Arista Edu Ultra 200

[Tom Stanworth]

Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo

ISO testing requires a specific developer which not so oddly is very similar to D-76. There are many other criteria such as developing no sooner than X after exposure and no later than Y.

Presuming that Foma is honest, there is no microphen involved. It would have to be rated as an EI in that case.

I'm having difficulty understanding how an ISO 200 film winds up being the same or slower than its 100 speed sibling. And the latter is very easy to live with, no less.

I think for the reason you mention. Roger Hicks mentioned that Foma admit that it is a 200 film only in Microphen! Roger finds he can get about 160 out of it in DDX which would be about right as I find DDX about 1/3 stop or so faster than Xtol, which in turn is about 1/3-1/2 faster than D76. Acc to Roger H, Foma is honest about the use of Microphen in the speed rating. I first used it years ago as Acupan 200 when I rated it at 200 and got horribly underexposed negs. At 100-125 it behaves very predictably and I am fairly confident that people who say it is very temperamental in exposure and development are having underexposure problems in the main. If I was using D76 I would use an EI of about 100, so people using Pyrocat and using EIs of 80 sound about in line with my findings and others. It is odd that they have Foma 100 which is of about the same speed! Quite a different look I believe and with an RMS of 14, so larger? or was it 13....for the 100

[Paul Verizzo]

Originally Posted by Tom Stanworth

I think for the reason you mention. Roger Hicks mentioned that Foma admit that it is a 200 film only in Microphen! Roger finds he can get about 160 out of it in DDX which would be about right as I find DDX about 1/3 stop or so faster than Xtol, which in turn is about 1/3-1/2 faster than D76. Acc to Roger H, Foma is honest about the use of Microphen in the speed rating. I first used it years ago as Acupan 200 when I rated it at 200 and got horribly underexposed negs. At 100-125 it behaves very predictably and I am fairly confident that people who say it is very temperamental in exposure and development are having underexposure problems in the main. If I was using D76 I would use an EI of about 100, so people using Pyrocat and using EIs of 80 sound about in line with my findings and others. It is odd that they have Foma 100 which is of about the same speed! Quite a different look I believe and with an RMS of 14, so larger? or was it 13....for the 100

Wow, thanks for that info. Whodathunk?

I don't have the RMSG for the Foma 100 right in front of me, bujt I think it is 13.5. You were essentially correct. Foma "200" being 14 but weird in its chemistry is a non-starter. I almost bought a long roll, glad I didn't.

[srs5694]

Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo

ISO testing requires a specific developer which not so oddly is very similar to D-76. There are many other criteria such as developing no sooner than X after exposure and no later than Y.

My understanding is that this used to be true, but isn't true any longer; manufacturers can now use whatever developer they like in specifying their films' ISO speeds. Foma used a speed-increasing developer for their Fomapan 200 film. That said, I don't have any references for this, and I don't recall the source, so take it with a grain of salt.

[Paul Verizzo]

Originally Posted by srs5694

My understanding is that this used to be true, but isn't true any longer; manufacturers can now use whatever developer they like in specifying their films' ISO speeds. Foma used a speed-increasing developer for their Fomapan 200 film. That said, I don't have any references for this, and I don't recall the source, so take it with a grain of salt.

As the guy on Laugh-In would say, "Verrrrrry interesting!"

You might be right, but it is sure dishonest. Or I would say most likely, not a change in the standard, but companies doing what they want.

I think Fuji does some fudging (Fudging Fuji?) on their B&W films. I can't recall all that I discovered, but things like using a microdol type developer to get a low RMSG on Acros, and then a phenidone to rate the ISO. They also don't divulge that Neopan 1600 is really 800 (???). To say more accurately, they do divlulge it in one place in tiny print, but the call the film ISO 1600 instead of EI 1600 which I believe both Kodak and Fuji do with their high speed offerings.

[Doug Webb]

I love the tonality of this film. It works best for me at an ei of around 100. I think it is Foma 200 and that it was also rebranded as Patterson Acupan in the past. I usually develop it in PMK at 1:2:100 for around 7 minutes at 70 degrees. I had hoped that Foma 400 would be similar with a little more speed but so far I am not getting the results I had hoped for from the 400 speed Foma. I have had some problems with the Edu Ultra 200 backing, it seems that my Pentax 645n occasionally doesn't like the backing and won't take up the film the way it should sometimes leaving me with only one frame or a partial frame before rewinding after I think I have shot an entire roll. No problems with the backing in my Rollei or Pentax 67. I hope you don't give up on this film before seeing what it is capable of.
Good luck,
Doug Webb