Arista EDU Ultra 100 vs 200?

Still lamenting the loss of APX100 (and Plus-X), I note that Arista EDU Ultra 100 (i.e. Fomapan 100) is a traditional cubic grain film with decent silver content and a somewhat similar curve. I've shot a few boxes of 4x5 and it's not bad.

Reading some online reviews, it seems the 200 ISO is some sort of hybrid t-grain/cubic grain that many people really like. I'm not a huge fan of T-Max, but understand very well why people like it. It's just not my thing. Maybe the hybrid approach is a good way to integrate the strengths of both approaches to making film.

I plan on buying a few boxes of 100 and 200 to compare, but wanted to hear if anyone here had done the same thing, and what you found.

Thanks!

Arista 200 is Fomapan 200. It's nowhere near true 200 speed (more like 100) and has horrible long-exposure characteristics, but does have an exceptionally long straight line capable of handling extreme contrast scene. Develops exceptionally fast. Quality control is disappointing, so expect a few flawed sheets. An interesting film worth trying, but with very little in common with T-grain films. For one thing, you can't plus develop it much. Nor is it similar to EDU/Foma 100. Rather, it's a unique bird at this point in time. It was marketed as a replacement for Super-XX, but it's nowhere near as versatile; it is finer-grained than old Super-XX.

I've not experienced QC issues with foma 200 in sheet film, but I won't buy it in 120 anymore. I quite like it in 4x5; true speed is around 125, long straight line, plays very nice with pyro developers and very usable for both silver gelatin and alt process applications.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6x6TLL

I plan on buying a few boxes of 100 and 200 to compare, but wanted to hear if anyone here had done the same thing, and what you found.

---

This film is perfect for LF, very cheap but totally capable, it can be recommended. Personally I found no QC flaws in the sheets I've processed.


> As Koraks says Speed is lower than the box says, calibration is made with a higher CI and with and an speed increasing developer, so you should start overexposing 1/2 to 2/3 stop from what box says.

> Emulsion is very soft when wet, handle with extreme care in the processing and until it is dry.

> As Drew says, it has a lot of LIRF, for long exposures you should test exposures and processing, you may use roll film for that testing.


With no doubt several artists around make nice shots with it:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/889360...-6oMNw3-ddW3Pp


Right now in the EU a 8x10" Fomapan 100 sheet (8x10") is 2.3€, while TXP is 14.5€ per sheet, so I decided to explore well how I can make an optimal usage from Foma 100. (https://www.fotoimpex.com/shop/syste...che=1584446506)


I liked the result I obtained from first tests I made, but still I want to learn more about how to handle highlights and about filtration effects.

... so for your first try just overexpose it a bit and be careful when emulsion is wet, I make a final rinse with distilled water and very low wetting agent dose, followed by a careful squeezing. In the first batch I scratched several sheets, but not in the second time.

I've never used Foma 200, but I've used quite a bit of both 4x5 and 8x10 Foma 100. I quite like the tonality of this film and I've never seen any QC issues. My favorite developers for it are Pyrocat-HD and HC-110.

probably the one straight line film available except for tmax400 which is over priced in 8x10; will not develop by inspection
I've gotten ASA 150 out of the film; bright light in sun developed in xtol or pyrocat mc
I've used quite a bit of Foma100; reciprocity is not as bad as some people claim...test for yourself

It separates tonality down into the shadows even deeper than TMY or TMX can. But as the last "straight line film" remaining, it's disappointing compared to Bergger 200 or good ole Super XX. Still, I've managed a few excellent images with it in 8x10. Didn't enjoy the extra retouching.

Disappointing in what way?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

It separates tonality down into the shadows even deeper than TMY or TMX can. But as the last "straight line film" remaining, it's disappointing compared to Bergger 200 or good ole Super XX. Still, I've managed a few excellent images with it in 8x10. Didn't enjoy the extra retouching.

---

The 200 product can't be "plus" developed much for sake of a high gamma, the long exposure characteristics (reciprocity failure) are awful. It does not respond to tricolor filtration well like other straight line films. The two different batches of 8x10 I tried had fine parallel cracks and random zits difficult to spot out. It develops almost twice as fast as other sheet films, so you have to move fast. The true speed is about half the advertised box speed, so unlike films with more toe, if deep shadows are underexposed, simply nothing will be there. Correctly exposed, then you get a very long scale indeed, with wonderful shadow tonality. The film box clamshells sometimes leak light at the corners, so after you remove film from its black wrap, you need to put film into a 3-part clamshell box from some other manufacture. The corners of the film are exceptionally sharp, so you have to be extra careful shuffling sheets in tray processing. The overall look is odd compared to former 200 films; but the grain is finer, and one can adapt to a new look. If you contact print, the emulsion flaws might not be a big deal, but they're obvious even with modest enlargement. But it is one of those unique films worth trying to see if it's for you or not. I'm just personally hesitant to ever buy it again because so many shots were spoiled by quality control issues of the kind I've never had in any other sheet film. It's actually cheaper for me to use Kodak TMY400 because it's so reliable and versatile; I don't have to throw away every other hard-earned shot. Or if I want a less expensive film at mid-speed, there's reliable FP4. I don't include HP5 because it has a moderately long toe and large grain - wonderful stuff, but in a different category in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6x6TLL

Disappointing in what way?

---

For Foma 100, see the curve, the -2 vertical line is where the meter aims, and -1 vertical line is +3 stops overexposure, using ISO speed that is lower than the BOX speed in this case (60, 80?)

Depending on development you have a shoulder beyond +3 overexposure or not...

For the start point, overexpose a bit and tend to develop less time, as a safety belt, you would have to print (or digitally adjust) a higher contrast with that recipe.

As each other film it requires some learning. It is linear in the shadows but you should learn how to handle highlights. "It's The Indian, Not The Arrow"


Attachment 201819

Just developed a batch of 100 and 200 (of the same subjects at the same settings) to compare, and cannot, because *they have the same notch code*. Who thought that was a good idea???

:-/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6x6TLL

...because *they have the same notch code*. Who thought that was a good idea???

---

I've noticed that all (at least all that I've seen) Arista/Foma sheet films just have one notch, of the same size and shape. It lets you orient the film properly, which appears to be its sole function. It would be nice if they would make notches that could be used for identification.

Ok, I've been trying out some different things with these two films.

Per recommendations here and elsewhere, I've been exposing the 100 ISO as 80, and the 200 as 160. They are now developed separately (100/200 in own batches) rather than together, and I've adjusted the times to suit according to the MDC - 7 minutes in Rodinal 1+50 20C for the 100 ISO and 10 minutes for 200. I also bought the "wings" to add to my Jobo reels and loaded 6 sheets per reel without any problems.

A few here said that the 200 develops fast, although MDC states 8-10 minutes, which doesn't seem too fast to me.

The negatives look ok, not great, not horrible. I'm still seeing some unevenness on the developing, blotches here and there, but more surprising are what look like small spots on a few sheets, some black, some white. I've been very careful to handle by the edges only, as far as I'm aware. If I remember correctly, white spots indicate dust or debris on the emulsion, or missing emulsion, and black spots would be what? I'm using liquid, not powder developer.

Does Fomapan have consistency or coating issues? Or is this probably just a newbie problem, me not being familiar and experienced with sheet film. Thousands of rolls of 120 and I've never once had a problem, but I recognize that this is quite different.

I've also taken to cutting off the corner of the 200 film once I take it out to hang up to dry so that I can identify them later compared to the 100 speed version.

A few samples attached, and a few others I've posted in my developing thread.

Thanks for any input or suggestions you can provide.

Attachment 202683
Attachment 202684
Attachment 202685

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6x6TLL

If I remember correctly, white spots indicate dust or debris on the emulsion, or missing emulsion, and black spots would be what? Does Fomapan have consistency or coating issues?

---

Black spots are holes in the emulsion that allow light to pass and turn the paper black. White spots are dust or something that blocks light from reaching the paper, leaving it white. Foma sheet film is pretty well known for having emulsion defects. I once took a nice studio portrait, and it had "skid marks" near the subject's right arm, and on the background area of the image. These were actually scratches in the emulsion, not just tiny dots/pinpoints of missing emulsion. Unfortunately there's no way to predict when or where they'll strike.

I used a lot of APX100 for my go-to film for many years, (but am running out of it)... All of my developing was calibrated for it... I see there is the Rollei version of it now, but expensive... I had run out of sheet film and 120, but had to try the Foma 100 as it was reviewed as fairly similar characteristics as the APX 100... I was pleasantly surprised that the former dev times were VERY close and the look not very different then the APX 100... You do have to get used to the reciprocity factor thing (but has been reliable), but slightly less sharp than the APX (for smaller formats)... I initially had some pinholes, but changed to a plain water stop, and it was fine... Not crazy about the packaging, but just put wrapped sheet film into old film boxes... No scratches yet after several hundred sheets, but have noticed there can be debris from edge cutting, but it takes a rinse after final wash under a hose or faucet to remove... But no big problems with it (so far)...

With the 120, I hate the sticky bands around roll, but am concerned with the fact that the film tends to cling to the backing paper and does not just roll up on its own before loading (making it hard to separate and handle when loading the reel in a changing bag)... But no issues developing and drying...

Down to my last 100 ft of APX 35mm, but not sure I want to try the Foma 100 for smaller format, but might buy the Rollei 100 ft when I run out (but it's like 100 bucks, and when I bought my last 1,500 ft when discontinued, each cost me about $28)...

I don't mind this film...

Steve K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6x6TLL

The negatives look ok, not great, not horrible. I'm still seeing some unevenness on the developing, blotches here and there, but more surprising are what look like small spots on a few sheets, some black, some white. I've been very careful to handle by the edges only, as far as I'm aware. If I remember correctly, white spots indicate dust or debris on the emulsion, or missing emulsion, and black spots would be what? I'm using liquid, not powder developer.

Does Fomapan have consistency or coating issues?

---

Having shot a few hundred sheets of Foma 100+200+400, I would say 'barely'. In the 100 version I get the odd (perhaps in 2-5% of the sheets) a single tiny pinhole in the emulsion, i.e. a tiny black spot in the positive/print.

In roll film 120 format, Foma200 has consistently given me problems with tiny scratches and holes in the emulsion. I reported this to Foma about 2 years ago and they confirmed the issue to me after I had submitted samples to them for analysis. They kindly replaced the defective rolls with new ones from a different production batch, that sadly had the exact same problems. The problem seemed specific and isolated to 120 format and in my experience does not affect sheet film, and probably neither does it occur in 35mm although I am not 100% sure of the latter. It was also isolated to the 200 film and not present in Foma 100.

A friend of mine has noted problems with Foma 100 when used in a Hasselblad back (not in other camera systems he uses!), which was argued by Foma to be particular to the use of this product in a Hasselblad. Could have something to do with the combination of the tension on the film combined with the small diameter of some rollers in the back, which apparently result in tiny emulsion fractures. Again, not related to sheet film in any way.

Overall my experiences with Foma sheet films are quite good given the price; I continue to use them as my main sheet films.

I inspected the negatives closer on a light table, rather than looking at the scans my son took for me. The negatives are much better in person.

There are still multiple tiny specks of white, which I'm guessing must be dust at time of exposure? A few black spots I'm not sure about. But much better than the scans.

Now for the really interesting question - I've learned that when loading film, the notch code always goes top right on the holder so that the emulsion faces towards the lens.

However, while I was inspecting the films, I noted that the emulsion (which if it's anything similar to any other film I've ever used, is the rough side, not the smooth plastic side) faces forward when the notch code is top left (?!?).

Does Foma have a magic emulsion layer that is completely smooth? Perhaps I'm feeling the remains of the anti-halation layer or a sensitizing layer? Or are their codes on the wrong side of the sheet...?

I definitely have a dust problem. I'll start another thread for that.

Thanks for the help so far.

With Foma films, the emulsion side is the 'rough' side as with all other 'classic' films (as opposed to e.g. TMAX100 which basically has two super smooth/shiny sides...). I always load my film with the notch at bottom left having the film holder in front of me in portrait orientation - which of course boils down to the same as having the notch top right. Perhaps you have your holder in landscape orientation? In that case the notch would of course be on the top left with the emulsion side facing towards you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MultiFormat Shooter

I've noticed that all (at least all that I've seen) Arista/Foma sheet films just have one notch, of the same size and shape. It lets you orient the film properly, which appears to be its sole function. It would be nice if they would make notches that could be used for identification.

---

It's possible to snip off a tiny part on a corner of the film when loading it in the DDS, just for ID later (done this for general testing, not specifically for Foma 100/200). In theory a pinhole punch is usable too, but the one I 'cleverly' bought from an art-shop hardly goes through any sheet-film base as it is meant for paper. Oops. :(

Ok, now I'm really confused. Let's clear this up with a few pictures.

First (color film) is how I load holders. Flap at bottom, slide at top, film with notch upper right. Always the same. Emulsion should then be facing up, i.e. towards the lens.

