Premium Arista 400 vs Tri-X

[peter_n]

Certainly sounds like it doesn't it? I can't remember if it was here or on another forum but someone was saying they were in the Freestyle shop and asked a couple of employees about the source. While the replies were not "yes its Tri-X" they were of the nudge-nudge wink-wink variety.

 

[padraigm]

That is exactly what I got when I was there... I left with there being no doubt that it is Tri_x and plus X.

 

[Ronald_H]

i haven't looked at my 400 arista vs tri-x boxes yet, but i noticed something weird today while loading some arista premium 100 and some plus-x 125 for a wedding.

the arista premium 100 expires 05/2010 and has a lot number of 0501 and the plus-x expires 12/2010 with a lot number of 0521.

is this a coincidence or is it pretty conclusive evidence of this being kodak film?

bob

Hehe. For years HEMA (a Dutch department store) B/W film was claimed to be Ilford. What convinced me was that the batch numbers printed on the boxes were identical...

 

[marke]

Or these employees could just possibly be playing up to our expectations. After all, this way no one can say they were lying if it ever gets discovered that these films actually aren't made by Kodak. I'm just confused as to how this marketing technique would benefit Kodak. 😕

Either way, I'm convinced enough to order some myself.

 

[bob338]

just checked the 400 i ordered the same day...

arista premium 400
01/2011
lot 1211

tri-x
02/2011
lot 1221

bob

 

[peter_n]

There you go! nudge-nudge wink-wink... 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

I talked to Freestyle about this at PMA.

Their response?

If you like it, shoot it. If not, why agonize?

Cheers,

R.

 

[bcostin]

Arista Premium 400 is really nice. I bought a 100' roll a few days after it came out and have nearly used it up already. It seems to respond in Diafine exactly the same way as Tri-X does, which means you can shoot it at just about anything between EI 320-1600 and you'll get nice, easily scanned negatives. I keep meaning to try it in HC-110 or D76, but now I've gotten spoiled by being able to wildly change my ISO rating in mid-roll.

Here are a few samples shot at different ratings, all in Diafine. The first two were taken with a Canon AL-1 and have almost no contrast adjustments. The last few with an XA4, and adjusted after scanning for a more contrasty look.


EI 1600


EI1000


EI 800


EI 400


EI 1600

 

[marke]

I've got 15 rolls of the Arista premium 400 and 5 rolls of the 100 on the way. I also ordered a pack of the Arista II VC RC paper. I'm hoping it compares to Ilford MGIV RC paper. Anyone use this yet?

 

[Graal]

Arista Premium 400 = Kodak Tri-X

Arista Premium 400 = Kodak Tri-X

I have tested the 3 versions of Kodak Tri-X, the original Kodak Tri-X, K'odak Tri-X Pro-Pack (manufactured by Kodak USA but packed and sold i Europe), and Arista Premium 400. My conclusion is that they are exactly the same film. I have two links to my test here (appologize for the swedish text, but I think you understand the most important):

http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/graal-blog/22409.htm

http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/graal-blog/22419.htm

You can easily translate the text here:

http://www.google.se/language_tools?hl=en

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I ordered 20 rolls a couple weeks ago, they arrived, and turned out to be 100. So I sent 'em back and tried again.

If I like it, and if it works like Tri-X, I'll try bulk loading!

 

[JeffGreene]

Now all we need is Arista Premium in rollfilm!

 

[jmcd]

Paper Arista II

Paper Arista II

"I also ordered a pack of the Arista II VC RC paper. I'm hoping it compares to Ilford MGIV RC paper. Anyone use this yet?"

To me this compares to Kentmere, and I like it much. I finder it sharper, with contrast one grade higher than Ilford. The fiber-based version is excellent, also.

 

[Brennotdan]

Graal, that's a great test. Thank you, I am now convinced. I think that deserves it's own thread, as a lot of people have been waiting for a test like that.

 

[pesphoto]

nice work, seems pretty convincing

I have tested the 3 versions of Kodak Tri-X, the original Kodak Tri-X, K'odak Tri-X Pro-Pack (manufactured by Kodak USA but packed and sold i Europe), and Arista Premium 400. My conclusion is that they are exactly the same film. I have two links to my test here (appologize for the swedish text, but I think you understand the most important):

http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/graal-blog/22409.htm

http://www.fotosidan.se/blogs/graal-blog/22419.htm

You can easily translate the text here:

http://www.google.se/language_tools?hl=en

 

[vieri]

One more plug for Arista Premium here: I got 30 rolls of each flavor (100 & 400) and I am really pleased with what I am seeing - we just got Tri-X & Plus-X at half cost or less 😀 I will stock up with some more, though I am not sure about buying bulk, the save is definitely minimal with this film and unless you need to roll in custom frame numbers or you run a school and use it by the 1000 feet I don't quite see the need to go through the roll-your-own hassle. 😀

 

[peter_n]

Unfortunately those Swedish links are not working at the moment.

 

[Graal]

I think fotosidan.se was shout down for updates. Now it works.

 

[-vin-]

sorry for the late question...

do you know under which brand i can find this arista premium 400 in europe? is it rebranded foma? pliiiis, i want the cheap tri-x too!!! 🙂

 

[FA Limited]

i don't think they rebox arista premium as anything else