I just drymounted some enlargements from 8x10 film from the previous batch of Arista 200. Magnificent tonality, esp in the shadows, for subjects with very wide illuminance ranges. I tray dev
in PMK but never rate the film higher than 100. Recip correction is also significant. An easy film to
underexpose! But 50% of my shots were outright wasted due to scratches, so it turned out to be
no bargain for me. So I too would like to know if they've ironed out some of the bugs.
I've just been looking at prices for B&W 8x10 sheet film...
Arista EDU Ultra 100.......$120 / 50
Arista EDU Ultra 200.......$140 / 50
Efke PL100M..................$166 / 50
Adox CHS 100................$177 / 50
Fomapan 100..................$180 / 50
Fomapan 200..................$??? / 50
Ilford FP4+ ...$110 / 25 = $220 / 50
Ilford FP4+ ....$90 / 25 = $180 / 50
I guess I do not see the value when this film comes in the Foma branded box.
Perhaps it is worth the risk, when it comes in the in the AristEDU package.
Undoubtedly, pricing is different in Europe but I would expect the relative price difference to be about the same in Europe. Is that the case?
Meaningless comparison, Brad. Foma/Arista is a completely different animal from FP4. With the demise of Super XX and Bergger 200, what's left in a straight-line film? For long scale you can use
Efke 25 (hopelessly slow and with quality issues of its own) or Tmax films to some extent (getting
really expensive and must now be specially ordered in 8X10). I could take one of these classic 200
films and photograph brightly lit thunderheads up in the high country and retain detail there, plus
superb shadow separation way way down at the same time. The Foma formula had less toe than any other film I have ever used - even better than Super-XX. But what's the point if I have to spend hours spotting the
I am agree with Ian , I received 30 meters arista edu and decided to learn about them. When I looked to flickr , the pictures were ultra contrasty . I think it must be tamed as Ian suggest.
Yes, I completely agree with your assertion that FP4+ and Foma are completely different.
Originally Posted by DREW WILEY
Wasn't Bergger 200 made by Forte? Was it Forte Classic Pan or some thing like that? I really liked Forte's Classic Pan 400. That was a very nice film, that took a lot of time & effort to get used to but it was worth it.
I roll dev in Beseler print tubes at ASA 200 in HC-110 1:64 (Dilution H?) for 12 minutes at room temp. I find this gives me a nice long tonal range, admittedly I shoot most of it in cloudy light / diffused shade. No problems with scratches. I sometimes have an occasional speck in the photo, but i'm willing to blame my chemistry for those.
I went hog wild with J&C and bought hundreds of sheets in 5x7 and 8x10 400. What was I thinking?
What's the main objection to Ilford FP4 if any?
If you really want to become an expert at negative retouching, Efke is your baby. FP4 comes out clean 99.9 % of the time, when it happens it's dust not defective film.
The same is true of Kodak films.
Any film with ongoing problems just isn't a bargain.
Yes it was Forte Classic Pan 200.
Originally Posted by BradS
Irealised on inspection that the two boxes I thought were Aox 25 were in fact Fortepan 200 from the very last coating run. The Adox 25 and Fortepan 200 are in identical white boxes with just a small sticker on the underside.
I bought a box of Arista.EDU 100 speed in 8x10 last autumn from Freestyle and got a call from a nice lady at Freestyle. She said that they were out of the Arista product but would it be all right if they sent a box of Foma, that it was the same thing. So there you go: confirmation! :)