Is Arista Premium 400 Really Tri-X?

[Steve M.]

This question has come up before, but I wonder if there's a definitive answer floating around? I had stated that I thought it was exactly the same, and had based that on using the 2 films at the same time, but now that I looked at the contact sheets, they look different. Oh, the Arista looks good, no doubt, but the two contact sheets look different. It turns out it's a bogus comparison anyway, as I now see they were taken w/ 2 different cameras, even though the lens was the same. So throw those results out. One camera may be exposing differently.

I called A&I in Las Angeles, and The Black & White Lab in Arizona, as well as Freestyle. Freestyle said they were "essentially" the same. The Black & White Lab said it was the first they had heard that they were the same, and also said that just because the developing times are the same didn't mean anything. A&I said they were "similar", but didn't think they were the same. They also said 2 things that made a lot of sense. First, that it was the first time they had heard that Kodak had allowed someone else to rebadge their film, especially Tri-X of all films, and second, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Just buy Tri-X. So I did, and I'm ok w/ that, but the price difference sure makes the Arista attractive.

Anybody know for sure?

 

[filmfan]

I do not know for sure. I do however develop both Arista Premium 400 and TX400 in the same 2-roll tank, shot from the same camera+lens. Once scanned, I cannot tell them apart. The Arista Premium curls a bit more, but nothing too bad. If I cannot tell them apart, then they are close enough to me to call them the same. The (invisible to me) chemical differences (?) in their construction do not interfere with my photography.

 

[emraphoto]

behaves like tri-x, looks like tri-x, smells like tri-x... if it ain't tri-x then it'll do.

 

[gm13]

I use both and have found that upon developing the color of the negatives is different, Tri-x being a slight reddish gold and the Arista a more even grey. also it seems Arista is a thinner film. Unlike Filmfan I've found Arista to dry much flatter than Tri X.

 

[filmfan]

Unlike Filmfan I've found Arista to dry much flatter than Tri X.

Very strange... must be a Maine thing.

 

[gm13]

Very strange... must be a Maine thing.

Most things up here are strange.

 

[Morca007]

"If it ain't broke..."

I'd be broke if I bought TX instead of Arista. ;P

 

[emraphoto]

amen MATT!

 

[Merkin]

Yeah, it is the same. The biggest clue is that the film is made in america, and unless I am sorely mistaken, kodak is the only company making film in america. Perhaps kodak made it ever so slightly differently, but for all intents and purposes, it is tri-x.

 

[coelacanth]

I mix them up when I develop, and I'm not having any problem. Maybe I'm too lazy to notice the difference, but Arista Premium works just fine so I keep treating them as Tri-X.

I'd be broke if I bought TX instead of Arista.

+1

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

I'd say it is Tri-X... If it's made with any kind of difference from a chemical point of view, it's hard to tell for sure... But it behaves just like Tri-X. I have been buying it from Freestyle for a year, and have never found any problem or difference... I wish they sold it in 120.

Cheers,

Juan

 

[mllanos1111]

It behaves just like Tri-X to me and even rinses out purple in Rodinal just like Tri-X.
The negs look identical to me and even print the same.

 

[Mackinaw]

Somebody on APUG took a densitometer (or whatever the film measuring device is) and stuck both film's performance on a graph. The curves were identical.

Jim B.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Its the same, I have shot 15 rolls of it this year. Those who saw differences like the base thickness and color weren't shooting the right Arista 400, there are a couple different Arista Films, only the PREMIUM version (NOT the Ultra) is Tri-X.

 

[helen.HH]

I shoot Both
last year mostly Arista premium (as well as neo1600)
this Year I bought a Huge amount of Tri X
there might be an ever soooo slight Edge to the Tri X
but its NOT that noticeable
Bottom Line : I Will still Buy arista Premium
and when i have money to Burn TriX

 

[gm13]

Its the same, I have shot 15 rolls of it this year. Those who saw differences like the base thickness and color weren't shooting the right Arista 400, there are a couple different Arista Films, only the PREMIUM version (NOT the Ultra) is Tri-X.

This

I've been using Ultra, not premium hence the difference I stated above. (note to self: read the OP more carefully)

 

[wgerrard]

I suppose the only way to know for sure is to send an unexposed roll of Tri-X and an unexposed roll of Arista to a lab for analysis.

Maybe we can draw analogies from the food and grocery industry. Many of the cheaper house brands sold at groceries are made by the companies that market brand name products for the top shelf. That doesn't mean the products are identical. Sometimes the difference may be too subtle to detect in ordinary use. As long as they perform the same in the kitchen, they are interchangeable.

The same could apply to Arista and Tri-X. Arista could be made to meet a series of specifications that allow it to perform in a way that is indistinguishable from Ti-X, but still differ from Tri-X in some respect. E.g., an identical emulsion could be used on a cheaper film base.

 

[Steve M.]

Well, I'd say the answer is it's the same film. I've been shooting mostly MF lately and there's no Arista Premium for that, just Tri-X. But I thought of another angle to this. I'm going to sell my remaining rolls of Arista and buy Tri-X w/ the money, because if Kodak doesn't turn a profit there will be NO Tri-X OR Arista Premium 400. I figure Kodak makes more profit selling the film as it's own brand, and I don't want them to go the way of Agfa and other great films of the past. A world w/o Tri-X..... wouldn't like that at all.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Well, I'd say the answer is it's the same film. I've been shooting mostly MF lately and there's no Arista Premium for that, just Tri-X. But I thought of another angle to this. I'm going to sell my remaining rolls of Arista and buy Tri-X w/ the money, because if Kodak doesn't turn a profit there will be NO Tri-X OR Arista Premium 400. I figure Kodak makes more profit selling the film as it's own brand, and I don't want them to go the way of Agfa and other great films of the past. A world w/o Tri-X..... wouldn't like that at all.

That's just dumb to sell film you already have in order to pay more money for the same thing in a different box. Kodak got paid for it. Use it. Kodak made money or they wouldn't have sold it at the price they did.

 

[charjohncarter]

It is the same, use it, APUG has a thread on this and with real testing, not guys guessing.