with Arista in a rolling print drum? (I usually use 1:31 dilution from the stock bottle, not sure what letter that is) Or Rodinal for that matter?

I develop Fomapan 100 in R09 (Rodinal) in Jobo 2820 print drum with continuous agitation on Unicolor Uniroller. It's the best method of development I have so far tried. (Not considering stand development with high dilution Rodinal for specific cases).

[Gene McCluney]

I develop Arista Edu Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200) in HC-110 dilution "E", and I use Kodak Rapid Fix with Hardener, and I have not found this combination to be any more delicate than Kodak or Ilford film, in fact I have found the negatives to be rather resistant to scratching.

[MIke Sherck]

I develop Arista Edu Ultra 200 (Fomapan 200) in HC-110 dilution "E", and I use Kodak Rapid Fix with Hardener, and I have not found this combination to be any more delicate than Kodak or Ilford film, in fact I have found the negatives to be rather resistant to scratching.

I think this is a film which benefits from a hardening fixer. I need to try to remember to use some next time I develop this film. Ordinarily I use a non-hardening fixer; modern emulsions are said to not need it and it washes out faster.

Mike

[John Kasaian]

Arista.eduUltra/Fomapan maybe less expensive (for how long?) but I think it is a disservice to call it a "cheap film." Like the "old" Arista/FP-4+
it is more than capable of capturing some pretty grand images if you do your part :)

[Gene McCluney]

I think this is a film which benefits from a hardening fixer. I need to try to remember to use some next time I develop this film. Ordinarily I use a non-hardening fixer; modern emulsions are said to not need it and it washes out faster.

Mike

Unless you overfix excessively, a rapid-fix with hardener (such as the Kodak one) will wash out of film with reasonable ease. The key is to fix for recommended time in fresh fix. I wash for about 20 minutes. My processed film from as far back as 1969 shows no sign of fading or other processing flaw. You can safely use a hardening fix for all film and wash out with only a moderate wash cycle, if you changes of water are efficient.

[BarryS]

I've been using a lot of the Arista EDU Ultra 200 developed on Pyrocat HD and fixed with TF-4 and the emulsion is *soft* compared to Kodak and Ilford films. The edges of the film are scratched easily by the sides of a 4x5 Gravityworks film washing holder. I'm careful with my technique and have been doing my development process at 65 degrees, but I find I still have to be very careful handling the film. I've also noticed more defects in the film as opposed to more mainstream brands. I think the use of a hardening fixer might be a good idea, although that seems to be contrary to the use of pyro, so I may just switch back to XTOL. Overall, I think it's a decent film, but not up to the quality of Ilford and Kodak.