Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,491   Posts: 1,542,967   Online: 853
      
Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 89
  1. #61

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by Kycoo View Post
    The Freestyle development chart gives 6.5min for Ilford DDX 1+4, 20C for the Arista Premium 400. I believe Ilford gives a time of 8 min for DDX 1+4, 20C for Tri-X.

    Is this possibly just a typo or the Arista Premium 400 is not exactly Tri-X?
    My bet is plain old human error. Possibly "further experiments," but not likely. I really doubt if FS went through every 400 Premium film with every developer and ran their own tests.

    Remember the recent conversation on the formula for ID-78??, the warmtone version of 62? An error many years ago still gets handed down as fact.

  2. #62

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    Thanks Paul. I pointed the error to Freestyle and was told to "test." I guess the DDX times kind of puzzled them.

    Coincidentally, the 6.5 min given by Freestyle is very close to the time for Tri-X in Clayton F76+ (which many claim to be very similar to DDX)

  3. #63

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by ssloansjca View Post
    I will be posting photos from the Arista Pro 100 this evening. So far, looks good!

    ~Steve Sloan
    Howz it going, Steve? Not to put pressure on you or anything.....

    The big question I think we all have, is do you think it is Plus-X? I have no doubt that the film is "good." Heck, even the Chinese films can make a decent image these days. Maybe not the best in critical analysis, but usable.

    I have a cart at FS ready to sumit. The amount of the 100 Premium will partly depend on your thoughts.

    Thanks!

  4. #64

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Kycoo View Post
    The Freestyle development chart gives 6.5min for Ilford DDX 1+4, 20C for the Arista Premium 400. I believe Ilford gives a time of 8 min for DDX 1+4, 20C for Tri-X.

    Is this possibly just a typo or the Arista Premium 400 is not exactly Tri-X?
    Another possibility is that Kodak (if they supplied times to Freestyle) and Ilford disagree on the time required for this combination. Such differences do happen. Do you happen to have Kodak's suggested time for Tir-X in DDX 1+4 available? If it matches Freestyle's time for Premium 400, then that's the answer.

  5. #65

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694 View Post
    Another possibility is that Kodak (if they supplied times to Freestyle) and Ilford disagree on the time required for this combination. Such differences do happen. Do you happen to have Kodak's suggested time for Tir-X in DDX 1+4 available? If it matches Freestyle's time for Premium 400, then that's the answer.
    Frankly, I wouldn't pay much attention to non-Kodak developers, unless D-76 based. Even there, ID-11 has different times, I presume due to different agitation suggestions.

    AFAIK, all the Kodak developers are a perfect match to Plus-X and Tri-X.

    Hmmm.....

  6. #66

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    20
    I stay with DDX as I feel very comfortable with it with the films I use most (Delta 3200 and Tri-X). I am a beginner, so I try to limit the number of films and developer I use. However, I love a good bargain and this Arista Premium sure is, assuming it behaves exactly like Tri-X. I just ordered 20 rolls of the Arista Premium to test for myself.

    EDIT: Just checked Freestyle's development time for Tri-X using DD-X and it also says 6.5min -- meaning the "error" is the same for both Tri-X and Arista Premium
    Last edited by Kycoo; 08-20-2008 at 03:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #67

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118
    Arista 100 Images!

    Here, in this tag set on Flickr, are my first test shots with Arista Premium 100. I found it to have a long scale and held detail in the shadows and highlights. Grain is good, it is only visible in areas of constant tonality like the sky. I like the tonal scale. Not bad for a 100 speed film. The film base was pretty clear with no color cast. This is shot at 100 and developed in Photographer's Formulary TD16 (Basically D76H) and fixed in Illford Fixer Concentrate. I bought 100 ft of the film and I am pretty happy with it. Unlike the Arista400 scans I posted earlier, I did boost the contrast of these a bit in Camera RAW. The straight scans were flatter. These were shot on August 8, 2008 at San Jose State University. I have NOT conventional printed any of these yet:

    http://tinyurl.com/sloan-ap100

    Here is the ap100 set:

    http://tinyurl.com/sloan-ap100set

    ~Steve Sloan
    Last edited by ssloansjca; 08-21-2008 at 10:44 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: To add headline and set

  8. #68

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,055
    Steve, thanks. In your opinion, who makes the stuff?

  9. #69

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921
    Or, more pertinently, do you think it is Plus-X?

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    San Jose, CA, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    118
    Remember, you asked me to guess...

    I am guessing it is Plus-X. If it isn't Kodak and isn't Plus-X I do not know who would or could be making the film in the USA or why Kodak would be making other films for Freestyle that behave enough like Plus-X and Tri-X to be confused as them.

    The important point to me is that both of these films seem like good films for what I do. They have a tonal scale and a grain structure I like at a very low price point. Anything else is just conjecture. If you want my conjecture, here it is; maybe Kodak just wants to to keep the film making machines rolling and need a certain volume of sales to do that, even if that means less profit per roll. Maybe it is a way to test demand? Maybe it is supply and demand, they are testing if they lower the price maybe that will stimulate demand? They might be priming the pump.

    If they can't sell film at this price point, what is the point of making it? My guess, highlight the word GUESS, is that at a certain point the volume equation has to intersect the cost of keeping the manufacturing equipment running. Then some hard (especially for us) business decisions will have to be made. Hey I have been shooting a lot (for me) of b&w since this stuff has come out, but nothing like the volume of film I used to shoot when I was doing it for a living.

    But, don't let me be a gloomy Gus, after all they still make and sell Super-8 movie film. We think we are a niche market?

    ~Steve Sloan



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin