Any one using Arista films? In particular sheet film. Interested in your thoug hts and comments.
Any one using Arista films? In particular sheet film. Interested in your thoug hts and comments.
Arista = Ilford (ssssshhhhhhh!)
I have used and still use Arista 125/100 in 4x5, it is a very good film and works well with Pyro developers, and HC-110 and is a lot less than other brands. It is not Tri-x, but neither is Ilford. But is does have a good price. Pat
There are various stories about Arista film. The one that seems most likely to me, since Arista is marketed as a "graphic arts" film, is that it uses the same emulsions as Ilford FP-4 and HP-5, but is on a thinner base, which would be attractive for use with vacuum backs, but less desireable with conventional filmholders.
Can anyone confirm or deny that definitively?
Gordon Hutchings reviewed the Arista films in View Camera a while back. To quote Mr. Hutchings, re: is it Ilford or not, he said "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."
Our own Dan Smith had this to say a while back in the archives....
"I thought I better update my answer on this one to reflect some testing I did with the films. View Camera magazine featured a short article one of the films & the conclusion was "it is an Ilford emulsion, in all respects the same as the Ilford named emulsion" when examined closely. After reading this I bought a few boxes of the Arista in both film speeds & compared them directly to Ilford HP5+ and FP4+. I found one difference in the negatives-in the 4x5 sheet film. That difference is not in the grain pattern or how the images look. It is in the thickness of the material the emulsion is coated on. The Arista seems to be a bit thinner, having a tendency to curl a bit where the Ilford named emulsion didn't under the same conditions. Other than that both films, back to back in the holder, shot of the same subject, processed in the same JOBO tank at the same time, look so close that I can't tell any difference. It looks as if I am one of those who got the info it was an older version. But on testing the stuff I think it has to be the same film, with the thickness of the sheet being the difference. At any rate, both films work fine and the images looked nice. Even with that I will continue shooting Tmax, why change what works?
-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), February 12, 2000. "
Barry Sinclair of Ilford stated a couple of years ago that the Arista films defi nitely were not FP4+ and HP5+. However, he wouldn't say what they were....
My speculation is that they're FP4 and HP5, both older but fine films.
When I made the change from HP5 to HP5+ no exposure or development changes wer e needed.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks