Arista EDU Ultra 100 (120) Rodinal Development Time Thoughts?

Field

Field

Well-known
Local time
8:02 AM
Joined
Apr 16, 2011
Messages
397
View My Gallery
Recently a friend and I did a photoshoot in a lighting studio. We underexposed 1 stop because the background is pure white. It was done with flash and no ambient light (high aperture on his Yashica TLR, we got rid of ambient light because to get his camera to sync at a known reliable speed for the brain of the flashes 1/60 is easy, but wasn't enough to stop motion with ambient light).

We are debating whether to develop at 200 speed (compensate for the one stop but try not to have blown out background so bad), or add around 20% to that to bring his face into a more realistic area of the gray scale. Perhaps just add 20% to the regular 100 time, but I fear he will be too gray.

This is our first time using this film so we don't know what to expect. I never use the stuff. I always use Efke because it is predictable and gives proper tones and regular exposure.... He is cheap ass though, so we are using this EDU Ultra.

Opinions?
 
I use this stuff to check cameras after CLAs or running down a light leak. My experience is that the real speed is really EI 50. So you would be pushing up two stops, but my experience is also that shadows drop off very quickly even at EI 50. My thoughts are that you are not going to get the shadows (from clothing; if the models had any on) back. I would think it out but my feeling is that to give it more development time (10-20%) and then use scanned negatives and try to retrieve some shadows. I've always used the Rodinal times from the massive chart even with EI 50.

Another thought is: we a really dealing with a high contrast scene so even though I dislike Rodinal for stand, you might want to think about that. Read up on semi-stand to avoid problems.
 
We did semi-stand. The EL 50 looks about right. They came out slightly under what we wanted. We processed 1/2 stop over for 200. A full stop would of been about right (50).

It is a daylight film, really, meant to always get enough highlights to define a picture, so I find it is irritating in 35mm 400, most of the time.

What would you rate the 200 and 400 at?
 
And I rate Arista EDU ultra 100 at lower than 100 about 32. I started at 50, but highlights are very easily blown with development so it is important to get the development right. Which most people don't want to do.
 
timor said:
I concur with this.
Click to expand...

Or maybe less. But with this film who is counting.

To be fair (in low contrast scenes), it does have a very old look (plus, I used an oldish camera; so if you like this look the camera was an Agfa Isolette):

6991100818_4ab82fcf42.jpg
 
It looks that way, it does get steep very quickly though. And I'm sure FOMA goes by the ISO standards. My reason for using a much lower EI is that the shadow detail just disappears after Zone IV (in high contrast or sunny day scenes). I've read many articles on H-D curves but I'm still in the dark as to what each tangent of the curve will look like in a print (except for the obvious toe and shoulder).
 
charjohncarter said:
It looks that way, it does get steep very quickly though. And I'm sure FOMA goes by the ISO standards. My reason for using a much lower EI is that the shadow detail just disappears after Zone IV (in high contrast or sunny day scenes).
Click to expand...
I hope to, that Foma is going by ISO standards, but I never riched the 100 mark. Well, I am not using Microphen, but in D76, HC110, Tmax or old Edwal FG everything shot at 100 looked like pushed. High contrast. At 50 is much nicer with quite pretty tones of gray. And maybe a good idea to go lower. Can you please give me hint of your developing times at your ISO ?
 
charjohncarter said:
It looks that way, it does get steep very quickly though. And I'm sure FOMA goes by the ISO standards. My reason for using a much lower EI is that the shadow detail just disappears after Zone IV (in high contrast or sunny day scenes). I've read many articles on H-D curves but I'm still in the dark as to what each tangent of the curve will look like in a print (except for the obvious toe and shoulder).
Click to expand...

English please?

Anyways, I hope by bringing up the 35mm version of this film that I am not hijacking the thread... What should I rate my 35mm film for sunny days when processing in Rodinal?
 
I don't have too much experience with this combo, but recently I tried Arista EDU Ultra 100 in 120 format, shot at 100 speed outdoors and developed it in Rodinal (1:50) for 7 minutes blindly following the massive dev chart. The negatives and wet prints were very decent.

denver_bldg.jpg


20120417221119-31be556c.jpg
 
Not bad ! I never said I don't like this film. I didn't use Rodinal, but in old Edwal FG is very smooth and grainless . Just as ISO 50 there is very little left to shoot from hand if I have to use a red filter.
 
timor said:
I hope to, that Foma is going by ISO standards, but I never riched the 100 mark. Well, I am not using Microphen, but in D76, HC110, Tmax or old Edwal FG everything shot at 100 looked like pushed. High contrast. At 50 is much nicer with quite pretty tones of gray. And maybe a good idea to go lower. Can you please give me hint of your developing times at your ISO ?
Click to expand...

I use 32 with HC-110h, 13 minutes, 30 seconds initial agitation, then 3 inversions (slow) at each 4 minutes left, 68 degrees F or (I think) 20 degrees C. If you want you can go lower than 13 minutes with this film to assure highlight preservation.
 
filmfan said:
English please?

Anyways, I hope by bringing up the 35mm version of this film that I am not hijacking the thread... What should I rate my 35mm film for sunny days when processing in Rodinal?
Click to expand...

I would rate it the same, and as I've said I use 32. Also, If you look at the H-D curve given by FOMA look at the straight portion, this to me is steep which means that the middle and shadow tones will be compressed and the shadows will be gone. On the same curve you will see at least one of the longer development curves show that a shoulder is never really achieved. It just goes straight up. This means that it is easy to blow the highlights with development so you have to tailor your development to try to get a shoulder (if highlights are blown out, all white or too white, lower your development time). Which translates into English as highlights that you can see separated tones.
 
filmfan said:
English please?
Click to expand...

The curves show fairly clearly that it is not an ISO 100 film. Shoot it at no faster than 50 for development in Rodinal, and probably at 32 as charjohncarter suggests. I shot it at 50 for development in TMax RS (a speed enhancing developer) and it worked well. My notes suggest that I haven't used it since 1999.

Marty
 
charjohncarter said:
I use 32 with HC-110h, 13 minutes, 30 seconds initial agitation, then 3 inversions (slow) at each 4 minutes left, 68 degrees F or (I think) 20 degrees C. If you want you can go lower than 13 minutes with this film to assure highlight preservation.
Click to expand...
Thank You.
 
timor said:
Thank You.
Click to expand...


I want to have caveat here. I rarely use this film (maybe 12 rolls in 10 years), so I am not an expert. Arista EDU ultra 100 (and 400) have much more contrast than I like to deal with on sunny or high contrast scenes, but for low contrast indoor or cloudy day scenes it is fine. It has a distinctive look (read old time) and so for me if I were a mood photographer I would use it in special situations. It is cheap and kind of fun to see what you get, plus also a great film for a suspect camera for light leaks or shutter aberrations.
 
Thank's for that remarks. What will be then your recommendation for high contrast situations ? What film is your mainstay ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom