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

[Ig Nacio]

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]

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_]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hi,

Thank you again for your messages : )!!!

Very kind regards,

Ig

[mikeh721]

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]

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]

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.