View Full Version : Arista.eduUltra/Fomapan 200?

John Kasaian
18-Aug-2012, 13:34
Anyone use shoot this stuff? How does it compare with the 100 speed?

18-Aug-2012, 15:04
Here are some thoughts from some of the members on the Arista

John Kasaian
18-Aug-2012, 16:55
Here are some thoughts from some of the members on the Arista

yeah, I shoot Arista.edu Ultra 100, but I'm curious about the 200. Is it anything like the old Fortepan 200 I wonder?

Jan Pedersen
18-Aug-2012, 20:06
Fomapan 200 and Fortepan 200 are two very different film. I have not used the new version of Fomapan 200 but the old Fomapan 200 was building contrast really fast, had a very unique tonal scale and was great for Pt/Pd printing.
Fortepan was very red sensitive but not good at building contrast, almost like HP5+ which to me have muddy shadows.

John Kasaian
18-Aug-2012, 21:38
Jan, would it be similar to Fomapan 100, only faster? Any grain issues?

peter schrager
19-Aug-2012, 00:41
I have made negs and prints with this emulsion. I shoot it at asa 125 and do not worry about filter factors. It is not like fortepan 200 at all. has a very nice palette...you have to try it for yourself to find out. the emulsion is a little sensitive to developing i.e. you must be careful in handling. have used xtol 1+2 and pyrocat 2:2:100 for platinum and it works quite well. the film is cheap and a very good buy for someone starting out in photography. for a few dollars more I use ilford or kodak films and rarely if ever have problems with exposure or development. available in all 3 major sizes. shoot me a PM if you want some spot on dev times
Best, Peter

19-Aug-2012, 02:27
I've been using Fomapan 100 and 200 in 120 & 5"x4" for about 5 years now both at half their box speeds with excellent results, the grain is fine with both films. As Peter says the emulsions are more sensitive to development, they build up contrast rather quickly, hoqwever with a few quick tests to establish your own effective EI & development times they are very capable films. They require shorter development times than other films so beware over-development.

Fortepan 200 is (was) quite a different film which evolved from pre-WWII Kodak Super X which the Hungarian factory made and coated when it belonged to Kodak Ltd (UK)


David Karp
19-Aug-2012, 14:11
I loved the old version of Fomapan 200 (Arista.EduUltra 200). I bought some when I got a 5x7 back for my camera, and wanted to play with some less expensive 5x7 film. I was surprised at how much I liked it. Then it was discontinued for a while because they had to reformulate things due to loss of the film base, or a chemical, or environmental concerns, or something like that.

Any opinions on how the new version compares to the old?

Jan Pedersen
19-Aug-2012, 15:12
Jan, would it be similar to Fomapan 100, only faster? Any grain issues?

I can only compare the old Fomapan 200 to Fomapan 100 and they are different. Fomapan 100 is also a nice film but it does not look like the 200. I don't really know what the 200 compares to if anything.
As Peter wrote, try it you might just like it if the look is similar to the old version.

19-Aug-2012, 15:46
I still have about 350 sheets of the old 200 in my freezer and recently a friend purchased some of the new 200. We took an old and new sheet and exposed them identically to a 21 step stouffer and processed them both at the same time identically. Both were read into Winplotter and the graph plotted was almost the same. Speed was the same with both and contrast build up was just slightly less with the newer film. This wasn't a comprehensive test of the newer film but I would say if you used the older version the new version is very close to the same. My stock is from 2007

David Karp
20-Aug-2012, 08:20

Drew Wiley
20-Aug-2012, 10:32
Foma/Arista/Classic 200, Bergger 200, and Super-XX were all true straight-line pan films, but otherwise different from one another. I gave up on the Foma product because it had
a lot of packaging flaws - namely fine emulsion scratches near the borders, as well as
random emulsion defects apparent with enlargement. I don't know if the current offering
is any better or not. Been following the chatter about this on APUG, but not much good info there on sheet film per se. The shadow separation value and overall scale of this film
was fantastic, the recip characteristics horrible, and the quality control flaky - I had to
throw away about every other shot. Might be best for contact printing where the blemishes are less visible. The rumor is that the film cracks somewhere in the mfg procedure, but it looks like scratching parallel to the edges, so I assumed (correctly or not)
a problem in cutting or packaging.

20-Aug-2012, 10:56
In the 5 years I've used Foma films I've not had an emulsion issue, I did have one minor problem with stress marks on a 120 film though, but it was a cutting fault. I tested the reciprocity of the 100 & older 200 films for my typical uses and they weren't remotely as bad as the official recommendations.

I'd estimate I've shot a few hundred rolls of Fomapan 100 & 200 120 and a simiular amount of 5"x4" and 9x12cm sheet film and lost just one frame due to a manufacturing issue.


Jim Fitzgerald
21-Aug-2012, 06:30
I've had some great success with the Bergger 200 when I shoot it at 80. Developed in Pyrocat-HD it is wonderful. I have some of this and the J&C 200 in 14x17. Is the Arista 200 anything like the Bergger 200? I may have to try some in 8x10 if my standard Efke 25 goes away. reciprocity is an issue for me as I shoot a lot in the dark forests at f45-90. Anyone know if their are any similarities between these films?

Drew Wiley
21-Aug-2012, 09:51
Other than their straight-line characteristic and typical pan sensitivity, Bergger 200 and
Arista 200 are VERY different films. Arista has a different look, is comparatively slow (certainly nothing like true 200 speed), was for me useless at long exposures, and had disappointing quality control. An odd duck, but if they manage to sort out the quality issue, it would still be a tempting film for certain applications, not only for the low price, but due to the superlative shadow separation way deep down, while holding highlight sparkle way way up. Midtones will naturally be a little compressed with "normal"
development. When the last of my Bergger was used up, I switched entirely to TMY400
for very long-scale subjects, just for the sheer reliability. Efke is a little dicey with quality
too, mainly random bits of dust in the emulsion, but I use it a lot in 120 format because
nothing else in that size has such magnificent range combined with high acuity - love it
in the mtns where dark rock and deep shadows might be adjacent to glacier polish or ice