Is Arista EDU Ultra 400 ISO 8x10 any good?

[Alan Townsend]

Hi,

I would like to try to photograph with an 8x10 camera. I know there are lots of reasons not to even try but I really like the idea. I see Tri-X film is $179.00 for only 10 sheets. Arista EDU Ultra 400 can be bought for much less. It is $249.99 for 50 sheets but I do not know if it is any good. Nor do I know if I need to pull it like I do Tri-x. Does anyone out there have any advice? Please let me know what you think? I am curious what type of film most people are shooting with today.

Andy,

I suggest using the Foma/Arista EDU 200 rather than 400. It's also available as Frankenstein 200 at B+H in 4x5 only. This film has almost the same (many shoot it at 150, I use 200) sensitivity as the 400 but with better linearity and less grain. This is the cheapest regular film available in 8x10, and it is good quality other than reciprocity.

Also, consider Fuji HR-U green xray film, availalble with shipping for $42.00 for 100 sheets 8x10. This orthochromatic film works fine for contact prints or small enlargements, but is less sharp than camera films due mostly to halation effects. Process easily in gallon size ziplock bags due to two-sided emulsion tenderness. The film can be processed under red safelight. Put the film in ziplock bag, then add chemical, zip it up after burping air, then lay down flat. Agitate intermittently by raising flap of bag a few inches then dropping. Leave film in bag for all process steps, just pour solutions in and then out later at proper times using index finger to hold film in place. In this way you can process several films at a time using several timers. You can go all the way through to washing cycles without removing the film from its bag. The bags can be turned inside out for drying and later reuse.

With only 3 chemicals, you can do all processing. Mix metol and sodium sulphite for D-23 developer for 1:3 dilution. Develop 6-7 minutes for EI 100 using 4 fluid ounces as one shot. Water wash one minute, then fix in plain fixer using 30 grams of hypo (sodium thiosulphate) per liter of water. This dilute plain fixer is also a one shot, and will fix the film in under 2 minutes. It washes out much quicker due to soft emulsion and dilution of fixer. Wash in 3-4 changes of water with some agitation for about a minute or two each, then hang to dry. This is the same chemistry that I use for all films.

Have fun,

Alan Townsend

[Scott Davis]

Andy,

I suggest using the Foma/Arista EDU 200 rather than 400. It's also available as Frankenstein 200 at B+H in 4x5 only. This film has almost the same (many shoot it at 150, I use 200) sensitivity as the 400 but with better linearity and less grain. This is the cheapest regular film available in 8x10, and it is good quality other than reciprocity.

Also, consider Fuji HR-U green xray film, availalble with shipping for $42.00 for 100 sheets 8x10. This orthochromatic film works fine for contact prints or small enlargements, but is less sharp than camera films due mostly to halation effects. Process easily in gallon size ziplock bags due to two-sided emulsion tenderness. The film can be processed under red safelight. Put the film in ziplock bag, then add chemical, zip it up after burping air, then lay down flat. Agitate intermittently by raising flap of bag a few inches then dropping. Leave film in bag for all process steps, just pour solutions in and then out later at proper times using index finger to hold film in place. In this way you can process several films at a time using several timers. You can go all the way through to washing cycles without removing the film from its bag. The bags can be turned inside out for drying and later reuse.

With only 3 chemicals, you can do all processing. Mix metol and sodium sulphite for D-23 developer for 1:3 dilution. Develop 6-7 minutes for EI 100 using 4 fluid ounces as one shot. Water wash one minute, then fix in plain fixer using 30 grams of hypo (sodium thiosulphate) per liter of water. This dilute plain fixer is also a one shot, and will fix the film in under 2 minutes. It washes out much quicker due to soft emulsion and dilution of fixer. Wash in 3-4 changes of water with some agitation for about a minute or two each, then hang to dry. This is the same chemistry that I use for all films.

Have fun,

Alan Townsend

I shoot my Arista.EDU Ultra 200 at 100. It develops very fast - my normal time for FP4+ in Pyrocat HD 1:1:100 is 11 minutes; for Arista.EDU Ultra 200, it's 7. I shoot it at 100 because I find anything much faster than that and I lack sufficient shadow detail. Also, it's not a true panchromatic film- it's more an ortho-pan (it's not fully red-sensitive, so using a red filter with it is not advisable - you'll get useable negatives with a Red 25 if you give 4+ stops, but a red 29 or an R72 will give you almost nothing no matter the amount of exposure compensation).

[Daniel Unkefer]

I just bought a 50 sheet box of FOMA 200 in 8x10. I like this film in 9x12cm, 120, and 13x18, so it's time to stock some 8x10. D23 1:1 is my go-to. I've also gotten good results at EI 100.

[Kerosene Hat]

Well, at least Kodak naysayers versus different film naysayers do us a favor by giving us good reason to question their own assessment. How does one have "problems" with Kodak film? Their quality control is as good as it gets.

Anyone remember the bad batches of X-Tol in 2019-ish? I was working with Alan Ross in Yosemite at a workshop and he had a bad batch and many students had impacted (non-developed) negatives.

Remember, Kodak is a brand - chems are contract-manufactured and sourced by UK sister firm, Kodak Alaris.

QC issues happen.

In general, I love Kodak films - Tri-X, of course, but am lovinglovingloving T-Max 400 in 4x5 - 8x10...even in D-76 1:1.

I also love Foma 100, Foma 200 and Foma 400. Just develop normally, don't over-agitate, and give the shadows enough light (downrate ASA by 1 stop).

We make too much of the basics in photography...a good photographer can get great results with a Holga...similar as a guitar player where 90% of the pleasant melodies reside in the finger, not the USA Gibson, Mexican Strat, or offshore copy...the maker makes the difference, all else equal.

Good shooting & stay focused...

[Drew Wiley]

Foma/Arista 200 is in an entirely different category than the other two speeds because it's the last of the true "straight-line" films, with a minimum of toe, and therefore quite competent to reproduce especially long scene contrast ranges. I've described my own experience with it before. It doesn't have anywhere near the plus development capability of the vintage 200's like Super-XX and Bergger 200, though +1 should be no problem. It is nowhere near true 200 speed either, and has abominable long-exposure recip characteristics. But, on the positive side, is much finer grain than those, and therefore much more appropriate for smaller than 8x10 formats, including 4x5 and below. In my experience, using pyro, the grain structure is more pleasing than the 400 label Foma product. But one thing you have to watch out for is that Foma 200 develops really fast. I recall "Normal" tray developing in the 6 min. range with PMK at 20C.

As far as Kodak chemistry goes, it was famous for its quality and consistency back when chemical and dye manufacture was a major Division of theirs, under their direct control. Now it is not. Trying to stay alive financially, they sawed off their right arm and sold it. But film is a different story - they still make that themselves, and obviously with excellent quality control.

In terms of basic black and white developing, I'm not worried about the shift. Developers are easy enough to make from scratch. And I never did get on the Xtol bandwagon. No need to.

[jnantz]

drew

as detailed by people who worked at kodak. ISOs for all the films are determined in a lab under lab specific conditions and developed a specific way with D76. Box speeds are a starting point, they might not be the actual ISO under the conditions that other people work, unless these other people are in the same lab working under the same conditions as the emulsionologists and developed using whatever methods they used (with D76). In the end it doesn't really matter that 200 wasn't it's true ISO because no film has their box speed as their "true ISO" ... might be useful to read Ron Mowrey's comments over on fo30 about this ..

[Michael R]

Let’s be clear on ISO speed vs whatever one wants to call their EI (which means pretty much nothing besides it’s what they set their meter to). The whole “ISO is a laboratory egghead bla bla thing that has nothing to do with artistes etc. etc. my conditions yada yada” is essentially nonsense.

Of course one can decide the ISO speed is a starting point, and that makes sense if the eventual deviation from ISO speed is based on what happens consistently during printing. That has to do more or less with metering “technique”. But all the other crapola is just that. If people just understood a little bit about ISO emulsion speed they’d realize they could dispense with the “personal EI test” business. The ISO criteria are not only straight forward, they are rooted in print quality. You’d think print quality would be the goal, but unfortunately it often isn’t. For many it’s about testing, not understanding the test, arbitrary criteria, misinterpreting results, convincing themselves they’ve corrected for some variables etc. Gerald Koch used to refer to the “testanistas” .

The difference between ISO and EI (or whatever else) is important. If the manufacturer states the film speed clearly as ISO, that means something. If the manufacturer did not use the ISO criteria to determine the speed, it should be labelled EI or something else. Foma is a strange case when it comes to this. They actually provide the data in their tech sheets that clearly show the speeds are not correct by ISO standards. I mean, if you’re going to mislabel the film speed at least hide the data, or make up false data or something. This is not to say Foma films are bad. Just mislabelled.

Sorry for the harshness… I’m babysitting two dogs who are not behaving right now lol.

drew

as detailed by people who worked at kodak. ISOs for all the films are determined in a lab under lab specific conditions and developed a specific way with D76. Box speeds are a starting point, they might not be the actual ISO under the conditions that other people work, unless these other people are in the same lab working under the same conditions as the emulsionologists and developed using whatever methods they used (with D76). In the end it doesn't really matter that 200 wasn't it's true ISO because no film has their box speed as their "true ISO" ... might be useful to read Ron Mowrey's comments over on fo30 about this ..

[jnantz]

Let’s be clear on ISO speed vs whatever one wants to call their EI (which means pretty much nothing besides it’s what they set their meter to). The whole “ISO is a laboratory egghead bla bla thing that has nothing to do with artistes etc. etc. my conditions yada yada” is essentially nonsense.
I mean, if you’re going to mislabel the film speed at least hide the data, or make up false data or something. This is not to say Foma films are bad. Just mislabelled.

Sorry for the harshness… I’m babysitting two dogs who are not behaving right now lol.

not really what PE said .. he'd suggest it's a number, and it may or may not relate to how you use the film ..
if they used agfa125 1:6 and a combi plan it would have a different ISO, it's all dependent on the system they have in place in the lab ..
good luck with the dogs, remember the chuck wagon is making all the noise, or maybe you'r smelling dogfood that's been branded "MIGHTY DOG" ...

[Michael R]

If PE actually said or meant that he must have been having a bad day. That just ain’t right. I suspect whatever he was trying to convey wasn’t clear or people are misinterpreting it.

What he most likely meant is simply that you set your meter to something other than the ISO speed if you find you need to based on what happens when you print (assuming you are competent). If your negatives are consistently too thin or consistently too dense. No way PE would have recommended anything else. He knew tests like the typical Zone System “speed” were silly and said so many times.

Of course if one is using some outlier nonsense process like 1+800 urinol semi-sit extreme minimal bleep bloop then yeah perhaps you’re not going to quite reach ISO speed with TMX, but honestly those are not relevant scenarios.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh my! In the real world chemists and technical staff tend to be different from marketing staff. And marketers never ever sugar coat things ever, do they? I knew of a film liquidator who had his private-label film boxes imprinted with double the mfg rated speed, just to move them faster. No need to mention names (no longer alive). And by now, EVERYONE knows the rating of Foma "200" is way too over-optimistic, and just plain unrealistic. They probably called it that just to keep up with the Jonses' way back when, when Super XX was the dominant straight-line film, and was in fact, reasonably 200 speed, and so was Bergger/Lotus 200. They claimed theirs was equivalent - it wasn't. Whole different animal. A marketing ploy.