Attachment 202753

Second (B&W) is how I load Foma 100 in to holders. Exactly the same as the first film, notch upper right.

Attachment 202754

However.... now the shiny side of the film is facing me, i.e. the lens!

Third is if I reverse the (B&W) sheet so that the rough (e.g. emulsion) side is facing up, i.e. the lens - note that the notch is now in the "wrong" position.

Attachment 202755

Or I've been loading LF sheet film backwards for about a year and getting away with it. Either way, something's wrong, and I want to figure out what.

What's going on here?

It's a linguistic confusion about the word "shiny" :)
You're doing it right. The "rough" side of fomapan does reflect light, making it shiny, but it's just a little less smooth than the backside.

By shiny I mean smooth, to the touch it's glossy plastic.
The emulsion side is rough to the touch. If I look at it at an angle to the light, I can see the thin film of emulsion on top of the plastic substrate.

So am I correct in that the notch code on Foma/Arista EDU 100 and 200 is *backwards*? Or am I loading the film wrong?

Except the code notch goes on the open flap end on the right hand side (the notch goes under flap )...

Steve K

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabRat

Except the code notch goes on the open flap end on the right hand side (the notch goes under flap )...

Steve K

---

Sigh....

This isn't helping.

Can someone tell me if photo 2 or photo 3 of the 3 I attached earlier in this thread are the correct orientation for Arista EDU? It shouldn't (doesn't) matter whether the notch is at the flap end or dark slide end, but it does matter which side of each end. I've been taught/told that it should always be upper right/lower left as you look at the film holder in portrait mode.

I.e. like this: http://zo-d.com/stuff/photography/ho...m-holders.html (here the notch is under the flap, it could just as well be under the darkslide end of the holder, as long as the notch is on the correct side of the film holder end, i.e. upper right or lower left)

Please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 6x6TLL

Sigh....

This isn't helping.

Can someone tell me if photo 2 or photo 3 of the 3 I attached earlier in this thread are the correct orientation for Arista EDU? It shouldn't (doesn't) matter whether the notch is at the flap end or dark slide end, but it does matter which side of each end. I've been taught/told that it should always be upper right/lower left as you look at the film holder in portrait mode.

I.e. like this: http://zo-d.com/stuff/photography/ho...m-holders.html (here the notch is under the flap, it could just as well be under the darkslide end of the holder, as long as the notch is on the correct side of the film holder end, i.e. upper right or lower left)

Please?

---

Upper right side of flap end... Always...

The bottom edge by the light trap is narrow and having the code notch there would intrude into the image area... Under the flap covers more of the edge and hides the notch...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LabRat

Upper right side of flap end... Always...

The bottom edge by the light trap is narrow and having the code notch there would intrude into the image area... Under the flap covers more of the edge and hides the notch...

---

Ok, that makes sense. Right now I'm simply trying to ascertain whether Foma 100 is notched backwards, and based on what you (and others) describe, it would seem that's the case. I'll load some up "backwards" for this weekend and compare how it looks.

I had no idea about the flap end vs. dark slide end, thanks for the info, I'll try that out when I load up a new set of holders.

It is not notched backwards. Your middle picture shows the correct orientation.

It shouldn't be notched backwards, as all sheet film is standard... An old printer's trick to test the emulsion side was to slightly lick a fingertip and touch an edge of the paper or film... The emulsion side will be slightly tacky to the touch...

If the film is in backwards, you will get little to no image, as the anti-halation backing (that washes off during processing) will block the light from going through the film base to the emulsion on the underside... (Emulsion always toward lens)...

I doubt the code notches are wrong...

Steve K

I have always loaded the film in the holder with the flap facing away from me. With 4x5 film being so small, it's easy to check the upper edge with a finger so that I know that the notches are top right. Being taught this way, it never occured to me (until now) that one can get away with putting the notch the other way round. :) Live and learn, as they say.

Ok I've figured it out, I think.

The side with the texture/roughness is actually the back side of the film. The emulsion side is "glossy" and very smooth to the touch. Opposite of what I'm used to, but I burned a sheet of film from the box just to test.

Someone mentioned using a damp finger to test, to be honest both sides feel slightly tacky to me that way.

The green side is the anti-halation layer, the light grey side is the emulsion. Emulsion side feels slick, anti-halation layer feels quite rough to the touch, the difference is the same after developing.

Attachment 202779

Attachment 202780

Now I know.

Glad I'm using bargain basement film in 4x5 size, and not something pricey in 8x10!