Arista Edu 100 nicer and/or different than Foma 100?

[Noll]

Hi all, I just developed 2 rolls of film together - One was a slightly expired but refrigerated roll of Foma 100, and the other was a just-exposed still-fresh roll of Arista Edu 100. Obviously, same developer (caffenol cm), time, temp and agitation for both. Only difference was the Foma was exposed in an Olympus 35RC, and the Arista Edu in an OM1. Both rolls were shot with yellow filters.

Differences noticed: The Arista had a slightly clearer base, no blackened film edges, cleaner edge markings and just a very consistent (more dense?) emulsion. Maybe even finer grain? Also, most of my Arista negatives were slightly unerexposed while most of the 35RC Foma shots were a tad overexposed.

So while the differences could attributed to the different cameras being used (fwiw, both were powered by the same kind of zinc-air battery) - the shutter speeds or meters could be slightly off. At the very least the edge exposure and markings speak for themselves.

Could an alternative explanation be that Foma upped their game for the Arista Edu production run and/or improved their Foma formula? Or maybe we're talking about a slightly different emulsion altogether?

Either way I am impressed with this "cheapie" film! I'll post some examples in a few minutes. Any thoughts?

 

[Noll]

Sorry, no duplicate shots to post, but first up are some Foma 100:

And a couple Arista Edu 100 examples:

 

[Noll]

To illustrate my first point, here are some photos of the edge marking. You'll have to trust me on the Arista base being a tad less hazy.

I found this sort of thing was typical with Foma - hazy lettering and "burned" edges.

Nothing of the sort to be seen in the Arista Edu Ultra 100 (OK there was one tiny sliver of edge burn on this roll, but that was it):

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The films are identical, I have shot both. Your problem is trying to compare outdated film to fresh.

 

[Noll]

Thanks Chris, for the feedback. Still, I'm only talking about 6 months expired on a refrigerated film (the Foma). Is there really that big of a difference between fresh and slightly oudated?! If so this is a big revelation for me.

Could this also come down partially to Foma quality control?

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Thanks Chris, for the feedback. Still, I'm only talking about 6 months expired on a refrigerated film (the Foma). Is there really that big of a difference between fresh and slightly oudated?! If so this is a big revelation for me.

Could this also come down partially to Foma quality control?

With some films, yes, 6 months makes a big difference. I recently shot a few rolls of Fuji Acros that was a year past date and they had a lot more base fog than fresh Acros (which usually has NO base fog). I don't think its quality control, its just a fact of it being outdated.

 

[Noll]

Wow. I had no idea. Thanks for pointing this out.

I better get busy shootin'