Is Arista EDU Ultra 400 ISO 8x10 any good?

[paulbarden]

I've read that the anti-halation layer on Arista/Foma pans isn't as good as Kodak/Ilford and it can be obvious in certain lighting conditions. Have I noticed it myself? Not really. I use it mostly on 120 though.

I have more experience with Fomapan 100 in sheet film sizes than 120, but I have used both and have not found Fomapan 100 to be deficient in any way. Yes, if you are working in reciprocity territory, you have to be prepared for some seriously reciprocity compensation (more than most any other film) once times go much beyond 2 or 3 seconds, but I have come to like Fomapan's unique response curve a lot. The film responds beautifully to the Thornton 2-Bath developer.

[Drew Wiley]

Physical properties to be aware of : more sensitive to handling when wet; sharper corners and edges, more prone to gouging other sheets in the tray; substandard boxes prone to leak at the corners (after removing sheets from black liner, either put the remaining ones back inside that pouch, or preferably substitute a better quality 3- part box from Kodak or Ilford.

[Andy F]

It sounds like people are down on Arista and it is not worth it. So what would people suggest? What do most people do? I don't see myself spending Tri-X prices and I can't imagine myself alone on this. So I am guessing most people buy Ilford. I am curious how people solve this problem.

[ic-racer]

Shanghai 8x10 works if the tonal range is not large, see image. Arista EDU works find too.

[paulbarden]

It sounds like people are down on Arista and it is not worth it. So what would people suggest? What do most people do? I don't see myself spending Tri-X prices and I can't imagine myself alone on this. So I am guessing most people buy Ilford. I am curious how people solve this problem.

Assuming the 8x10 packaged as Arista is actually Fomapan, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I would, however, buy actual Fomapan under their own brand, just in case they are making a lower grade product for Arista.
Fomapan 100 is a very good film. I have never had issues with it being "soft" when wet, and when doing 8x10 work, I process one sheet at a time, so I'm not concerned about scratches.

All that said, I prefer Ilford FP4 for a medium speed film. It is exceptional in most every way, and very easily manipulated to work for a variety of applications. (I use it a lot for making salt prints, which require more density than a typical neg, and FP4 is perfect for that) Expect to pay about $200 for a box of 25 sheets of FP4. Fomapan 100 is about 63% of that price, but you have to buy boxes of 50 sheets, not 25.

Shanghai film is definitely a step down from Fomapan in quality.

[Vaughan]

marketed it to students taking photography classes ?

It might be recommended to students or people starting out based on it's low price, but it's a good film that's on-par with all the other older-generation films being made and sold today.

[paulbarden]

Ah, I won't look for the Berger film then.

If you go to Bergger's own web site, none of the sheet film sizes is in stock and hasn't been for 2 years. That doesn't bode well for the future of the product, IMO. A shame - I liked Pancro 400 in 8x10 size. I maybe have 15 sheets left now (2.5 years expired, so I better use them up) and those may be the last sheets I ever get to use.

[Drew Wiley]

The very first "Arista 125" film was in fact FP4 exactly. The current Arista EDU series, 100, 200, and 400, are simply private-labeled Foma. I wouldn't anticipate any performance difference.

Certain comments need to be qualified. Vaughn is a contact printer. I enlarge. Paul processes one sheet at a time. I tray shuffle develop several at a time. In the past I've complained about the quality control of the 200 version. The tiny zits and cracks which I found totally unacceptable in enlargements might not even show in a contact print. Vaughn leans toward long scale carbon prints, while I print conventional silver gelatin. And while I have gotten a number of exceptional prints from Foma sheet films, I get a much higher percent of them from Kodak and Ilford films instead. I feel there is a discernible quality difference.

More to the point : I preferred 8x10 HP5 for its really lovely "watercolor grain" in PMK pryro, yet with an almost etched-looking pronounced edge effect. And TMY400 excels in numerous respects, including its exceptionally long scale, superb filtration response, cooperative long exposure characteristics, true 400 speed, and superb batch to batch quality control. Foma "400" is certainly a competent product in general terms, but didn't offer me any of that extra special look I wanted.

[paulbarden]

The very first "Arista 125" film was in fact FP4 exactly. The current Arista EDU series, 100, 200, and 400, are simply private-labeled Foma. I wouldn't anticipate any performance difference.

Certain comments need to be qualified. Vaughn is a contact printer. I enlarge. Paul processes one sheet at a time. I tray shuffle develop several at a time. In the past I've complained about the quality control of the 200 version. The tiny zits and cracks which I found totally unacceptable in enlargements might not even show in a contact print. Vaughn leans toward long scale carbon prints, while I print conventional silver gelatin. And while I have gotten a number of exceptional prints from Foma sheet films, I get a much higher percent of them from Kodak and Ilford films instead. I feel there is a discernible quality difference.

More to the point : I preferred 8x10 HP5 for its really lovely "watercolor grain" in PMK pryro, yet with an almost etched-looking pronounced edge effect. And TMY400 excels in numerous respects, including its exceptionally long scale, superb filtration response, cooperative long exposure characteristics, true 400 speed, and superb batch to batch quality control. Foma "400" is certainly a competent product in general terms, but didn't offer me any of that extra special look I wanted.

I can't argue with any of that Drew. But I am keeping in mind the fact that the OP is new to 8x10 and undoubtedly - at least at the beginning - wants to keep expenses down as they learn how to use the camera and make good negatives. I think it's wise at the start to invest in one of the less costly films, because I know that it took me at least 10 sheets of 8x10 film to build some process and technique, even though I have decades of experience with smaller formats!
Though the Foma products do not compare to FP4 or TMY, they are more than satisfactory for someone taking the first steps on the 8x10 journey.

[Willie]

I can't argue with any of that Drew. But I am keeping in mind the fact that the OP is new to 8x10 and undoubtedly - at least at the beginning - wants to keep expenses down as they learn how to use the camera and make good negatives. I think it's wise at the start to invest in one of the less costly films, because I know that it took me at least 10 sheets of 8x10 film to build some process and technique, even though I have decades of experience with smaller formats!
Though the Foma products do not compare to FP4 or TMY, they are more than satisfactory for someone taking the first steps on the 8x10 journey.

Starting out why not go with Ilford FP4+, a standard that works well for all skill levels?

Might as well choose one film and stay with it for a year or more to really learn it. FP4+ is worth it. It costs more than the Foma/Arista but less than Kodak offerings. It is reliable and available. When you get a good image you are not left with "wish I had shot it on better film" regrets.

No matter what film is chosen it takes some time to learn it. Go with good quality from the beginning and a lot of excuses will never be needed.