ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Just picked up a bargain on some Arista EDU Ultra 400 35mm film;
see my post in the "deals on film" thread.
I know a number of you have used this film. Any hints?
HC110 or Rodinal?
TIA,
Chris
see my post in the "deals on film" thread.
I know a number of you have used this film. Any hints?
HC110 or Rodinal?
TIA,
Chris
NL2377
*scratches head*
Ive been using rodinol and love it!
kmack
do your job, then let go
Personally I find the Arista 400 a little too grainy for my taste when souped in Rodinol. Nice and sharp though.
Of the two I would use HC110. I prefer 1:100 dilution semi stand.
I found I could get really nice tone gradation by under-exposing the Aristia a liittle and then compensating by slight over-development.
Of the two I would use HC110. I prefer 1:100 dilution semi stand.
I found I could get really nice tone gradation by under-exposing the Aristia a liittle and then compensating by slight over-development.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
I use D- 76 at 1:1 to develop this film .
I get great results.
I get great results.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Thanks for the input. Some questions:
Does this film have a thinner than normal base?
Any curling/wrinkling problems drying?
Does emulsion or base scratch easily?
Any purple negatives problem?
TIA,
Chris
Does this film have a thinner than normal base?
Any curling/wrinkling problems drying?
Does emulsion or base scratch easily?
Any purple negatives problem?
TIA,
Chris
Last edited:
Michiel
Established
I've read somewhere here in RFF that the pre-rolled Fomapan (arista.edu) rolls have light leaks. Anyone who can confirm/deny this?
Tomorrow I'll have a dozen Fomapan 120 rolls delivered, and after reading about the light issues today, I'm very nervous they'll be ruined even before I open the envelope...
Tomorrow I'll have a dozen Fomapan 120 rolls delivered, and after reading about the light issues today, I'm very nervous they'll be ruined even before I open the envelope...
jackp510
Member
ChrisPlatt said:
Yeah, I've used the 120 version and it was *really* purple even after an extended fix time. I think it is just the nature of the film. And yes, it is also quite thin compared to HP5 which I usually use.
Jack
jtzordon
clicking away
I've shot the 100 and 400 speed in 120 and the 200 in 135 bulk. The 120 size is on a blue polyester base. The 135 is not. I haven't had any problems with light leaks in the dozen or so rolls I've shot. No issues with scratching, unusual curl.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
What sort of grain can I expect from Arista EDU Ultra 400 film?
How does it compare to other manufacturers 400 speed films?
TIA,
Chris
How does it compare to other manufacturers 400 speed films?
TIA,
Chris
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
ChrisPlatt said:
the grain is very similar to the old HP-5 without the plus.
your exposure and the type of developer you use
plays a part in grain visiblity also.
NL2377
*scratches head*
here's a full scan of a 6x6...
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs14/f/2007/091/6/e/arista_edu_400_by_NL2377.jpg
not for the weak of heart, as it's 3600x3600 pixels (approx 6mb image)
keep in mind that in 135 format, the grain will be more definitive as it is a smaller capture medium.
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs14/f/2007/091/6/e/arista_edu_400_by_NL2377.jpg
not for the weak of heart, as it's 3600x3600 pixels (approx 6mb image)
keep in mind that in 135 format, the grain will be more definitive as it is a smaller capture medium.
andrew
Member
Wow, that's a big file. But thanks, it echoes my own experiences with the 120 version of this film. It's not TX 120, but it's not awful.
While Xayra33 might disagree, I believe the 35mm version is another story (and a different film, the 120 does have a purple tint to it where the 35mm doesn't) - it has a lot of grain and doesn't do well with over development (you can push it, sure, but be ready for grain). It's contrasty in D-76 1:1 and while Arista recommends 12 minutes, you'll want to develop for closer to 8.5 - 9 (even that can be problematic, so experiment). I don't know about rodinal or HC110, but I'd guess the former would be sharper but grainy and the latter would be very similar to the result I got - very grainy and contrasty. The 35mm version, in my opinion, is cheap... that's about it. Yes, I know some RFF'ers love grain, but this film wasn't/isn't my cup of tea. The Arista.EDU Ultra 200 is much easier to work with (it's allegedly a T-grain film, but I doubt this) and the grain seems closer to Tri-X (in case it's not obvious, I bought both films looking for an inexpensive replacement/subsitute for my photography students - we supply the film and paper and Freestyle is a good deal on our very limited budget, but a year's supply of the 400 ISO 35mm was a mistake on my part. Next year I guess we'll go with the 200).
Just my two cents, and I know they're worth even less than that.
Have a good weekend,
Andrew
While Xayra33 might disagree, I believe the 35mm version is another story (and a different film, the 120 does have a purple tint to it where the 35mm doesn't) - it has a lot of grain and doesn't do well with over development (you can push it, sure, but be ready for grain). It's contrasty in D-76 1:1 and while Arista recommends 12 minutes, you'll want to develop for closer to 8.5 - 9 (even that can be problematic, so experiment). I don't know about rodinal or HC110, but I'd guess the former would be sharper but grainy and the latter would be very similar to the result I got - very grainy and contrasty. The 35mm version, in my opinion, is cheap... that's about it. Yes, I know some RFF'ers love grain, but this film wasn't/isn't my cup of tea. The Arista.EDU Ultra 200 is much easier to work with (it's allegedly a T-grain film, but I doubt this) and the grain seems closer to Tri-X (in case it's not obvious, I bought both films looking for an inexpensive replacement/subsitute for my photography students - we supply the film and paper and Freestyle is a good deal on our very limited budget, but a year's supply of the 400 ISO 35mm was a mistake on my part. Next year I guess we'll go with the 200).
Just my two cents, and I know they're worth even less than that.
Have a good weekend,
Andrew
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
In 35mm, how does grain compare to Agfa APX400?
TIA,
Chris
TIA,
Chris
Last edited:
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Daniel, I think you got some superb results with Fomapan 400 film.
one should not get too bogged down on a film's graininess or lack of.
this film has a nice old fashion look to it that suits certain subjects.
one should not get too bogged down on a film's graininess or lack of.
this film has a nice old fashion look to it that suits certain subjects.
Last edited:
NL2377
*scratches head*
xayraa33 said:
??? I'm going to have to totally disagree with that, lol... The grain structure/quality/quantity/appearance is excactly what I look for in film... in fact, grain is 50% of the reason why I shoot film instead of digital. well, ok... maybe 10%, but you know what i mean ;-)
Each film has it's own signature in regards to grain... it's like owning different lenses of the same focal length, you're not going to get the same results from a J8 that you are a Canon 50 1.2, even if shot at the same aperture...
