Arista Premium price increase

MISH

MISH

Well-known
Local time
8:11 PM
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
678
got my new Freestyle catalog today and noticed the price for Arista Premium (Tri-X) went from $2.19 to $2.59 for a 36exp roll :(
 
The announcement regarding price increases for their b&w products has been posted on their site for over a month now.
 
I'm still not convinced it's purely Tri-X. It curls way more than normal Kodak Tri-X. I use both and they seem different still.
 
I just bought 50 rolls of it last week, because I was afraid of the price hike. Glad I got it. I have 80 rolls of it on hand now, enough to last till the end of the summer!
 
Its Tri-X. I've used both Tri-X with Kodak's name and the Arista Tri-X and they behave identically. Plus, an APUG member who is a chemist did chemical analysis of the films and they were identical. Pirate's curl differences are probably just a difference between films from different manufacturing batches and different age.
 
Still a good price. A very very useful film. I brought many rolls of fine grained Ilford Film thinking I'd use them here in Paris. I just brought rolls of Tri-X and Arista Premium 400 just in case, thinking I wouldn't use them as much. Just the opposite. I need the versatility of TX/AP400.
 
yeah a 100ft roll of arista premium 400 is $46 thats an increase i think but on the other hand they have legacy pro 400 for $26 its short dated but that doesnt really bother me to much as its shoot by date is july.
 
Keep your film in your deep freezer (preferably not the frost-free type) and it'll keep for years beyond its "use by" date anyway. Short date film is a good deal.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
... Pirate's curl differences are probably just a difference between films from different manufacturing batches and different age.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I'm an analytical chemist too, and have done some tests on both films. I did find some differences, but they were within the tolerences of the tests I did. Specifically, Arista Premium 400 seemed to have a slightly steeper contrast curve than the Trix samples I used for comparison.

I believe that Arista is Kodak's film that falls outside of the limits they have in their QC, but is still fine 400 speed film. As there is no sense just throwing it away, they sell it un-badged through Freestyle as Arista. Cuts their losses and keeps us in cheap film.

Personally I buy Kodak trix, but not because of any distrust of Arista.
 
Chris101 said:
Maybe. I'm an analytical chemist too, and have done some tests on both films. I did find some differences, but they were within the tolerences of the tests I did. Specifically, Arista Premium 400 seemed to have a slightly steeper contrast curve than the Trix samples I used for comparison.

I believe that Arista is Kodak's film that falls outside of the limits they have in their QC, but is still fine 400 speed film. As there is no sense just throwing it away, they sell it un-badged through Freestyle as Arista. Cuts their losses and keeps us in cheap film.

Personally I buy Kodak trix, but not because of any distrust of Arista.
Click to expand...

It was me who did the analyses. I did GCMS on the base, the emulsion with and without the silver, and with several enzyme digests of the gelatin. The two films are chemically identical. I also did considerable sensitometry, whch showed minor differences in contrast, but within the limits of different batches and ages of Tri-X. So those differences are probably due to batch variation and differences in emulsion aging.

I also got a 100' roll of Arista Premium that had Tri-X edge markings and a Kodak spool.

Marty
 
Last edited:
Yes, I had emulsion defects too. Mostly limited to the edges, but once in the picture frame. Admittedly only in 2 or 3 rolls out of 100.

Therefore I have the same assessment as Chris, I also believe that AP400 is trix that didn't pass the QC and is being sold unbranded rather than thrown away.
 
Makes sense. If I were Kodak, I wouldn't sell my trademark product for generic prices. However, if they are QC rejects, as stories of too-much-curl etc. suggest, then it would be a good way to dispose of it.

Personally, I'm willing to spend the extra $1 roll for the A-grade stuff. Compared to the cost of developing and scanning, not to mention the cost of actually taking the picture, it is nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom