Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,533   Posts: 1,544,006   Online: 1029
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Well, I wouldn't say the Kodak variants are better. I am one of the few people on earth who really cannot stand the look of Kodak films...not sure why, hence my go-to has been Acros and Neopon 400 forever. That said, I find the Foma 100 (Arista.edu Ultra) does a fine job at a cheap price and has it's own look that I appreciate.
    K.S. Klain

  2. #12
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Klainmeister View Post
    Well, I wouldn't say the Kodak variants are better. I am one of the few people on earth who really cannot stand the look of Kodak films...not sure why, hence my go-to has been Acros and Neopon 400 forever. That said, I find the Foma 100 (Arista.edu Ultra) does a fine job at a cheap price and has it's own look that I appreciate.
    I may not have put that very well. If you like the look of the Foma (and I do, but not for all my work) by all means shoot it. I just meant that, in 35mm, the cost argument isn't very convincing to me, at least in pre-loaded rolls, when the rebranded Tri-X costs only about twenty cents a roll more.

    Shoot it because you love the look - absolutely yes! Shoot it to save twenty cents a roll? Not so convincing, to me at least.

    This goes completely out the window in 120 and sheets, though. I still shoot 120 Tri-X because it's my favorite film ever, but I do shoot some Foma/Arista for the look. In 4x5, much as I say that the price of film isn't that much in the overall scheme of things, Kodak is about to price themselves completely out. I'm arguing with myself whether to buy any more TMY-2 when my current box is done, or just switch to HP5+.

  3. #13
    Pioneer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Elko, Nevada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,016
    Images
    4

    Curly??

    After developing I usually hang it to dry in the office. It usually hangs there a couple of days before I get around to sleeving it and contact printing the negatives. I have very little trouble with the Arista EDU 100 or 400 curling, no more then my Kodak TriX anyway. I do use a glass negative carrier for my Beseler and I always tape it down when I am enlarging, but mostly to ensure maximum sharpness.

    On the other hand, my Efke 25 120 certainly does have to be sleeved and flattened and it can take quite some time before it flattens out.

    I am not sure if humidity has anything to do with it or whether the process of developing influences it.

  4. #14
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Understood Roger.

    I have noticed that things curl wayyyy worse here in the desert than back where I'm originally from (Orygun). I switched the RC printing since I moved here because it's too much damn work flattening fiber when it dries in 1 hr hanging.

    I tried the 4x5 Foma and found that it didn't stain at all very well. Maybe a 16min development time is in order.
    K.S. Klain

  5. #15
    X. Phot.
    I shoot this stuff (freestyle's) in 35mm, 4x5, and 5x7 . . . primarily because it's cheap, and also because I'm so accustomed to it's behavior. But, sadly my desire to use roll-films has fizzled. There's just enough bang for the buck . . . even at today's price for a 100' tin. But overall I have no complaints with the film and will probably continue to use it in sheet form.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    FL, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    577
    More too curly

    I have used the 100 and 200 and found the curl to be a pain.
    I tried carefully reverse rolling the film after processing and leaving it sitting for a week; that straightened things out for me.

  7. #17
    AFenvy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    New Mexico
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    24
    Images
    4
    I just shot a fresh roll of this (Foma branded version however). It is a very nice film. I have read many times of people having issues with curl and this film, but for me it dried flatter than anything else I have shot recently. I live in the desert, so I steamed up my shower before hanging them and let them hang overnight. In the morning they were paper flat, perfect. Developed mine in Rodinal. Grainier than most 100 films, but with gorgeous tonality and detail. Great look to it.

  8. #18
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Here's a 5x7 print (sanded edges on the 35mm holder) from a roll shot during the Santa Fe Century bike ride. This is a straight print. I guessed the exposure and didn't touch the contrast dials. Also, from the little Olympus XA...
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2012-06-21_08-05-07_546.jpg 
Views:	127 
Size:	473.7 KB 
ID:	52776
    K.S. Klain

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    78

    Thanks!

    This has been a good thread, thank you Klainmeister for starting it.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,104
    I've never used this film in 35mm or 120 but I have used it in 4x5 and I really like the negatives I got with it (in D-76 1:1). May have to get some in 35mm.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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