Shanghai, FP4 and Arista Edu

[Tim Meisburger]

I tried to settle on one film, and since I live in Asia, and shipping from the US is exorbitant, and because I like the look of it, it made sense to settle on Shanghai. But lately there has only been one seller on ebay, out of Taiwan instead of China, and the price of the film has been going up.

I'm going to be in the US over Christmas, so can stock up on film, so now am wondering if I should take this opportunity to switch. Currently I can get 100 sheets of 4x5 for:

- Shanghai shipped to Bangkok $104
-FP4 shipped in the US $105
-Arista EDU shipped in the US $66

Anyone used these films? How do FP4 or Arista compare to Shanghai? The Arista is quite a bit cheaper. Is the FP4 40% better than the Arista?

If I change films I will have to test again, and learn the film, and every now and then will have to buy film in the US, so it may not be worth it?

Best, Tim

[Roger Cole]

I've used two of the three (Arista and FP4.) Well, I've used the Arista in 400, anyway. Arista is re-branded Foma. It's an ok film with a bit of an old fashioned look, but it's not FP4+. Some have reported quality control problems but I've not run into these (I think - someone in another thread I started about uneven development thinks a badly light struck negative might be, but it was one sheet out of the middle of a box and those around it fine, so I really think it's either a light leak in my bellows or a bad film holder.) I just play around with it because the look is sometimes appealing and because it's cheap to do so. My standard 4x5 film is TMY-2.

I don't really know anything about film availability in your part of the world but if I were going to settle on one of the films you list as my standard it would be FP4+. Ilford is the most likely to be around a long time, the film is always excellent as is QC.

It the FP4 40% better? I don't know - what size are you using it in, and how large do you print? Those are the first question. Another that might be relevant is that Arista aka Foma has about the worst reciprocity failure characteristics of any film, probably ever but certainly any modern film I've seen. Even at 1 second they recommend a 1 stop exposure increase:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/Fomapan_100.pdf

I assume you are looking at the 100 speed Arista/Foma, since you're comparing it to FP4. I've actually only used the 400. The 200 is said to be a more modern film, more like a T-grain film. I have not yet tried that though I have an unopened box in the fridge. I bought it because I was running low on my 400, they were out of the 400 at Freestyle, and I wanted some more cheap film to test those film holders and a few other tests. I'm not about to do that with TMY-2 when the Arista is less than $1/sheet versus nearly $2 for the TMY. However, I notice the reciprocity failure specs on the 200 are even worse than for the 100 and 400:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/pdf/Fomapan_200.pdf

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Roger. That is useful. I am leaning toward the FP4. I would consider the Kodak, but it is so much more expensive than anything else that it seems extravagant. I might like it though, as apparently Shanghai was developed in a joint project with Kodak, so it might be similar to their film.

After I posted this earlier I googled Shanghai and did find it for sale in China, so I guess they still make it. Maybe I can get my office there to pick some up for me!

Cheers, Tim

[Roger Cole]

Kodak is nice, but the price is getting so ridiculous I'm seriously considering switching to HP5+. I prefer nominal 400 films as a rule.

Having gotten into 4x5 after t-grain films came out I went straight to TMY. I don't really get along well with TMY in rolls and went back to Tri-X, but I've never used TXP. I probably should get some and use it, while I still can.

[AuditorOne]

I use FP4 and Arista EDU 100 and 400 in 35mm, 120 and large format (4x5 and 8x10). Both films have produced great results for me and I like the look of both. However, I use much more Arista EDU than FP4 because of the cost. If I were in your shoes I would not hesitate to buy the Arista EDU. I have not personally had any problems but there have been reports of some quality control problems with Arista EDU, mostly spots on the emulsion, but I have not experienced any of these problems myself.

In reality, you will not regret using either film as they both are fully capable of producing great images. Have fun.

[premortho]

I use Arista 100 film...it's not plus-X, but what is? It has similarities to Agfa apx 100. It's nice film, and the only other serious B&W player in the game. By buying tons of film for re-sale, they wield a big carrot to the rabbits of the film industry. So I support them because they go all over Europe looking for film makers who will cut film in the sizes they have demand for. Want 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 sheet film? They got it. You want ortho? They got it. Want 9X12 cm sheet film for your Voightlaander Avus, yup, they got it. Need 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 for your Graflex? Guess who sells it. No b.s. about ordering it in July to see if they will cut it for you, (like Ilford Ortho in 5X7)

[Roger Thoms]

I use Arista 100 film...it's not plus-X, but what is? It has similarities to Agfa apx 100. It's nice film, and the only other serious B&W player in the game. By buying tons of film for re-sale, they wield a big carrot to the rabbits of the film industry. So I support them because they go all over Europe looking for film makers who will cut film in the sizes they have demand for. Want 2 1/4 X 3 1/4 sheet film? They got it. You want ortho? They got it. Want 9X12 cm sheet film for your Voightlaander Avus, yup, they got it. Need 3 1/4 X 4 1/4 for your Graflex? Guess who sells it. No b.s. about ordering it in July to see if they will cut it for you, (like Ilford Ortho in 5X7)

I wouldn't be to quick to to call Ilford's ULF film run b.s. Don't get me wrong, I think Freestyle is great and order from them pretty regularly. The problem is that there are many large and Ultra large format sizes that Freestyle doesn't stock that are available from Ilford on their special run. For example I recently started shooting Whole Plate, which is not available as a stock item from Freestyle, but is available on Ilford's special run. Also Freestyle is one of Ilford's Special ULF Run dealers.

Roger

[premortho]

The reason for the b.s. comment is that I do not consider 5X7 or orthochromatic film candidates for once a year ordering. Since they are making Ortho film, they ought to market it~which includes explaining why it is used in certain applications, at the minimum. Or at the maximum that you use it all the time except for portraits of girls with freckles, or women over about 22 years of age. From what I've heard, they even have freezers in England to store it in.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Get the Ilford.
I use Arista.edu/Foma 200 as a "play" film (~200 sheets/year), but it can have serious quality control problems and has awful reciprocity. Ilford is a much better film.

[Jiri Vasina]

I'm not sure, but from the info I have, Arista.edu is rebranded Forte, Arista.edu Ultra is rebranded Foma... but Forte is out of business quite some time, so I could be wrong...

Anyway, Fomapan 100 (that would be Arista.edu Ultra (?) 100) is one of my most used films. I use it in 120, 9x12cm, HalfPlate, 13x18cm... it's a very nice film, which I would recommend highly - you can have a look at some of the images shot on this film which are shown on my website here (http://www.vasina.net/?page_id=135) or here (http://www.vasina.net/?tag=fomapan-100). The film has one significant drawback - reciprocity issue - it starts at 1sec, and gets progressively important at more than 10sec. IMO it's unsuitable for night shots... or you can use it, but the times get very very long. And I'd recommend to rate it at EI 64, some people shoot it at EI 50 to get better shadow details.

Fomapan 200 is a nice film too, that I've used only a little bit. Completely different film than the Foma 100. Also, I think it's more of a EI 125-160 film.

Fomapan 400, that one I have used only a few times and was very disappointed with it... but it could be my wrong usage of it.

Shanghai GP3 - I use that one in rolls only. It's a little worse than Foma 100 (scratches, emulsion deffects,...), but not bad to use if you scan your films.

Ilford FP4 - well you can not go wrong with that one. Wonderful and versatile film, but you pay the price...

Hope this helps

Jiri

[Scotty230358]

Having used Foma and Ilford I would go for the Ilford. As previously reported Foma films have poor reciprocity characteristics and I have found them to be "fussy" in processing. I use Pyrocat HD and found that I had to use distilled water to make up the working solution otherwise I can get blotches over even toned areas of sky. Ilford FP4 only needs filtered tap water. Also I rate Foma at ISO 50 whereas I rate Ilford FP4 at 100. Foma builds contrast quite rapidly I find that the compensating nature of Pyrocat helps tame it. In the right situation Foma does produce excellent images but Ilford FP4 is the more consistent of the two.

[John Kasaian]

FP-4+ is a high quality film, man. If I could only shoot one of those films, it would be FP-4+ ! Arista/Fomapan 100 is a good film and you can certainly make excellent negatives with it---if that was all I could afford, I be a happy camper but it is a very slow film with byzantine reciprocity issues so IMHO not as universal as Ilford. I've never used Shanghai so I can't comment on the stuff.
Why not pick up a box of each while you're in the US and make you're own comparison?

[Tim Meisburger]

Thank you everyone for your responses. Since I don't buy often I think I will go ahead and stock up on the FP4 in 4x5, then buy a box of the Arista in 5x7 to give it a try.

[rich815]

By Shanghai do you mean the GP3 (100)? If so I can vouch for it being a nice film using it a lot in medium format. But it does have its occasional emulsion flaws. I bought a load of it for very cheap when I went back to Beijing a few years back (I lived there for 5 years in the late 90's). But frankly vs Ilford and even Arista I'd bypass the Shanghai every time unless it was much cheaper than the other two. But in the end all three are very capable films.

One example:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5175/5508112717_b20e11b571_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/5508112717/)
ECHIUM - Emeryville Marina RolleiflexSL66 80PlanarSC ShanghaiGP3 Rodinal1-50 9min45sec 22C 30secAg 03-2011 VSmac 9000 Scan-110307-0007 cr FFw (http://www.flickr.com/photos/rich8155/5508112717/) by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak) (http://www.flickr.com/people/rich8155/), on Flickr

[premortho]

Jiri, I only hope I can get as good results as I saw on your first "here" site. They ought to give you a contract for a little pamphlet with pics, of course, using that film~absolutely gorgeous! The second "here" didn't work as well...maybe they were roll film? And the site was not easy to get around in. I almost can't see prints that small, and I couldn't figure out how to blow them up.

[Tim Meisburger]

Thanks Rich. I have been using Shanghai for a few years. The sheet film has a different base than the roll film and may have a different emulsion. I've never had any problem with it. I think the GP3 is more like Lucky, and has a relatively soft emulsion.

[Jiri Vasina]

Jiri, I only hope I can get as good results as I saw on your first "here" site. They ought to give you a contract for a little pamphlet with pics, of course, using that film~absolutely gorgeous! The second "here" didn't work as well...maybe they were roll film? And the site was not easy to get around in. I almost can't see prints that small, and I couldn't figure out how to blow them up.

Premortho, in the second link it uses HTML5 for zooming the images, so you need a relatively modern web browser - and preferably not the one from Microsoft (they always think they can bypass any standards and force their own way). It should work in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Safari... The first link uses older style gallery with JavaScript... But I'll try to think about the site design to make it more "viewer friendly"...

Your impression is a little funny too (not meant to offend, just that it's the other way round), because in the first link, the images are chronologically sorted from the oldest... and those are shot on roll film. In the second link it takes you to my blog, where the sort order is from the newest - and most (all?) are shot in sheets. That might be the reason you prefer the older pictures - they have been tried by time (and not deleted), the newer ones have yet to pass the sieve of time...

But anyway, thanks for your kind words

Jiri

[premortho]

Well Jiri, I guess I'm going to have to figure out which were on sheet film. as that's what I'm interested in. I suppose it would be too much trouble for you to tag every pic...like 4/5 fomapan 100 shot at asa64, 9.5 minutes in Rodinal, 1-50

[Jiri Vasina]

premortho, each one is tagged - if you get the image to zoom, it should display some technical information. Also, each blog post (if you go through the blog) should have tags as what camera, lens and film was used. I have included veither the shooting parameters (though I have them written down for most of my images) nor the development information - I think most of the audience on my website does not care for those technical details...

I try to include a little more info (like if I used N, N-1 development) when I post images here...

But generally I use Minolta Spotmeter F to measure the scene, for Fomapan 100 I set it at EI 64. I do a presoak with tap water. For my development routine, standard N development in Jobo 2830 with continuous agitation on Uniroller motor base is the time 10:00 min. I develop at around 20°C (I don't check the temperature, try not to develop in hot summer days...). I develop almost always in Rodinal 1:50 dilution, 7ml of developer, 350ml of solution. I use water stop bath.

For N-1 development, my time is 8:00min. For N+1 development, my time is 13:00min.

If you should need to know shooting parameters and development for a specific photo, ask me (in a PM, or through the contact ways as shown on my web. Sorry, I will not publish my email here, but I can send it to you in PM).

Jiri

[WayneStevenson]

I love Shanghai. Price has just about tripled since 2009. But still worth the price. And it prints beautifully.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2708/4349742939_4345b35314.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynestevenson/4349742939/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynestevenson/4349742939/) by Wayne Stevenson (http://www.flickr.com/people/waynestevenson/), on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8016/7306391532_24a23f427d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynestevenson/7306391532/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/waynestevenson/7306391532/) by Wayne Stevenson (http://www.flickr.com/people/waynestevenson/), on Flickr

[WayneStevenson]

I recently purchased 5 boxes of Shanghai 4x5 and loaded a box of it the other day. Processing a few sheets of it had some pinholes and weird magenta marks. They appear mechanical. Possibly from a roller.

I ripped out the film from another ten holders one by one. Each one had the same problem. :( I'm going to check out another box in the next couple of days. Hoping they aren't suffering the same fate.

Anyone else have any problems with it?

[Tim Meisburger]

Used it exclusively for four years and never had a problem. Sounds like a bad box (end of a roll?), and I would send it back. That guy has (or should have) a commercial interest in keeping the customer happy, and this is the first time I have heard problems reported.

[C. D. Keth]

I've never used shanghai but after using both at various times, I've decided that FP4 is the way to go. The flaws and awful reciprocity characteristics of arista edu ultra 200 just isn't worth it for me. I may revisit it as a film for 8x10 when I get that system running because the coating flaws will be pretty negligible in a contact print of that size.

[rich815]

Just FYI, there was some speculation, I forget where, that the GP3 is a Plus-X emulsion or derivative thereof.

[Ari]

I used to buy Shanghai regularly when it was cheaper; once in a while, I found that the odd box of film did not have notches, leaving me in the dark (!) as to which side the emulsion was on.
After a few of these happy incidents, I switched to more expensive brands; one less worry.

[WayneStevenson]

I just loaded a new box and pulled a random sheet out for inspection. No problems there. May get around to shooting a few frames from both ends of the box to confirm.

Still worried about my other three boxes. I may go back to Kodak. I don't need this stress. Hah.

[premortho]

You may as well go back to Kodak...while it lasts. I've had very good results with Arista edu ultra 100 speed. Aparrantly, the 200 speed film is totally different and problematical, so I don't use it.

[Roger Thoms]

I have one box of 57 Arista EDU Ultra 100 of which I've processed about ten sheets. Pin hole city, so far, process in Pyrocat HD, water stop, and TF-4 fix. Not having these issue with FP-4.

Roger

[WayneStevenson]

I love the Shanghai emulsion though. It looks great. Though the results perhaps are not so different from Tri-X.

[Woodturner-fran]

I shot my first 4 negs of the shanghai film - pinholes on 2 out of the 4. The other 2 negs were aok though, and printed fine.

[WayneStevenson]

I have been shooting it since 2009 of 2010. Only problems that I ever had. Sounds like their quality has gone down. :( I'll see how the rest of this film turns out and go from there..........